Inside the PTPA Lawsuit to Upend Tennis

An in-depth interview with PTPA Executive Director Ahmad Nassar about the effort to break through the powers-that-be in professional tennis.

The biggest news in tennis this week has been a group of players backed by the Professional Tennis Players Association (PTPA) filing a class action lawsuit against four tennis governance organizations: the ATP Tour, the WTA Tour, the International Tennis Federation, and the International Tennis Integrity Agency.

Ahmad Nassar, Executive Director of the PTPA, the organization behind this wide-ranging lawsuit. (Photo from PTPA website)

I spoke at length on Wednesday to Ahmad Nassar, who has been the executive director of the PTPA since August 2022, two years after the organization was originally co-founded by ATP players Novak Djokovic and Vasek Pospisil as a sort of proto-player union in tennis.

The PTPA’s complaint is sprawling and wide-ranging—as evidenced by the 163 pages in the US filing alone (the PTPA filed in the Southern District of New York as well as in London and Brussels)—and our conversation similarly had a lot to cover. I thought about breaking this interview up across multiple dispatches here, but ultimately thought it was best to deliver all in one go, so this will be (by far) the longest post at Bounces so far.

[As a reminder, the Substack app has a handy tool where it will read articles aloud for you, so that might be a useful way to turn the below into a podcast if you prefer audio for your longreads.]

I still had a lot of questions for the PTPA after reading the legal documents, so Nassar and I covered topics including the goals of the lawsuit, the scope of who is being called onto the carpet, exactly how many players should be able to make a living playing tennis, the obscurity of the named plaintiffs, Novak Djokovic’s role in the lawsuit, the lack of a PTPA member list, the way the document discusses Jannik Sinner and Holger Rune, the current role of billionaire Bill Ackman, and more.

Nassar and I also discussed several timely topics not related directly to this lawsuit, including the PTPA’s stance on issues including the WTA’s intervention into the Rybakina-Vukov coaching relationship, equal prize money at combined events, the squeezing out of doubles specialists, and more. Since this post is already plenty full, those topics will be published in a separate follow-up piece this weekend, for Bounces subscribers only. (So please do subscribe!)

---

Without further ado, here’s our interview:

What Is the PTPA’s Goal Here?

Ben Rothenberg, Bounces: After reading the document I was definitely interested in interviewing you about some of the questions I still had afterwards. Obviously most of my readers are not gonna read any of the document, or at least most won't make it through all the hundreds of pages.

Ahmad Nassar, PTPA: I don't think it's just your readers. I think we're realistic, we know most people won't do that.

Ben Rothenberg, Bounces: So to skip right to the TL;DR bottom line then: what are the players who are the plaintiffs and the PTPA seeking here? What would be a verdict in your favor? Is it like a financial compensation thing? Is it dissolving the ATP and WTA? Or forcing meetings? What is a favorable verdict at the end? That wasn't clear to me.

Ahmad Nassar, PTPA: Yeah, I mean, look: we didn't want to file this. We don't want to litigate it to the end. We're very confident that if, unfortunately, they choose to litigate this and fight this to the end, that we would win. And so, working backwards from that, we want to force everybody to get into a room and figure this out. Not because they're good people or bad people; I'm not in the business of judging people. I leave that to God or whatever people believe in.

I am in the business of fixing and innovating and optimizing global sports. And the Slams have tried to do that in the last couple of years and failed. The tours themselves have tried to do that. And if you go on the ATP's website right now: One Vision, and all these things they want to do, right?

Everybody acknowledges this. The Saudis want to invest lots of money. CVC has invested and wants to invest even more money. Why? Not because we're good or bad people, but they see the opportunity in tennis. And CVC in particular, and the PIF, they've done a lot of things in other global sports, right? And they understand, 'Ooh, tennis is not operating the way it should.'

And part of what we're doing, and what we did yesterday [when the lawsuit was filed] is coming at that same point from a different perspective, from the player perspective. And the goal here, it's not about damages, it's not about bankrupting anybody, it's not about any of that. It Is literally about reform. And the little tagline—you know, I'm not about social media taglines, but this one I think is really good—it's 'Game, Set, Reform.' We're trying to reform tennis. We're trying to elevate it.

And structurally there is a massive problem that you know about better than me, with the way these 1000s and 250s and 500s and Grand Slams in this mingled web of player council over there, player council over there, nobody in front of the Grand Slams. Like, this is why things don't get done.

And it turns out: that whole system is illegal. It's an illegal conspiracy protecting a cartel. Everybody's only worried about their week or two or three when they get to be the mayor in their city and the tennis circuit comes to town. And not enough people are truly thinking about the big picture, and the season-long, year-long. And then, really, the long term: 5, 10, 20 years from now. And there have been so many people frustrated and so many people who've tried, in good faith, to change that system.

And so this is really the player effort to change the system. It's not about damages. It's not about making money. It's not about a quick buck. There aren't enough quick bucks. The whole point is that we think there are a lot more revenues to be earned if and when we revamp the structure and run tennis, globally, the way F1 or EPL or the NFL or the NBA are run. And that's really all it's about fundamentally. That's all it's about.

