This is your business. This is your business supercharged with the help of Zero Accounting Software. This is managing cash flow. This is managing your cash flow with the help of Zero Accounting Software. These are your customers paying you. These are your customers having more ways to pay you with the help of Zero Accounting Software.
This is your business supercharged with the help of Zero, helping you soar your cash flow by giving your customers more ways to pay so now you can focus on making your business boom. Supercharge your business today with the help of Zero. Hi, this is Billie Jean King. This is Marion Bartotti. This is Bianca Andreescu. I'm Mats Villander. This is Mary Carrillo. This is Pam Schreiber. This is Yannick Noah, and you're listening to The Tennis Podcast.
Hello folks, David Law here, and well, we weren't really planning a tennis podcast today, but I have just picked up my phone to the headline, Djokovic Player Union Begins Legal Action Against the Tours.
the BBC Sport website. So as I usually do in situations like this, I go to The Athletic, the sports division of the New York Times, and see what they've got to say about it as well. And I read a headline that references... broken system and a lawsuit being brought about by the professional tennis players association the ptpa against the atp which is the men's tour and the wta the women's tour
also the International Tennis Federation and the International Tennis Integrity Agency, which is responsible for anti-doping and anti-corruption in tennis. So, well... How do we unravel all this and try to understand it? We call Matt Futterman from The Athletic and ask him to let us know a little bit more about what's going on. Because, Matt, you have just put together a pretty substantial piece. I know Charlie Eccleshire has also put out an explanation.
a piece as well which uh i highly recommend anybody going on following this conversation to go and have a read of really to get an understanding a really in-depth understanding of what where we are and what's been going on here but matt what can you what can you tell us generally about why the PTPA are bringing this lawsuit? Well, thanks for having me, David.
Yeah, they are bringing this lawsuit essentially because they've been trying to work within the system over the last three, four, five years to try and get some reform in tennis. Basically, you know, they they've had lots of conversations and ultimately, you know, nothing has really changed. And it's a fact you could argue it's actually gotten worse.
in some ways or is and is and is heading towards getting worse and in some cases they've had doors shut in their face and the people who are in power generally don't willingly want to give up power and when that happens and they won't come to the negotiating table, generally what you have to do is you have to sue them and make them, well, either make their case in front of a neutral third party, in this case, a judge, or maybe...
come to the negotiating table and settle up their disputes. So that's basically where we are, the PTPA and a number of players. that are sort of the named plaintiffs in this have filed actions in New York, in the federal courts, and in the UK, and also in front of the EU. in Brussels. And so, you know, international business, you got to file in lots of different places and get lots of different rulings. And I think, you know, basically...
What it comes down to is tennis had a chance to fix itself. It didn't, and now the courts are going to get involved because the players can't get the people in power to try and work with them to fix it. Just quickly, the names that you reference, obviously I've already mentioned Novak Djokovic, who's been at the forefront of the Professional Tennis Players Association since its outset. Who else is involved here?
Anybody else that people would know? So I would encourage people to not be totally swayed by who the... exact name plaintiffs are. I mean, in the U.S. lawsuit, there's Vasek Pospisil, Nick Kyrgios, Anastasia Radianova, Nicole Meltzer-Martinez, Tsai Tsai Zhang, Serana... Sir Staya, John Patrick Smith, Noah Rubin. And, you know, it's very important, the phrase on behalf of themselves and others who are similarly situated.
professional tennis players association and you know what i and there are others who are involved who are you know maybe who are european citizens or uk citizens who are involved in the other lawsuits some of that has to do with jurisdiction But what's important here is two things. One is you have the weight of the PTPA.
behind it. And, you know, that is Novak Djokovic, who founded this with Vasek Pospiso, but also, you know, members of their executive committee, who include people like Ons Jabbour, Hiby Herkacz. They have included Paul Bedosa, Taylor Townsend. So it's not just these people who are named in the lawsuit. And in addition to that, what's also really important is that you don't need...
the biggest names in your sport to be taking on, to put their names onto a lawsuit because the courts don't really care how many grand slams a plaintiff has won. What they care about is whether the law is being violated. And so once the matter. is in front of them, it's the law that's at the center of it. It's not, well, Nick Kyrgios, he hasn't won any Grand Slams, so why is he an important plaintiff in this?
