Tennis Stars Demand Better Pay, Less Grueling Schedules
Last week, the Novak Djokovic-led Professional Tennis Players Association (PTPA) announced it was suing the sport’s governing bodies – the men’s (ATP) and women’s (WTA) tours, the International Tennis Federation (ITF) and the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA).
The lawsuit:
The union, cofounded by Djokovic five years ago, also alleges “anti-competitive practices and a blatant disregard for player welfare”.
The lawsuit is just one example of a battle for control of international sport – the outcome of which will shape sport for years to come.
Sport’s international governing bodies – such the International Olympic Committee, soccer’s governing body the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) and, in the case of tennis, the ATP, WTA and ITF – are masters of their domains.
These bodies exercise great power and autonomy over the competitions they administer. They determine who competes in their competitions, when and where, as well as rules and policies.
These rules cover tournament schedules, player eligibility and anti-doping policies. Players, teams and even countries that breach these rules are subject to penalties including expulsion from competitions.
Governments have largely been willing partners in this. They have respected the autonomy of these governing bodies and assisted them where necessary by, for example, hosting their mega-events such as the Olympics, World Cups and Grand Slam tournaments.
However, this is changing.
As shown by the PTPA lawsuit, players are seeking a greater share of sports’ economic pie, better working conditions, more freedom in selecting where and when they play, and a greater say in how their sports are run.
Private investors also are seeking to share in the money being made from sport by establishing rival competitions.
These include the Wall Street-backed, but ultimately ill-fated, European Super League (soccer); the International Swimming League , funded by billionaire swimming fan Konstantin Grigorishin; and the Saudi-Arabia backed LIV Golf tour .
In response, some fans and lower-level teams are organising to protect their clubs from the influx of private money.
In the United Kingdom, this has resulted in proposed legislation to establish an independent regulator of football .
And all of this is occurring in the shadow of a broader geopolitical restructuring in which the West’s traditional hegemony over sport is being challenged by the wealth of the Gulf states, the assertiveness of authoritarian regimes, and the emerging economies of the Global South .
The result is a contest for control between actors and forces, both powerful and passionate.
The outcome of this contest is important because sport is a generator of significant economic activity (a recent study estimated the global sport industry to be the ninth largest industry on earth ) and an important vehicle for driving social change – both of which also make it politically important.
When confronted with forces for change, sport governing bodies generally go through a three-stage process of denial (rejecting the need for change), resistance (fighting the change), and adaptation (conceding some autonomy while retaining ultimate control).
The tennis dispute is travelling this well-worn path. Tennis’s governing bodies have denied the PTPA a seat at the table, so the PTPA is now taking the matter to court (early indications are tennis’s governing bodies will fight it vigorously ).
Predicting the outcome of litigation is fraught. However, sport governing bodies do not have a strong record defending the use of their power before the courts.
Courts are more independent and less deferential towards sport governing bodies than the political arms of government.
Recent decisions from the Court of Justice of the European Union offer evidence of this. It applied EU competition law to constrain the power of sport governing bodies to:
Another example comes from the United States, where the Supreme Court struck down as an antitrust (competition) law violation, rules that limited the benefits student-athletes can receive for playing.
This litigation led the governing body of collegiate sport, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, to propose a US$2.8 billion (A$4.45 billion) settlement that will allow colleges to pay their student-athletes .
As for tennis, settlement of the PTPA litigation is possible, notwithstanding the current rhetoric.
Indeed, some form of adaptation of sports’ governing bodies to accommodate the various forces and interests at play is the most likely outcome.
Eric Windholz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.