Ben Rothenberg, Bounces: So basically the top line for a request for a jury trial is something you don't actually expect? The very first page of the complaint says there's a request for a jury trial, but you're saying you don't expect a jury trial in this.

Ahmad Nassar, PTPA: Well, I hope not. I mean, listen, we filed these yesterday; every day starting today is a day that we can wake up and resolve this on our own. Nobody wants to be in court.

But, like, I've known you for a couple of years now; have things really changed? I mean, we've tried to do things where we can. We've got the medical director on board. We did some mental fitness and health programs and benefits. We've done trading cards and tried to bring more commercial opportunities. We have other benefits for the players, right?

But the big thing, the thing that was why they created the PTPA in the first place is they wanted an independent voice with a seat at the table in the mold of other players associations in other sports globally. And people, not surprisingly, were quite resistant to that and to any kind of really large structural change—even if it would benefit them. They were resistant to the Slams trying to propose that. They were resistant to the tours themselves. And the result is, Well, we'll just do things the way we've always done things, with little incremental improvements.

And we're saying: 'No, you don't have that option, and that option isn't actually best for you. And it's certainly not best for the fans or the players.' So the demand for a jury trial, that's just like, yeah, any legal complaint has to elect either a jury trial or a bench trial, which is the judge decides. So yeah, we have to outline, we have to make the certain claims, we have to pick a court.

But the goal, for anybody who files a lawsuit about anything, would rather have [a settlement]. I mean, the only reason they're in court is they weren't able to fix the problem directly, right? And they can solve the problem by agreeing with the other side at any point, right? Even in criminal trials, you can generally plead guilty and come to some deal, even with the government. So it's no different here.

I'd prefer not to spend years and millions litigating this, but that's not up to me at this point, right? It's really up to a lot of other people. And I think that's where it's interesting as well: I think there are some people who do care about change and do care about acting in good faith and working in good faith with the players and don't mind empowering them because they know that what I'm saying is true and that other sports have experienced you know unprecedented growth over the last few decades precisely by doing just what we're asking.

And so what I'd like to do is find as many of those people as I can and find ways you know to solve these issues, right? I don't sit here pretending like I know everything about how to fix everything. I just know that the status quo is not an option.

As I was saying last year, it's untenable and unacceptable, and now I'll add: it's illegal. So it's not a thing where you can just sit and stand pat and make little improvements here and there and call it a day. That's not good enough, and not going to work.

Major Omissions?

Ben Rothenberg, Bounces: One of the things that I and a few others were most struck by was the choice of the four defendants who you named in this case, and also who was not named, specifically the Slams or the governing bodies behind the four majors. They are called 'co-conspirators' in the document, but I'm surprised.

I think when we've talked before, I've mentioned that I call it "The Seven Kingdoms of Tennis" that divide and rule the whole thing. And so I'm surprised that you would not include them because I would think, surely, you'd want the Grand Slams' bookkeeping and documents available in discovery to get the full picture of that.

Ahmad Nassar, PTPA: Oh, we'll get all that. They're co-conspirators. Make no mistake: we're not letting anybody off the hook. We didn't name Larry Ellison and Ben Navarro and the Cincinnati Open and Indian Wells either. But it's all the tournaments, though we only named the governing bodies.

And so, technically, the Slams fall under the ITF. The 1000s, 500s and 250s fall under the respective ATP and WTA.

Ben Rothenberg, Bounces: Do they? I'm not sure the Slams fall into the ITF like that. I know the ITF does some management for them, but they don't own them, per se.

Ahmad Nassar, PTPA: They don't own them, but they ATP doesn't own Indian Wells either, but they regulate them.

Ben Rothenberg, Bounces: Okay, so you think basically you've roped in every tennis entity with the four organizations you named?

Ahmad Nassar, PTPA: Yeah. To be very clear, it just gets unwieldy when you start—like, imagine suing the NFL. The NFL doesn't own the New York Giants, but you don't want to have to sue the NFL and all 32 clubs. You just sue the NFL, and you're making the point that, you know, it's the system.

Ranklings of Rankings

Ben Rothenberg, Bounces: OK. There are a few things I want to cover, in terms of some specific stuff. I mean, obviously it's a very chock-full-of-stuff document.

One of the first things is about ranking points, calling them an unfair, closed system, basically. So I guess is the proposal that you want ranking points to be available to be earned at non-ATP, non-WTA events?

Ahmad Nassar, PTPA: No, no, no. I mean, there is no proposal. We are pointing out an illegal system. It's their job to fix it. We're happy to work with them, but...

Ben Rothenberg, Bounces: OK, so you don't have solutions to that?

Ahmad Nassar, PTPA: I mean, I do, and that's certainly one extreme, but not...

I mean, listen: Oscar Robertson in the 1970s challenged the NBA Draft and successfully negotiated a settlement. There's been an NBA Draft every year since the 1970s. So in some form, there's going to be a ranking system and ranking points. But the point we're making in the complaint: it's not just rankings points, it's that the rankings point system underpins required events, this whole thing.