Well, he's an important plaintiff in this just because he happens to be a professional tennis player. And his, you know, according to him and the people on the plaintiff side of this, his rights have been violated just as much as. Rafael Nadal's and Novak Djokovic's and Coco Gauff's and everybody else.
We'll come on to talk about the sort of things they actually want to try and change in a moment. But I think there are some people that would listen to this and think, hold on a minute, you've just named people that are part of the ATP and the WTA. And aren't the ATP... and the WTA supposed to be representing the players. So why are the players and the Professional Tennis Players Association suing what is effectively their own governing body and people that are supposed to represent them?
Well, I think they're suing them because they don't feel like they are being represented. You know, that's the issue. And I would say this is the problem with tennis is that at least from... where i'm sitting you know and having covered lots of other sports before and covered lots of other disputes like this before um you know you have management on one side of the table you have labor on the other side of the table and
They negotiate and come up with deals and contracts and set it up like that. Tennis is just... It's just rife with all sorts of conflicts. So you have this same organization called the Association of Tennis Professionals. You know, it's not really the Association of Tennis Professionals. It's the Association of – that's for the men. And then there's the Women's Tennis Association. But these are organizations that are at least 50% controlled by the people who own.
the tournaments and then there's you know supposedly the tie-breaking vote that is is the leader of the organization so That puts your representation at less than 50%, even though you've supposedly negotiated to elect that person. as the head of the organization. But the players don't actually sit on the board of the organizations. The players have player representatives who are supposed to represent their interests.
And they sit on these things called player councils who get consulted and can give their opinion. But ultimately... The player representatives to the board are supposed to be representing, you know, their sort of first obligation is to represent the fiduciary health of the organization. And they're supposed to vote with that as their priority. And that may run counter in some sense to what a player may think.
is the most important thing to the organization, like, say, their health and safety. So I think what... brought on the PTPA and what brings on a lawsuit like this is basically a feeling that you're not being represented and the system is broken and you need to... Change the system and change the structure of it. So that, you know, things like.
The tennis schedule can be shorter. You're obligated to play fewer tournaments. You're getting what you think is a more equitable share of the revenues that are coming in. And all sorts of matters like that, that they haven't really been able to get any sort of satisfaction with working through the current structure. And I suppose that is the nub of it, really, isn't it?
Everybody you ask says, oh, the tournament year is too long. And now we have players playing every week, but now we also have players playing... numerous two-week tournaments at the Masters 1000 levels. And the conversation about compensation has been going on forever about the percentage that players take from, say, particularly the Grand Slams in terms of their overall profit and revenue and the amount that the players end up...
getting these conversations have been going on forever. But it sounds as though their view is the only way you can actually make a meaningful move in this is by forcing their hand. And that means a lawsuit because they're just not listening. Right. That's basically what it comes down to. And I don't actually think this case will ever go to trial.
Because they don't, or they haven't really, in North American sports, for the most part. They don't usually go to trial. And the reason they don't is because... First of all, it's very risky and very expensive, and you don't really want a third party deciding the fate of your business. That's a very risky thing to do. You know, the other side of it is the way rulings have come down is that the management side of this, you know, they are.
kind of violating antitrust laws you can't create really in you can't really create these closed systems um and you know what are essentially cartels where
Okay, you want to play in a Grand Slam? Well, then you have to play in these sorts of tournaments. And someone else wants to come along and hold a tournament that can, you know, give... rankings points and maybe qualify someone for a grand slam and you know do you have this system that can say well no you can't because you have to pay us money in order to do that and
Just think about that. If you wanted to open a drugstore and there was only one organization of pharmacies that needed to give you a sanction or a license in order to open a drugstore. You know, you can't you can't do that. I mean, well, that would seem weird to you, wouldn't it? That only these five people can own. And operate pharmacies like that's not how that's not how Western societies generally work in their economic systems. And the argument from.
athletes and other sports and now tennis players is that you need a much more open and competitive system and that the competitive system will force everybody to behave better fascinating i mean it doesn't surprise me that They want more money. They want a greater share of it. I am fascinated, and it doesn't surprise me that they want a tournament schedule that maybe doesn't compel them to have to play all the...
