Closed leagues and open questions: what an antitrust tennis complaint could mean for rugby

On 16 March 2025, the Professional Tennis Players Association ("PTPA"), co-founded by Novak Djokovic, launched a wave of antitrust complaints in the EU, UK and the US, targeting the Association of Tennis Professionals ("ATP"), the Women's Tennis Association ("WTA"), the International Tennis Federation ("ITF") and the International Tennis Integrity Agency ("ITIA") (together, the "Tennis Agencies"). The complaint alleges that the Tennis Agencies operate as a cartel, stifling competition among tournament organisers, restricting player freedom, and supressing player wages.

The Commission is reportedly examining whether the Tennis Agencies' dual roles regulating the sport and commercially controlling it, amount to an abuse of dominance under Articles 101 and/or 102 TFEU. IF this sounds familiar, it should; the same structural concerns were central to the recent European Superleague ruling, which challenged closed systems and discretionary governance in football.

In the UK, the Competition and Markets Authority is assessing similar issues following concerns that British tournaments restrict players' commercial autonomy. Meanwhile, in the US, the PTPA has filed a federal antitrust lawsuit, claiming the tennis ecosystem suppresses competition for athlete services and imposes exclusionary restrictions on players and agents.

Whilst the law suits are focused on the issues in professional tennis, professional rugby should be playing very close attention.

At the heart of the tennis complaint is the problem of dual governance: bodies like the ATP and WTA simultaneously regulate the sport and profit from the events they control. That same structural issue is mirrored in rugby, where entities like World Rugby and Premiership Rugby act as both regulator and commercial operator. They control scheduling, player eligibility, wage caps, and tournament access, whilst also control the TV deals and prize pools.

This raises several red flags:

1. Are these governing bodies abusing their dominant positions?

2. Do wage structures amount to disproportionate restrictions of competition given their failure to create financially robust teams?

3. Is the method of revenue distribution justified given its impact on teams seeking to enter the Premiership?

Professional rugby union is under commercial and structural strain. In England, several clubs have gone into administration. Player face significant wage compression under the domestic salary cap, and as the number of teams in the league has fallen, have fewer options for switching (thereby increasing the teams' monopsony power). There is no meaningful player union with independent legal or economic leverage comparable to the PTPA in tennis, or even the FIFPRO in football.

The PTPA's multi-jurisdictional legal strategy can be a template for other athlete groups, especially in sports where legacy governance structures are no longer fit for purpose. Rugby players, individually or collectively, might consider:

1. challenging wage caps;

2. scrutinising restrictions on international eligibility; and

3. building an independent professional body

The PTPA's law suits are a challenge to how modern sport is organised. For rugby, the risks of inertia are real: increasing financial instability, the eroding of trust between players and governing bodies, and growing legal exposure.

As tennis players make their move through the courts, rugby should consider being next in line. The question is whether its leaders are ready to evolve, or whether the law will force that change upon them.