And then, who isn't included in the club? And then what level is the club? Why is, you know, poor Mark Ein, here in DC, our neighbor who owns the DC tournament, he's locked into a 500. He can never offer more points, no matter how good [his field]. He could have the entire Top 10 come to that event and it doesn't matter, right?

And so that's the point: [ranking points are] the currency that underpins the entire scheme. And then it de-emphasizes, inexplicably, things like the Olympics, right? Players have told me, Well, I actually have to pay and lose rankings points to play in the Olympics, and I'm not doing that...ironically to play in DC because that's [the concurrent event]. It's what underpins the whole thing.

Ben Rothenberg, Bounces: One of the big takeaways from the document seemed to be that players, because of the pressure to keep their rankings up and also because of rules that bar them from playing concurrent exhibition events, that players are being railroaded into playing tour events instead of possible—theoretical, I think, largely—competing exhibitions or non-tour events or a competing tour, whatever it would be.

It seems like freedom for exhibitions is one of the main main points here you're trying to make, I guess, is that fair?

Ahmad Nassar, PTPA: No? Meaning like we're seeking that?

Ben Rothenberg, Bounces: Well, there was this depiction in the document of players being locked into this sort of vicious cycle of being stuck on this 11-month carousel and not having the ability to go chase other earning opportunities—which would be playing opportunities, presumably, unless they're gonna be like TV guest stars or something.

But like, it's about going to play exhibition events—or what we call exhibition events, which obviously is a blanket term for a lot of different stuff.

Ahmad Nassar, PTPA: Yeah, no, no, it's one example of the closed system. Here's another example that is in the complaint: Madi Keys was gonna play in Austin, right? And then because of this bizarre, arcane rule that two top 10 players can't be in Austin. So even within the tour events, you have these issues that are just nonsensical, right? So it's not only about exhibitions; that's one example. Madi Keys in Austin is another example.

And only being able to offer a set amount of prize money, a set amount of rankings points, no matter the field, right? Even looking back 52 weeks [for counting events on the rankings], that isn't the most logical. If you look at Universal Tennis Ranking, they have a much more logical system; it's much more based on strength of schedule; it's not unlike NCAA college basketball rankings, right? There's a coaches' poll, there's an AP poll, there's strength of schedule, all that nonsense. So all of these are just examples of why the current system doesn't work.

It does not mean that, Oh, we're looking to allow players to play unfettered in a bunch of different exhibitions across the globe. You see what I mean? These are just examples of why the current system is illegal; it doesn't mean that the reverse is what we're seeking.

And I go back to Oscar Robertson challenging the NBA Draft: they settled, and [now] the NBA Draft is a thing that they broadcast and people care about, and it's perfectly fine as part of a system that works for the players.

That's what I would say here: we're happy to have limitations on exhibitions, or ban them outright, or allow all of them. But it needs to be part of an overall system.

How Many Players Should Be Able to Make a Living Playing Professional Tennis?

Ben Rothenberg, Bounces: Whether it's exhibitions or other offers being talked about—you talk about Six Kings in the document, and you talk about Madison Keys having the Top 10 restrictions at a 250 event—it seems that there's a lot more focus on top-level players here.

I know a lot of the talk around Djokovic and his general crusade and PTPA as part of that has been about lifting up lower-ranked players who aren't breaking even. But it does seem like a lot of the focus in this document is really about the top level of the sport, right? In this stage, it is about tour-level and the top, top players mostly here?

Ahmad Nassar, PTPA: I mean, how would you define top players? Like Top 10, 20? That kind of thing?

Ben Rothenberg, Bounces: I mean, that would be one definition of it. Or Top 100, even, people who are in the main draws of Slams or playing tour events, primarily. But there's very little mention of Challengers or Futures in the document, basically, is what I'm saying.

Ahmad Nassar, PTPA: Yeah, no, look: what gets eyeballs and we've gotten people who were pushing back on like, 'Oh, look at the players you have.' And it's, like, that's not how class actions work. But, no, we have players who represent a class that would be hundreds of players; not just the main draw of Slams. It would include Challenger players, would include Futures players.

There wasn't a lot in the complaint about those; there is some, and those things are definitely included. Because that doesn't generate the clicks. But that is by no means letting anybody off the hook, right?

Because technically, a legal complaint could have been three pages, right? Why is it 163 pages? We wanted to tell the story. You are familiar with the system, but we wanted to tell a story in gory detail that other people—a broader audience, including a judge sitting in New York, and a jury eventually—would understand. And so, yeah, that probably means a disproportionate focus on main draw of Slams. But no, this case is about the entire [player population].

And in fact, the notion that only—whatever it is—100, 200 players can reliably earn a living playing tennis professionally, I mean, that's insane, right? I mean, in a world where thousands of American football players, tens of thousands of soccer players, and thousands of basketball players across the NBA and Euro League and Chinese Basketball Association [can earn a living]. And then you have tennis and you're like: how could so few players reliably generate income off of this?

