The antitrust case, filed by the Professional Tennis Players Association (PTPA) and player plaintiffs in March 2025, has cleared another major procedural hurdle. A federal judge in New York rejected the defendants’ efforts to have the case dismissed, keeping the litigation alive.
Watch What’s Trending Now!
The lawsuit accuses the ATP and WTA of participating in what the plaintiffs describe as a “cartel,” alleging that the ranking-points system locks players into sanctioned events and restricts their ability to pursue opportunities on alternative circuits. The complaint also alleges that the defendants suppress player earnings, restrict sponsorship and other commercial opportunities, and subject players to what the plaintiffs describe as invasive anti-doping and anti-corruption investigations.
Judge Margaret M. Garnett issued the ruling Thursday, rejecting motions to dismiss from the Tours and the organizers of Wimbledon, Roland-Garros and the US Open. Garnett ruled that the claims filed by 15 current and former players, along with the Professional Tennis Players’ Association, were sufficiently plausible to proceed at this stage rather than be dismissed. Attempts to move the case to arbitration or have it dismissed for lack of jurisdiction were also rejected.
Tennis Australia, responsible for the Australian Open, is no longer part of the case after reaching its own settlement last year. The PTPA had already removed the ITF (now World Tennis) and the ITIA in September 2025 — both were named in the first version of the lawsuit, with the four Grand Slam tournaments labelled as “co-conspirators.”
The Grand Slams were added as defendants that September after a 90-day period of settlement discussions failed to produce an agreement. The PTPA had said it consulted with more than 250 players, including a majority of the men’s and women’s top 20, before deciding to take the fight to court.
The defendants are now left with a forked path. They can continue contesting the lawsuit, which could lead to a lengthy and costly litigation process involving discovery, depositions, and the potential disclosure of financial agreements and private communications. Another option would be to begin settlement discussions with the plaintiffs, as Tennis Australia has done. They could also seek to appeal portions of Garnett’s ruling. However, the discovery phase could still move forward while an appeal is pending.
The USTA responded Thursday evening by confirming it planned to defend itself against the claims. “The USTA has consistently operated in the best interests of the players and the sport,” the organization said, highlighting its recent increase in prize money, ongoing investment in facilities, and grassroots tennis programs as evidence of that approach.
Thursday’s win meant a lot to the players’ side. PTPA executive director Romain Rosenberg called it the day that the organization had awaited for years.
“For years, players were told this case would never get past the first hurdle,” he said. “It has. Every defendant stays. Every claim stays. The players’ association stays.”
He also noted that Tennis Australia’s earlier settlement is an example for the other defendants, stating that the PTPA was open to similar discussions. PTPA co-founder Pospisil said the decision affirmed the association’s ability to pursue claims on behalf of players beyond the individuals named as plaintiffs.
It is worth noting that the lawsuit has not been the only avenue players have pursued on these issues. In a separate 2025 campaign, a group of top-ranked men’s and women’s players urged the Grand Slams to increase the share of tournament revenue allocated to prize money from an estimated 16% to 22% by 2030, alongside improvements in player welfare and better consultation on decisions that impact the sport.
That pressure campaign directly led the Grand Slams to establish a Player Advisory Council, giving players a more organized, albeit untested, seat at the table on matters beyond the court.
That said, many had been concerned about what Novak Djokovic’s exit from the PTPA could spell for the lawsuit. The PTPA co-founder stepped away from the organization entirely in January 2026, around the time the PTPA reached a settlement with Tennis Australia, citing concerns about transparency, governance and the way his voice and image had been represented. While the broader impact is yet to be gauged, it’s fair to say that Garnett’s ruling has given the PTPA a significant legal boost and has given the association a stronger foothold for whatever comes next.
The next in-person hearing is scheduled for October 29, with the parties required to submit a joint letter outlining their next steps no later than three business days beforehand.