top ranked events and almost invent injuries if they want to pull out of them. I totally understand that. I sort of wonder where they think we might end up, though, and whether that's going to be for the... the betterment of the sport because one only has to look across golf, for instance, as an example of a sport that has fractured in the last couple of years and is a sort of...
stalemate, really. Yes, all the players play the Grand Slams together, but you've got a whole other tour, the Live Tour, where half of the players compete and half of them are on the PGA Tour and they don't... They don't meet at all unless they're at the majors. So we see that. We may see that as broken and maybe it is bad in some larger idea of sort of the long-term health of the professional sport.
Having said that, you have lots of players who are able to make a lot of money and work less. And so it's working out okay for them. they're having to fulfill certain requirements and, you know, be at certain places on this money list rather than that money list. And they can still play the majors even so. Right. And it's much more open. And, you know, and this – and, you know, the reason that's happening is because there's an antitrust lawsuit. And, you know, and I think eventually it'll get –
it'll get settled. They sort of reached the framework of a settlement, but they're having trouble reaching the details of it. But, you know, what you saw was the people who were in charge got sued and... Instead of going to court, they went to the negotiating table because – well, they probably did that because they thought they would probably lose. I think all things being equal, they would like to have –
remain completely in control. So, you know, pressure was brought to bear on them and that's where they are. Like, do I think... And yes, things get messy for a while. And the argument that the people in charge always make is, oh, you're going to ruin the sport if we do this. We need to stay in control and you need to stay where you are. or else the whole thing gets ruined. And, you know, I think it all depends on your definition of ruin. What gets ruined?
What gets ruined is their control. They lose their grip. Yeah, they lose their grip. And I've heard these arguments for... 50 60 years um you know originally when when Baseball, you know, originally when baseball will go back in the 1970s when baseball players were suing for the right to become free agents, which is, you know, sell their services for the highest bidder.
And everyone who owned a baseball team said, oh, no, no, you're going to completely ruin baseball. The whole sport's going to go out of business. We could never afford a free market system like that. And, you know, guess what? Like free agency came to that sport and it did to every other sport. And those franchises are worth billions of dollars these days. So it didn't really ruin the sport, now did it? And the reason it doesn't ruin the sport is because, you know...
They have to compete more. They have to invest more in their teams and in their facilities and all sorts of things. I mean, you've been to tournaments. There are some great tournaments. There are some tournaments that are crap. but they've owned their sanctions for a long time and they control it and they can do what they want. And they don't have to compete for players and they don't have to raise their prize money more than.
They all agree to because they've set the prices where they all get in a room and they say, OK, this is what the prize money is going to be. And Indian Wells doesn't go higher than it, even though it could. If Larry Ellison wanted to, he could pay more than a Grand Slam if he wanted to, but he's not allowed to. So that doesn't happen.
Think about it. Do the people who make computers, are they allowed to get in a room and say, okay, we're going to set all the prices for what a laptop costs? I mean, no, that's one thing that they have to compete on.
um generally that's how these systems work um and you know it's the argument that the players are making is that's how our system should work too You know, it's interesting reading your piece on The Athletic, referencing some of the names that are working now with the PTPA, representing them in this pursuit, in this lawsuit. suits.
One of the things that comes across to me, and I've felt this when I've heard the chief executive interviewed as well, is that they cannot believe how tennis functions. Maybe they would say this, but is... Given you work in other sports, particularly the American sports, and you've seen how these things have unfolded, would those other sports just look over at tennis and think, what on earth are they doing?
I think they just they look over it and they sort of can't really quite believe that it's been able to go on this way for so long. And yes, I mean, all these people who are involved in representing. tennis now i mean most of them i mean i've known them through because they represented the player the basketball players and they represented the football players and um you know that's they've
They've done this before. They've seen it. So that's why they sort of can't believe that in 2025, tennis still exists like this. And I know there was a lot of... I mean, I know there was a lot of pushback and there was a lot of problems with the launch of the PTPA. And, you know, people were sort of like, what are you guys doing here? What is this? Who are these people? All of these things.