And we briefed probably 300 different players, a lot of them at the lower end of those rankings, about what we were planning on doing, both to tell them and also to get their support—and overwhelming support. Because the whole system has to work. And whether it's a pyramid or a pipeline—however you think about it—if you elevate the top echelon of the sport and generate and unlock more revenues, that's going to filter into the whole system.

At some point there's a dividing line between pro players and amateur and some of the [grassroots] things that the USTA cares about. What exactly that dividing line is, I don't know. Probably after the Top 1000, you know?

Ben Rothenberg, Bounces: So that was the question I was going to have. You cite the numbers being bigger in other sports; OK, so then what should the carrying capacity of tennis be in terms of players?

Ahmad Nassar, PTPA: I mean...I don't know. I really don't know, and I think the market should decide that.

Ben Rothenberg, Bounces: You could say the market has decided that already though, cynically.

Ahmad Nassar, PTPA: It's not operating—it's not a free market. It's not operating legally. That's exactly the problem. So I can't tell you. All I can tell you is it's not working and, here's 163 pages of reasons why it's not working and it's illegal and it's not a free market.

I can't answer, well, what should it look like in a free market? I just know that it's more than it is now. I think it's more than one player more. It's probably not thousands and thousands more. It's probably somewhere in between; at least hundreds more, right?

Like, is it too unreasonable to ask that a thousand players can reliably, you know, even locally earn a living, playing global tennis? I don't know.

Ben Rothenberg, Bounces: I just think this is the kind of thing that I would expect, honestly, PTPA to have a more solid answer on after being around for years, saying there should be more players. How many more players feels like a pretty concrete thing to be able to cite.

Ahmad Nassar, PTPA: But how would you even reliably say that, and credibly say that, in the absence of an operating free market?

Ben Rothenberg, Bounces: I don't know, but it seems like that's kind of your guys' whole mission, so I feel like eventually there would be more calculations or some more precision about it. I know I guess you're saying floodgates open and you don't know how much water is behind them, but...

Ahmad Nassar, PTPA: Yeah, it goes back to what you suspected when you asked the question: Isn't the market going to tell us? And that's my answer: Isn't the market going to tell us? It's our job to make sure the market operates.

Ben Rothenberg, Bounces: And you're saying the market has not yet spoken in tennis because it's too rigged.

Ahmad Nassar, PTPA: Exactly.

The Anonymity of the Player Plaintiffs and Novak Djokovic’s Position

Ben Rothenberg, Bounces: OK. You mentioned the people who are the [New York] plaintiffs, and there's 12 people named, and they're honestly a pretty obscure bunch in terms of current rankings. There's only one current Top 100 singles player, Gracheva, in the 12 players. Three of the players of the 12 are already retired.

You've said there's more support, and when you go to meetings, you get lots of support, but why was the sign-on to this initial thing so relatively anonymous? And that's including players who are PTPA board members, like Hurkacz or Jabeur or Djokovic, they are not are not signing on to this yet. Why is that?

Ahmad Nassar, PTPA: Yeah, this isn't like some letter to the editor, right? This is a legal claim. First, the PTPA is a party on all three [US, UK, EU] legal actions, as an organization, right? And the PTPA is governed by the executive committee. So, it's especially redundant to have those people also be named plaintiffs, and they can't be named plaintiffs in more than one place. So, the strategic—

Ben Rothenberg, Bounces: Isn't [Zheng] Saisai on the board, though? And she's one of the named plaintiffs.

From the PTPA website: Novak Djokovic, Hubert Hurkacz, Ons Jabeur, Bethanie Mattek-Sands, Vasek Pospisil, Diego Schwartzman, Taylor Townsend, Zheng Saisai.

Ahmad Nassar, PTPA: Saisai and Vasek [Pospisil], yes. And they are a different kind of player. Vasek has been intimately involved every day of my tenure at the PTPA. So they are in exception to what I was just saying. But you couldn't do that with everybody. Vasek's only on the US case, I think Saisai's only on the US case.

By the way, there's more players in the UK and EU. The total is over 20 across all three different actions. So that's that's the answer.

Ben Rothenberg, Bounces: Are the other names out there? I didn't see names on the other documents if they are there or not. Are they not named?

Ahmad Nassar, PTPA: Maybe they're not; there's a bunch of annexes to those documents, it's just a wonky system in the UK and EU. We have a list of the plaintiffs in all three, I can send that to you.

Ben Rothenberg, Bounces: OK, that'd be good.

Update: Here is the list of additional overseas plaintiffs as Nassar sent over later:

Ahmad Nassar, PTPA: Yeah, you know the New York one, because that's out there. And then, so more broadly though: why these players? Look: if you follow the NCAA antitrust action, it's the House case, right? And the House settlement now.

You don't have to be somebody that everybody knows to file a class action. And in fact, you do need to be somebody that represents members of the class, and so we needed to have players who are doubles players, and men and women, and lower ranked players, and people from different jurisdictions. So there's a little bit of a puzzle-operating thing here, in terms of who goes where and what specific players. But I guess for your purposes, that's just wonky legal stuff.

