Two players. Two paths. One objective.
By 2019, Novak Djokovic had little left to prove. He was chasing history with every match – each win, record, and Grand Slam title drawing him closer to tennis immortality. His grip on the men’s game felt inevitable.
Canada’s Vasek Pospisil, meanwhile, was fighting a much quieter battle away from the court: recovering from back surgery, rebuilding his ranking, and redefining his place in the sport.
What did a 16-time Grand Slam champion (now 24) and a player ranked outside the top 100 have in common? Most people would have said: not much. One was dominating the sport, the other facing a long road back. But beyond their rankings and fame, they shared something more profound – a belief that professional tennis needed a change. Their frustrations with how tennis was governed, how players were heard, and how governing bodies treated those outside the spotlight were eerily similar. Together, they stepped forward with a shared vision: to give players a voice. To reshape the system of power from within. To form the Professional Tennis Players Association.
The PTPA, co-founded in 2019 by Djokovic and Pospisil, is a union for tennis players; however, it is not officially recognized as such because tennis players are not classified as employees. Instead, they are regarded as independent contractors who do not receive regular wages or benefits from the sport’s governing bodies or tournaments. Since tennis operates as a global tour comprising individually organized tournaments run by various entities across different countries, the players choose which tournaments to play in, enter events based on rankings or qualifications, and negotiate their own coaching teams, endorsements, and travel.
When a sports league maintains a formalized labour union, like the National Basketball Players Association or National Football League Players Association, players have a seat at the table and can bargain for rights and protections that impact both their individual and group welfare, typically negotiating salaries and revenue sharing, benefits, working conditions, rights, licensing, endorsements, and much more. However, if the players are left without any bargaining power, it opens the door to an environment shaped by unilateral decisions that may not reflect the interests of everyone involved.
In many sports, legal challenges over labour rights and competitive fairness have often paved the way for formalized collective representation among players.
“Other sports have gone down a similar path. Many had to face antitrust lawsuits to gain independence for players and secure their right to bargain and represent themselves,” said Pospisil. “That’s the move [the PTPA] is now making in tennis. It’s absolutely critical for the sport – especially with so many issues the average fan isn’t even aware of.”
So, what steps is the PTPA taking exactly, and what are the sport’s underlying issues?
On March 18 of this year, the PTPA formally filed a 163-page antitrust lawsuit in New York City, London and Brussels, naming the men’s Association of Tennis Professionals and Women’s Tennis Association tours, the International Tennis Federation and the International Tennis Integrity Agency as defendants, and labelling the four Grand Slam tournaments as “co-conspirators.”
None of the organizations named in the lawsuit responded to requests for comment.
The lawsuit is centred around the following areas: anti-competitive practices, prize money, scheduling, ranking points, player welfare, anti-doping, and anti-corruption investigations. The PTPA claims tennis’ governing bodies restrict players from experiencing the full benefits of a competitive marketplace and lock the athletes into a system that harms their physical well-being and financial stability. Pospisil is one of the 11 named plaintiffs in the lawsuit; Djokovic is not.
One of the main issues highlighted by the PTPA is money, particularly prize money, and the unequal distribution of revenue among the tournaments in which players compete. The PTPA emphasizes that tennis players earn significantly less than their counterparts in other sports. For instance, athletes in the ‘Big Four’ sports leagues – and even in professional golf, where players are classified as independent contractors – receive up to 50 per cent of league revenue. In contrast, the revenue share for tennis’ four Grand Slam tournaments ranges from only 15 to 20 per cent, with similar figures for ATP and WTA events at the 1,000, 500, and 250 levels. The lawsuit also highlights the overwhelming disparity between top- and lower-ranked players.
“It’s sad to see a sport worth billions of dollars, yet only a handful of players can actually make a living from it,” said Pospisil.
“Even if you’re ranked between 50 and 100, you’re still cutting costs just to turn a profit. Sure, you might take some money home, but it shouldn’t be like that. Tennis is the third most-watched sport in the world, the second most bet on, and yet exponentially more people make a living off the sport than the players themselves.
“If you’re ranked 150 and breaking even or losing money, something’s clearly wrong. When you consider the size of the market, all it takes is a look under the hood to see why.”
In November, 2023, the ATP introduced a new arrangement to partially mitigate this issue. Under this arrangement, any net profits (before income tax) above the base prize money from the Masters 1,000 events would be divided equally between the organization and the players. In addition, Grand Slam tournaments have been steadily increasing their prize money in recent years, reaching record levels in 2024.
Furthermore, the ATP Tour’s “Baseline” program guarantees players a minimum income based on their ranking – topping up earnings to at least USD $100,000 for those ranked in the top 250 who play 15 events, though the WTA offers no such scheme. Still, the lawsuit argues that caps placed on total prize money that can be awarded by a tournament remain unjustified as it still falls way short of real equity or revenue sharing.
“[Prize money] is increasing, but the question is: how much is it increasing relative to revenue? Revenue has grown significantly over the past several years – is prize money keeping pace? If we had a gross revenue share model, things would look very different,” said Pospisil. “Our buying power as players is lower than it was six years ago. Prize money has increased, but not even at the rate of inflation ... The biggest issue is financial transparency.
“We know tournaments are generating record revenues, but it’s not reflected in what players earn.”
The lawsuit’s criticism of prize money suppression is valid. But what about scheduling? Tennis players on both tours face a demanding 11-month season, which many have criticized as being excessively long and globally disconnected – constraining them through mandatory tournaments and ranking point requirements.
“The season is too long. No one wants to play 11 months a year. It’s physically and mentally exhausting. Players need time with family and a proper offseason to reset,” said Pospisil.
He highlighted additional concerns raised in the lawsuit regarding the ranking system, monopolization of the sport, and player rights.
“When you join the tour, you sign an agreement to follow all its rules and regulations – you’re bound to it. Especially if you’re in the top 30, you’re required to play a certain number of events. Everyone has to play because of the ranking system. There’s really only one tour, no alternatives, and it’s the only path to making any money.”
The lawsuit alleges that the ranking system is not based on merit and does not accurately represent players’ performances compared to their counterparts, their win rates, or the significance of their match victories. Instead, it rewards players for the frequency with which they participate in specific events on the tours. Thus, the lawsuit also argues that the system is designed to “compel players to participate in their tournaments at the exclusion of other competitive tennis events.”
Overhauling the entire ranking system based on the lawsuit’s argument may be difficult since the current design favours players who can participate in more tournaments, giving them greater opportunities to build their rankings and earn more prize money compared to those who compete less frequently. However, specific changes could be made to give players more flexibility regarding mandatory events.
Most of the challenges facing tennis today underscore the very purpose for which the PTPA was founded: not to alter the sport’s structure, but to give players a voice and a rightful place at the negotiating table – just as athletes have in every other major sport.
“In every historical case, the same pattern emerges,” said Pospisil. “Antitrust lawsuits arise, with organizers, tournament owners, or tour operators claiming that these actions will ruin the sport. However, in the end, the players prevail, and the sport flourishes more than ever.
“Our plan from day one was to establish player independence, a unified voice, and a players’ association.
“Moving forward, the ball is in their court – it’s up to them to decide how they respond. We’re confident we’re fighting the good fight … There’s never a perfect time to file a lawsuit, but if there ever was one, this is it. This is the moment for tennis.”
Follow: @aleksa_cosovic