I mean, I have to say, when they came around, my reaction was like, where have you guys been all these years? geez, finally, someone figured out that this thing doesn't really work just because it was weird to me when I started covering. I mean, I'd covered tennis for a long time, but not in a very, very intense way like I have the last five or seven years. And it is strange. Like, to me, it was strange that this had...
been able to go on for so long. And you just look over, you look over at the other sports. I mean, even golf, which we referenced before. I mean, just go down the money list. I mean, golf, which is a much smaller sport than tennis in terms of worldwide appeal. And, you know, the person who's like... 80 or 90 on the golf money list is making millions of dollars a year. And 80 or 90 on the money list in tennis is barely breaking even in terms of expenses and things like that.
So there's something wrong with that. Yeah, I get that point completely. We also have to look from our perspective as a tennis podcast, me as somebody who's worked a career long existence within tennis. We tend to just get too used to, I think, what we've got and we don't look beyond it, which is why it's so interesting to talk to you about it. Just how big a factor do you think Novak Djokovic has been from those early days when you said that kind of...
The PTEPA were mocked a little for the way they started things off. But he has been steadfast, hasn't he, in pushing this and standing behind it. And obviously he's got more gravitas and... status than anybody how big a factor is he in all this to have got to this point I think he's a very big factor because I think You know, a lot of the players, they really respect his opinions on things, especially financially. And I think he, you know, and I think he's been.
Unafraid to sort of call people out. And Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal had plenty of their fights with the leaders and the Tories as well. It's just that they were... At the time, the leaders of the Toys were able to sort of do enough to please them. But Novak's a different sort of personality, and I think he was a...
just really believes that, you know, this thing is broken, that it doesn't serve the players. And I think he does have a genuine... care for players who are not as good at him as he is, who work really hard, who would like to have a job as a viable... job and profession as a professional tennis player he's friends with lots of athletes from other sports um so he has seen how it works um
You know, everybody sort of giggled when he said during the Australian Open, like, you know, I don't really understand why we don't have like a halftime show and dancers like they have the Super Bowl. Yes, it sounds sort of silly to imagine that on a tennis court. But, you know, what he's really saying is, like, are we optimizing our business? Like, is this really, like, are we...
as an entertainment product appealing to as many people as we can possibly appeal to, you know, who is the sport built to serve? And so like, yeah, those are all, those are all sort of. questions that it's very hard for if you're a 22 23 year old player who's just trying to like break into the top 40 it's very hard to be
spending time concentrating on those things. And if you have a guy who's won 24 grand slams saying, you know, Hey, you should listen to this really smart person that I've been talking to. who understands this issue, I think people are going to at least give it some consideration. And also, the other thing about Novak is...
It's very, and you know this, it's very rare to find another player who will say something bad about him. You know, they are always, people when they talk about, other players when they talk about Novak. Generally, you know, you often hear like, yeah, when I was 17, I was nobody and he sought me out and we practiced together. Or, yeah, we were, you know, Medvedev tells that story about being.
you know, I don't know, 18, 19 years old. And Novak said, well, why don't you come on my plane and we'll fly the Davis cup tie together. Like, you know, he sort of does those things that I, you know, in the locker room, so to speak. That a lot of people don't see, you know, go back a few years when everybody was getting on Stisipas for taking those long toilet breaks. And look, there's no love lost between.
Djokovic and Tsitsipas, you know, not exactly, you know, warm and cuddly best friends. But Djokovic was the one who in the press conference said, You know, the guy's just following the rules. And like, if we want to change the rules, we should change the rules. But people might want to stop criticizing him while he's following the rules. And that was really, you know, like, that's like an interesting.
moment where he just has other players backs in ways uh that other players notice it's really fascinating i got two more questions for you matt one is One of the interesting elements of this story in this lawsuit was a reference to and the fact that they are named in this as well, the International Tennis Integrity Agency. And I read.
references to concerns over the invasion of privacy of the players in sort of administering the anti-doping and anti-corruption elements of the responsibilities of the international team.