For your purposes, this is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all the players. Right? And so it ends up being, really, a historical quirk as to what names are in the U.S., in the UK, in the EU [plaintiff lists]. That's a red herring that people who want to push back and protect their own interests are going to use to push back and protect their own interests.

But I just tell you, legally, it's not something where a judge is going to say, well, why isn't Novak's name here or there or everywhere? They're going to say: No, that these are legal claims, these are brought on behalf of a class of plaintiffs.

It's a lot like if you have a MasterCard or Visa or AmEx, right? You ever get the thing in the mail that you're the member of the class and you're entitled to $3.49, and check a box? That's a class action, right? Some dude somewhere hired some lawyers and they did something against MasterCard or Visa or AmEx.

And so this is that kind of case. And so it's just different, right? This isn't about an open letter calling on the Grand Slams to pay more prize money, for example. In which case, yeah, you sign that, and then the next question will be: Are they willing to skip Grand Slams if they're not going to get what they want? And that's just different. This is a legal case, and it's a class action on behalf of all the players.

Ben Rothenberg, Bounces: So you're saying it's a more serious step to sign onto this than to sign a letter, basically, that's what you're saying?

Ahmad Nassar, PTPA: Well, more and less, right? The less part is, it's kind of irrelevant. You need some people to sign on, and then beyond that, it's the whole class. It's all players.

Ben Rothenberg, Bounces: You mentioned Djokovic. Obviously he's a founder of the PTPA and he's the biggest name attached to PTPA and his name is in a lot of headlines about PTPA any time it comes up. Why is he, specifically, not signed on to this? He seems like the most obvious omission here.

Ahmad Nassar, PTPA: Yeah, and it's not an accident, and it's by design, right? So it's redundant with the PTPA being a party across all three. And, it is an opportunity. And I talked to Novak yesterday morning before we filed, at length, and we're all on the same page here. It's an opportunity for other players to step up.

Because Novak has always had the view: he's not gonna benefit from this, let's be honest, right? If anything, it's been a distraction. And Nick Kyrgios said the same thing on an interview he did yesterday in Miami before the Miami Open, where he's like, Well, this isn't really for me if this is successful and brings about change one way or the other; it's for younger players and future generations of players. And Novak certainly feels the same way.

And we all collectively view this as a great opportunity to let other players have the limelight. Like it doesn't all need to be Novak, Novak, Novak. And you see, I mean: we know what generates clicks. And so half the articles still say 'Novak.' And we knew that would happen, he knew that would happen, and we were prepared for that. But it really does help the narrative—because it's true—that this isn't just about Novak trying to be a rabble rouser, naysayer, counterculture. No, man. This is about the meat and potatoes. It's about reform and it's about global sports.

Nick Kyrgios’ Vagueness

Ben Rothenberg, Bounces: It feels like it's a really big plate of meat and potatoes, or maybe it's a whole table worth of various side dishes in a Thanksgiving-type feast, because I don't know if we saw the same if we saw the same curious interview but I saw a clip of him talking to Sky Sports yesterday—

Ahmad Nassar, PTPA: Yes.

Ben Rothenberg, Bounces: He was talking to Laura Robson, she was the off-camera voice, I could tell, and he was asked about the suit and why he's joining it. He was really, honestly, low on specifics. He was saying he wanted there to be a player association, which I guess we could say there probably already is, since PTPA exists. And then the first issue he mentioned was balls changing week to week. And there is one mention of balls in the 100-plus pages, but I don't think that's really the main issue, per se.

So I'm wondering if this big catch-all document and suit is too wide ranging, if it's trying to be a catch-all, to try to be all things for all people in terms of grievances.

It doesn't seem focused. I was just struck by Kyrgios, as one of the people who is named as a plaintiff—and probably the most famous of the 12 who are named by good distance—not seeming to be on message, or not seeming to be able to articulate what was going on here.

Ahmad Nassar, PTPA: Well, hats off to anybody who scripts any of those guys, right? Particularly Nick. No, Nick is a player leader and gets the broad set of issues. But let's dig into Nick a little bit. The guy has had wrist issues, including last week. The guy has had shoulder, elbow issues. What contributes to that? Varying balls from week to week on the tournaments and each week on the tour, right? And that could seem like a minor issue, but it's not. And we've tried to address that issue in isolation; guess what? Not addressed.

It's just another symptom. If you try to address it symptom by symptom, you will get nowhere—which is where everybody has gotten. It's not just, Oh the PTPA has failed. No, the Grand Slams have failed, the tours have failed, the individual tournaments have failed. Everybody's failed to do anything that is even remotely outside of dinking and ducking, nipping and tucking, right?

Nobody's been able to do anything more broadly, because the entire system is illegal. And so, yes, it does feel like the kitchen sink, but that's because the entire system is illegal, right? And so, to some players, particularly older ones —Vasek's in the same category—that ball issue is really personal, because it's cut short their careers, quite literally.

