BENGALURU : The class-action lawsuit filed against tennis’ governing bodies by the Professional Tennis Players’ Association (PTPA) is a call for serious and formal negotiations and none of the parties may prefer a trial, a former ATP Board member believes.
Established in 2020 by Novak Djokovic and Vasek Pospisil, the PTPA has been fighting for a spot at the table as a voice for players and it said last week it was forced to take legal action after years of good-faith efforts to reform the sport.
The advocacy group said the ATP, the WTA, the International Tennis Federation and the International Tennis Integrity Agency indulged in anti-competitive practices and showed a disregard for player welfare in its 163-page lawsuit.
Briton Alex Inglot, a former European player representative at the ATP, told Reuters the case was a long time coming and the product of the PTPA’s frustrations.
“They’ve tried to go by the book, play the game, be polite, try to be productive, progressive and additive. They’ve tried to build their relationship with players through various events and meetings,” Inglot said via video call from London.
“It’s now got to a head where the players and the PTPA have decided they just haven’t been given sufficient respect, haven’t been given a seat at the table, haven’t been taken seriously and it’s time to raise the stakes.
“That as a result means the case is a call for serious and formal negotiations. I’m not convinced anyone wants this to go to trial.”
In papers filed in three different global jurisdictions – New York, London and Brussels – the PTPA and a group of players as plaintiffs also point to the arduous tennis schedule and the ranking systems among issues that need to be addressed.
SCATTERGUN APPROACH
Inglot, whose tenure with the ATP ended in 2021, said the PTPA’s action represented a scattergun approach but nevertheless was a statement of intent that it wanted to be the voice to help fix the sport’s problems.
However, he added that despite its legitimate complaints, the PTPA did not show what the governance of the sport could look like in the future.
“I haven’t seen a very clear indicator of ‘this is what the PTPA believes the perfect system should look like, this is where we should be involved, this is how the governance should look like … this is where we should be part of that’,” he added.
“Equally there’s no vision of ‘if we win this case and the existing matrix of relationships is dismantled, this is how we would restructure a brave new world of tennis’.”
Inglot said problems with regard to the use of different balls in different tournaments as well as the issue of matches finishing in the early hours of the morning at some events were already being addressed by the tours.
He added that the governing bodies would probably in some shape or form over a duration of time satisfy the requirements of the PTPA.
“I wouldn’t be surprised if the PTPA will take credit for that, I won’t be surprised if the ATP and the WTA say that’s got nothing to do with it and that they were already working on it,” Inglot added.
“Where the rubber will meet the road is the final bits, and they will be big bits, where the PTPA will say ‘you still haven’t done this’ and the ATP and the WTA will say ‘we’re not going to’.
“The question then becomes where do we go from there? My sense is that the PTPA will be under pressure from the players to go keep going, keep pushing and take the case to court.”