Tennis Integrity Agency. Was that a surprise to you at all? I mean, it was a little bit of a surprise just because, you know, to fold them into an antitrust lawsuit and also because they're... taking on, you know, some of the complaints sort of are taking on what we've sort of accepted as sort of tried and true practices of... of the way the anti-doping system operates. But, you know, there are sort of questionable... I've had these questions.
And sort of curiosity is a lot as some of these cases have, you know, become much more high profile in recent in recent years. It's just sort of what are. the sort of systems of due process that these sort of extra legal authorities are following. And, you know, they're operating across borders and they're doing things that you just that like a police officer would never be able to do, at least at least in the U.S. and sort of.
The hand over your phone or else issue without a search warrant is something that I think would make a lot of people feel uncomfortable. You know, they, and I've asked the ITIA about this and they say like, oh, well, it has to go through a supervisor or a supervisor and we're careful about that. We promise. You know, and there's good people working at the ITIA and that may be true in most cases, but like, do they have control over all their investigators? Who are these people who are doing this?
You know, there are checks and balances in most Western legal systems that are there for a reason. It's to prevent the law enforcement agencies from abusing their authority. Defendants have rights. And when you're subjecting people to questioning without the opportunity to call a lawyer, have a lawyer present, all those things. Because the threat is if they do that, you'll immediately ban them and take away their livelihood and ruin their reputation.
That's that's that might not be the fairest system in the world. And sort of calling those practices into question is is is probably a healthy exercise. So the final question really, Matt, is you've answered this to some degree because you've already said you don't think... that this will likely ever get to a jury trial that has been referenced in this piece that you expect some sort of settlement. They'll probably work it all out between them. But for the tennis fan listening to this...
When I say work it out between them, what's... what sort of thing might we end up with? I mean, I know that might be an impossible question to answer, but are we looking at completely having to reimagine the calendar, the sport as we know it today? I mean, I think at a bare minimum, you may be looking at players having to play fewer mandatory tournaments. That's sort of maybe a starting point. And there's, you know, different opinions on where that should go, of course. But...
So that's sort of one area where if players are too taxed and the season is too long, without sort of overturning... the Christmas table once it's all set and everything like that. That's one thing you could sort of make a change at the margin, especially as these tournaments become longer, become longer. So, you know, that's sort of.
something that would come come into play i should say um in terms of like overturning completely everything um It's hard to really see that happening in the short term, but you might have a system where... I mean, in the ideal world, I think a lot of players would like things to pretty much settle down after the U.S. Open. I don't know how you manage the Asia swing where there's a lot of money invested and there's a lot of growth opportunities there.
But the month of October, I think, becomes a real problem for a lot of players. And, you know, you just saw that. And so I think... There's the idea being batted around of put more 250s in the back of the calendar, sort of like they had done in golf. where the season pretty much ends for the top players in late September and then lesser players who need more money.
need more playing opportunities you know they play in those fall events um but the big time players they mostly are are done for those final few months of the year and you know And there are golfers and tennis is, you know, a lot more taxing than playing golf. I can tell you that much. So, you know, if you talk about needing rest, I mean, there's...
There's certain ways, but I think in terms of like a total reformation, like I don't think the grand slams are going anywhere. And I don't think the big, you know, the big 1000 level events are going, are going anywhere. But. you might have to have some sort of rejiggering of, of maybe more of, of, of more tournaments that are worth more points, but at the same time. fewer obligations for players to actually play in all those tournaments.
Yeah, they're certainly going to have to take this seriously, aren't they, and move to some degree. And it will be fascinating to see where it all ends up. Matt, thank you. Thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate it. Oh, thanks so much for having me.
So that's Matt Futterman there and Catherine, Matt and myself will be back on the regular podcast unless anything dramatic happens between now and then. We'll be back on Monday to digest this news and my conversation with Matt a little bit. further um but for now from all of us here at the tennis podcast we'll see you next time this is your business
This is your business supercharged with the help of Xero Accounting Software. This is managing cash flow. This is managing your cash flow with the help of Xero Accounting Software. These are your customers paying you. These are your customers having more ways to pay you with the help of Zero Accounting Software.
This is your business supercharged with the help of Zero, helping you soar your cash flow by giving your customers more ways to pay so now you can focus on making your business boom. Supercharge your business today with the help of Zero.