Ben Rothenberg, Bounces: No, I'm not dismissing it. I'm just saying I was struck by it being the first thing that he brought up when Laura was trying to get, I think, more of a soundbite on what the goal of the lawsuit is. And he didn't really seem to be able to say that, I thought.

But one thing he did say was that players need an association. That was the first thing he said. And that's obviously the PTPA, obviously it has player association in the name, so it's a player association. I think it probably is already one; I don't think it's necessarily still aspiring to be one.

Ahmad Nassar, PTPA: Well, it is one but it's also not. Like, the NBPA collectively bargains with the NBA. We don't collectively bargain with anybody. And so yes, we have the structure and the infrastructure and the vision.

Ben Rothenberg, Bounces: But you don't have the recognition.

Ahmad Nassar, PTPA: Yeah, we don't have the seat at the table in the way we're talking about.

The PTPA’s Lack of Member Information

Ben Rothenberg, Bounces: One thing that player associations in other sports do have—and I just was double-checking this before talking to you—in other sports, player associations, by definition, have members. And one of the things you've said repeatedly, I guess, is there's no members of PTPA.

And so I'm wondering how, without member rolls—which seemed like a kind of basic item for an association or a union—how you can claim support or allegiance with anyone without them actually being card-carrying members—to use the cliche—or just being on a list or whatever. It seems sort of vague and amorphous without members.

Ahmad Nassar, PTPA: That's part and parcel, and a direct byproduct, of the entire illegal system and the lack of recognition. What am I pitching somebody on joining right now? You don't have a seat at the table. Why do the other unions have that? Because they're the exclusive collective bargaining entity of those respective groups of athletes because the system has been created and recognized to enable that.

Ben Rothenberg, Bounces: I don't know what the chicken-egg situation is here, but I feel like members would come before recognition.

Ahmad Nassar, PTPA: No. No, legally, that's not how it works, man. I mean, I'm just telling you: the legal action we filed yesterday, we have plaintiffs, we have the PTPA, we have 250-plus players whom we've briefed and spoken to—about this and more broadly about what we're trying to do with the PTPA overall. We have hundreds of players who have participated in our programs and services and benefits.

That's all we need, man. It's not going be a defense for the tours to say, Oooh, well, there's no membership roll. The judge is going look at them like they're crazy. Well, that doesn't justify your illegal behavior, gentlemen...and ladies. This is going to be your problem, not mine.

And the reason we've held off on that is twofold. Legally, you don't need it. And then more practically, these people have been threatened. And I know Andy Roddick thinks that threats are not actionable until you've actually suffered the thing that was threatened, which is crazy. That's not how it works, man. Go make a threat. You and I live in DC. Try it, guys. You're going to get in big trouble—and you should. So players are scared, and that's part of the system.

How do you keep people in line? It's like the village that's controlled by organized crime: the villagers may all hate it, but how many of them are gonna actually walk out their door and stand up to it? Right? It doesn't mean that it's legal, and it certainly doesn't mean that the gang has the support of the village. No, it doesn't.

And so that to me is another example of the kind of pushback we've seen that just doesn't hold water. Like, yeah, Oh, it's vague. Well, hey man, there's a lot of players—go ask them. Novak has media availability today. Vasek is doing media. And then again, fundamentally: following the law as you conduct a global business, particularly one that's worth billions of dollars, is not optional. Following the law is not optional. It doesn't depend on a counterparty that has members and is structured in a way.

Those are all things that people who want to keep control in their power, they'll say 'Ah, you need to do it this way.' And then they'll move the goalposts again. Oh, it needs to be this way, and where's the letter? And where's this? And then you realize what they're really saying is: you can have something, just not on a day that ends in the letter Y. And you realize: Oh this isn't about me; it's about them.

Novak Djokovic Weighs in Later

Update: Novak Djokovic did indeed speak to media in Miami a day after my interview with Nassar, and he expressed decidedly mixed feelings about the PTPA lawsuit, including misgivings about the harsh language used in the suit:

Novak Djokovic: …To be quite frank with you, there are things that I agree with in the lawsuit and then there are also things that I don't agree with. I found that maybe some wording was quite strong in there, you know, but I guess, you know, the legal team knows what they are doing and what kind of terminology they are supposed to use in order to get the right effect.

I've never been a fan and supporter of division in our sport, but I've always fought for better representation and influence and positioning of the players globally in our sport, which I think is still not where I think it should be and where most of the players think it should be—not just in terms of prize money, but in terms of many other points that have been also stated in that document.

…back to the interview.

Jannik Sinner and Italian Insinuations

Ben Rothenberg, Bounces: One player who I can tell is not a member, based on how PTPA talks about him in the document, is Jannik Sinner. Because PTPA really comes out very harshly against his case,

It's contrasted with the Tara Moore case. She's not named for some reason by name in it, but it's her story, and then it really side-eyes and looks askance at Sinner not being more harshly punished.

