Sports

PTPA revised litigation as negotiations with four majors begin

Erik Gudris | @atntennis | Thursday, June 26, 2025
Image source: TTV

this Professional Tennis Players Association (PTPA) recently held discussions with organizers of four Grand Slam matches.

As a result, it is no longer listed as a defendant in the current lawsuit of PTPA.

But if negotiations after 90 days do not prove fruitful, that may change.

according to sports and Front desk sportsPTPA filed a revised complaint Tuesday related to a wide range of lawsuits originally filed in March.

As of now, the lawsuit is only targeting major travel (ATP and WTA), involving revenue sharing issues and allowing players to compete in harsh weather conditions.

“The plaintiff and the Grand Slam have agreed to discuss matters raised in the plaintiff’s complaint without court intervention,” the PTPA lawyer wrote in a letter to federal judge Margaret Garnett, who is in charge of the case.

The revised lawsuit has also been abandoned International Tennis Federation (ITF) and International Tennis Integrity Organization (ITIA), supervising drug testing and other issues.

Since the focus of the lawsuit is on revenue sharing and increasing player rights in court and court, the ITF and ITIA have not specifically monitored or played the role of these issues, which is why it was removed from the lawsuit.

When PTPA initially announced the lawsuit, critics argued that if the organization wanted to increase player bonuses, it should focus on the profession, which provided the most bonuses of all events in a given season. With PTPA now negotiating directly with the Grand Slam, hopefully the ATP Tour and WTA will eventually follow their own negotiations.

Another change to the lawsuit is the addition of several players to support IT, including Sachia Vickery and Nicolas Zanellato, which will bring the total to 14.

But, big guys like Novak Djokovicco-founded PTPA with others Vasek Pospisil, as well as Coco Gofu and Carlos Alcaraz was removed from the original lawsuit because they did not publicly agree to its terms.



Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button