In a remarkable legal move, the Professional Tennis Players Association (PTPA), an association co-founded by Novak Djokovic, has filed a class action in the US against the tennis sport’s most important governing bodies, including the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP), Women’s Tennis Association (WTA), International Tennis Federation (ITF), and International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA). The lawsuit, filed in a federal court in the Southern District of New York, accuses these organizations of forming a cartel and abusing their dominance.
What are the allegations about?
The tennis players allege that the governing bodies have engaged in anti-competitive practices that suppress competition and harm player welfare. These anti-competitive practices allegedly include in particular collusion with respect to (i) fixing player earnings, e.g., by agreeing on restricting price money, (ii) reducing competition amongst tournaments and tournament organizers, e.g., by recognizing ranking points only from each other’s tournaments, (iii) preventing new tournaments from entering the market, e.g., by requiring athletes to agree to non-compete clauses, and (iv) abusing their dominance, e.g., by unfairly collecting and using athletes’ data.
The lawsuit aims to expose these alleged systemic, long-standing violations and seeks accountability through the court. While it remains to be seen to what extent the cases will succeed, it already seems quite clear that if the allegations materialize, considerable changes are to be expected in the world of tennis.
“Trends” in private enforcement
While the lawsuit brought by the athletes has naturally caused quite a stir and plenty to talk about amongst tennis players and fans, it highlights trends that have emerged in competition litigation again and again recently (and we reported on before) and which make the case particularly noteworthy to the species of “tennis-loving antitrust lawyers”.
First: The lawsuit brought by the professional tennis players is a further example of the fact that private litigation is increasingly being pursued not only as follow-on actions based on a (final) decision by an antitrust regulator, but on a standalone base with the anti-competitive conduct having to be set out and proven by the claimants. With the tennis players’ latest threat of filing a parallel lawsuit in the UK as well, this case also shows that the US and the UK regime are trendsetters in the field of standalone private damages actions.
Second: The tennis player’s lawsuit is based on a bundle of alleged anti-competitive behavior. The alleged various types of conduct not only show that the range of anti-competitive conduct is colorful and not always easy to “spot”. They also show that private antitrust litigation is increasingly often (also) based on abusive conduct.
The greater scheme of things
The class action lawsuit filed by professional tennis players against the tennis sport’s governing bodies marks a(nother) significant movement in the fight against alleged anti-competitive practices in professional sports. Other examples include the Paris Olympic Games (here), football transfer rules (here), golf (here) and no-poach agreements between clubs (here).
Although the case is unique, it illustrates general trends in private antitrust litigation. It also shows that litigation is not necessarily the only means to achieve a goal, but can be part of a broader strategy: In addition to the lawsuit in the US, the claimants have submitted antitrust complaints to the European Commission and to the CMA in the UK. One could observe such a “global” strategy more and more often in recent years.
Photo by Shep McAllister on Unsplash
Antitrustpolitics.com 