Ahmad Nassar, PTPA: Not at Sinner. No, no, not at all. I can't refute that enough. It's not calling out Sinner in the least and it's not calling for any player to be more harshly punished.

Jannik was treated unfairly; he was treated less unfairly than other players. And both of those are issues. You see what I mean? Like, if it's true that the ITIA and WADA agree that he did nothing wrong, why is he sitting out for 90 days? Why did it take a year to even get to that point? That's the unfairness that Jannik has faced, because none of that makes any sense. If we all agree he did nothing wrong, then what are we doing here? That's unfair, fundamentally.

Iga's case is another example. If she really bears no fault, what are we doing here? And if she played in the NBA or WNBA and Jannik played in the NBA, we wouldn't even be having this conversation, right? There wouldn't even be a conversation.

And then you layer on that people like Simona Halep and Tara Moore have been completely railroaded. But it's just a false comparison to say that we are bashing Jannik—which I know a lot of Jannik fans would say. Like, we're not. We're bashing the ITIA and WADA for having completely nonsensical results in both ends of those spectrums. But all of it's unfair.

Ben Rothenberg, Bounces: I mean, I think every case is different. But I think that you were saying, to quote: 'Unlike its dogged pursuit of other players' is the phrase, that Sinner's explanation was just accepted and it all went away for him, and there was no investigation that dragged over a year.

And then you add that he 'had not vocalized any issues with the cartel.' So that just makes it sound like you're saying he's like a favorite of 'the cartel' and he's getting preferential treatment for that.

Ahmad Nassar, PTPA: I mean...maybe? That's the problem when you have a system that is opaque. I mean, people are going to be left to wonder, why is he being treated less unfairly than everybody else?

But it doesn't mean we're calling for him to be treated more unfairly. No, no, no. That's not right. I would love for every player to have the deal that Jannik had. In fact, I would love for every player who was found to bear no fault to have no consequence. They bore no fault.

Ben Rothenberg, Bounces: No, I certainly agree that for Tara Moore, there had been other players who had tested positive for the same substance in Colombian meat before, so that she had such a rough outcome is not great.

On Sinner, though, and I guess on favorable outcomes, there's also one part of the document that insinuates that the ATP Finals location being re-upped for Italy for five more years, was to put it 'in a location convenient for its chief executive.' Basically saying it's like home cooking for an Italian executive putting things in Italy. And I guess that's maybe what you're suggesting is possible with Sinner as well? You think there's some sort of Italian collusion going on in this particular syndicate you're talking about?

Ahmad Nassar, PTPA: Look, there's a lack of transparency across the board. There's an illegal conspiracy. And so things like that can happen. I don't know that they did; it's not my job to know. And here's what I know about the Tour Finals and the Davis Cup and all the things that have suddenly landed in Italy and now the Italian federation made a bid for the Madrid Open as the only federation in that entire bid process.

Like, come on, guys. At some point, you have to answer the question when you don't have transparency. I am not making any allegations, specifically, about those things; we are pointing out that it doesn't look great.

And if you had transparency, you'd be able to say, No, we did like the Super Bowl or like the Olympics; we had a bid process and we looked at every global city who was interested, we had multiple rounds of negotiations and we got top dollar, and here's what Paris was offering or here's what Singapore was offering and here's what China and Saudi and all these other places were offering. And, yes, Milan had the highest offer, here's why, and the players are going to share in that and they're going to benefit from that. Great! Not an issue anymore, and it's still in Milan. We didn't have any of that.

Ben Rothenberg, Bounces: I guess you could also say that the previous hosts of the ATP Finals got extended to stay longer in England when they had an English CEO before that.

Ahmad Nassar, PTPA: Oh, yes! Absolutely! It's not like we had a transparent system and then it went away. We never had one.

Holger Rune Catching Strays

Ben Rothenberg, Bounces: One short thing that people were raising eyebrows about that I saw a bunch on social media—I'm not entirely sure why, but I wanted to see if you wanted to address it: there was this mention, this singling out of Holger Rune in a footnote about Six Kings.

I don't understand why this was in the document, really. I've seen people thinking it was being bitchy to Rune about being an undeserving 'King' among the six, not being a top ten player. Can you address what that was?

Ahmad Nassar, PTPA: Purely, purely meant as an example of the arbitrariness of exhibitions. It's actually meant to be an example of the free market at play. Like, look, he's a marketable guy, he's a young up-and-comer. Certainly no intent to cast any aspersions on him as a player.

I did see that as well and actually we're gonna—or we already did—reach out to him directly to clarify: Hey man, that wasn't about you. That was just about how different things work differently across the board, because there isn't a system. It's kind of random. Everything's random, or rigged, right?

Ben Rothenberg, Bounces: You could say it's free market that the Saudis wanted Holger. They picked him out of the free market.

Ahmad Nassar, PTPA: That's what I mean. It wasn't a bad example; I actually think it's a good example. Saudis got to pick, and presumably they picked based on how they did that awesome promo video, if you remember. They picked based on different players and different regions and different ages, right? They had older players and younger players.

