Photo credit: www.bbc.com
PTPA Moves to Halt ATP’s Alleged Coercive Communications
The Professional Tennis Players’ Association (PTPA) is pursuing a court injunction to stop the ATP Tour from engaging in what it describes as “improper, coercive or threatening communications” aimed at players.
In its claims, the PTPA asserts that the ATP has attempted to exert pressure on players, pushing them to endorse statements that deny any prior awareness of the legal action initiated by the PTPA this week.
Co-founded by prominent tennis player Novak Djokovic, the PTPA references “anti-competitive practices and a blatant disregard for player welfare” in the lawsuits submitted on Tuesday.
Though Djokovic is not officially named as a plaintiff in this legal matter, he expressed his support for parts of the lawsuit during the Miami Open, indicating that while he agrees with certain aspects, he has reservations about others as well. “I’ve seen some changes, but there are some fundamental changes that are still yet to be made and I really hope that all the governing bodies, including PTPA, will come together and solve these issues,” he stated.
The PTPA, representing the broader cohort of professional players, is taking legal action against several key organizations, including the men’s ATP Tour, the women’s WTA Tour, the International Tennis Federation, and the International Tennis Integrity Agency across jurisdictions in the US, UK, and European Union.
Among the plaintiffs, Nick Kyrgios of Australia stands out as a notable figure associated with the PTPA’s claim.
In legal documents submitted to the United States District Court in New York late Friday, PTPA lawyers requested Judge Margaret Garnett to enforce an order that forbids all defendants from communicating with players regarding their involvement in the case.
The motion further contends that the ATP has allegedly threatened to diminish prize money and pensions in order to cover legal expenses related to contesting this lawsuit. This, according to the PTPA, represents “flagrant interference” with the court’s jurisdiction.
Source
www.bbc.com