Does the tennis court situation prove that communication is always the answer, asks Thorndon Partners co-founder Charles McKeon.
The problem with trying to shut down a conversation is that it often has the opposite effect. That’s a lesson the governing bodies of tennis may be learning the hard way.
Public and private communications between players and the powers-that-be have been thrust into the spotlight in the increasingly fraught competition dispute playing out across the tennis world.
The Professional Tennis Players Association (PTPA), the breakaway player union co-founded by Novak Djokovic, recently sought a court order to prevent the sport’s governing bodies from engaging in “improper, coercive or threatening communications” with players.
The court application followed the players’ union accusing the ATP, which runs the elite men’s tour, of pressuring players into signing prepared statements saying they had no prior knowledge of the legal action.
Tennis in court
A New York court found in March that the ATP’s “conduct to date, regardless of intent, could readily have been viewed as potentially coercive, deceptive or otherwise abusive”. The judge reiterated that the ATP is prohibited from “retaliating, or threatening retaliation” against players, but stopped short of a blanket ban on tennis authorities communicating with players about the ongoing court cases.
The broader lawsuits brought by players’ unions alleging “anti-competitive practices and a blatant disregard for player welfare” are just the latest entry in a growing canon of competition law flashpoints across sport.
Whether it’s basketball or boxing, football or Formula 1, the principles that govern free markets are now colliding with the sometimes unilateral power of sport’s governing bodies.
The implications aren’t just legal, they’re reputational. And the fallout is increasingly dropping into the inboxes of communications teams as much as compliance departments.
The backdrop is familiar to City types. Competition law prohibits dominant organisations from abusing their power to suppress rivals.
In sport, this typically means governing bodies blocking breakaway tournaments, restricting athlete endorsements, or threatening bans for players who deviate from official events.
The European Super League fiasco was the headline act, but far from the only one. In the UK alone, legal challenges have emerged in boxing over exclusivity clauses, in golf around LIV’s disruption, and, more quietly, basketball, where some of London’s top city lawyers have been instructed to advise on governance conflicts between British Basketball League shareholders and the sport’s wider community.
Player welfare a driver
Football has followed a similar competition litigation road to tennis, driven by player welfare. The global players union Fifpro has brought European legal proceedings against Fifa arguing that an overcrowded match calendar – in particular the addition of the Fifa Club World Cup – violates the rights of players and breaches competition law.
Tennis finds itself in the eye of a similar storm. But what’s different is the laser focus of both players and the authorities on the importance of communications outside the court – in both senses of the word.
The situation shows just how much the information landscape around sports law has changed. Not long ago, disputes between athletes and governing bodies played out in arbitration tribunals and barely made the back pages.
Now, every legal filing can become a news moment. Fans can follow the off-court drama as closely in some cases as the sport itself. Sponsors, regulators, and even Parliament take note.
In the age of athlete activism and disaggregated digital media that puts more power in sports stars’ hands, trying to intimidate individual athletes into a position seems outdated.
Legal cases are complex and slow-moving. But public debate and criticism often doesn’t wait for court dates. When fans read headlines about governing bodies trying to pressure their favourite on-court star, whose side do you think they are likely to take?
These public episodes risk driving an increasing wedge between players and the authorities. With competition law disputes in sport becoming ever more common, governing bodies need to balance legal risk against their broader perception among fans.
Dialogue, even if difficult, is more constructive than coercion.