So it's definitely not meant as a negative thing towards Holger at all. But I did notice the same thing you did, and thank you for asking.

Due Process

Ben Rothenberg, Bounces: Sure. One thing on ITIA: one of the things I was struck by PTPA calling unreasonable—how are they supposed to look at and investigate match fixing without being able to look at phones?

Ahmad Nassar, PTPA: Law enforcement can look at phones, too, right?

Ben Rothenberg, Bounces: You think law enforcement should get involved rather than ITIA?

Ahmad Nassar, PTPA: No, no, no. I'm just saying, at the end point of the extreme here, law enforcement can look at phones, but there are rules and processes and procedures and rights for you and me.

Ben Rothenberg, Bounces: And warrants.

Ahmad Nassar, PTPA: Yes! And that's what's missing. And by the way, it's not an accident that a lot of these investigators are former law enforcement, and they're still fighting the war, man.

But you're not prosecuting criminals here. You can't treat a group of pro athletes like petty criminals that came from wherever you were working in law enforcement before—and by the way, you certainly can't treat them worse. And that's what's happening.

Because there's no system with due process and people are having phones confiscated without appropriate disclosures, without appropriate protections, without ability to have counsel, with all sorts of just old school fear and intimidation tactics. It's the Wild, Wild West.

And I totally support proper, thorough investigations; part of that statement includes due process rights. You've got to do this the right way. And if you don't, then we're going to raise exactly the issues that we raised.

Bill Ackman and PTPA’s Finances

Ben Rothenberg, Bounces: Just clarifying, because I saw him post about it yesterday: Bill Ackman, what is his current role with PTPA? Or, how would you describe his history with PTPA and his current role? Because he's not on the website or anything, but obviously he's been in the picture and involved in stuff. So how do I describe what his current position is with PTPA?

Ahmad Nassar, PTPA: Currently he has no role with the PTPA—not even an advisory role. Historically, before I joined, he was advising the players, Novak and Vasek in particular, about how to build this nascent organization. He did lend some money before I was involved. It has been paid back—and it wasn't a lot of money. And it was a loan, not an investment. So there's no PTPA business stake. So he's not involved, he's not an advisor, he's not an owner, he's not an investor, he's not part of governance.

I gave him a heads up that we were filing the lawsuit just so that he knew it was coming. And yes, it's helpful to have his voice on a place like X—and potentially beyond, right? He's obviously plugged in with the [Trump] administration. So that's just a smart legal strategy for us. But no involvement, no stake.

He really is a massive tennis fan, massive player. He has a tennis court bubble above his office in New York, which I think has been written about before. It's something to behold because it's crazy: a bubble on top of an office building on 11th Avenue. So no formal or informal involvement in that regard.

The history was that he was an advisor to the players, through the woman that he referenced: he had a little parenthetical in his post about Rebecca McDonald. Rebecca is a Serbian-Canadian businesswoman who served on the board of one of these railroad companies, and so Bill was also on the board as an investor. They knew each other; she knows Novak through the Serbian connection. So she was advising the players and then she asked Bill to help. This was many years ago, like 2020 or 2021. So that was how he originally got involved. Once I got hired, he stopped being involved in that.

Ben Rothenberg, Bounces: There's also still that for-profit arm of PTPA, though, that's called something else. Is he involved in that still?

Ahmad Nassar, PTPA: It not the for-profit arm of the PTPA; it's a for-profit arm that works with the PTPA. That's Winners Alliance. He did invest, through his family foundation—non-profit, so he's not going to personally profit in that. He is on the board of that, Winners Alliance. But that works across tennis, cricket, track, college football, a lot of different sports.

But it's totally separate: separate governance, separate corporate formation and structure and all that stuff. And then the relationship between that and the PTPA is very similar to what other U.S. sports unions have, and also the FIFA Players Association has a similar setup as well, where they have these for-profit affiliates that essentially help them commercialize and don't jeopardize their non-profit status and then helps them generate revenue for their players, for the organization itself.

But again, it's a totally separate, arm's length relationship between those entities. And no governance whatsoever, no visibility on the lawsuit, no involvement in who the lawyers are, paying for the lawyers, or any of that stuff.

Ben Rothenberg, Bounces: So the commonality here is that you are in charge of both of them, basically.

Ahmad Nassar, PTPA: Yes. Which is not unlike, you know, Andrea Iguodala, who runs the basketball union right now, former player; Tony Clark, also a former player of baseball; Boyd Howell in football—they kind of have dual roles as well.

Ben Rothenberg, Bounces: So if not from Bill Ackman, how is PTPA paying for all the expenses of this lawsuit?

Ahmad Nassar, PTPA: We negotiated rock-bottom rates—a benefit of a high-profile case—by running a multi-stage RFP [Request For Proposal] among 25+ law firms. We have support from other players associations globally, and we have PTPA-specific commercial sponsors.

Closing Thoughts

Ben Rothenberg, Bounces: Anything else you want to add that I didn't cover? I think we covered a lot, but if there's anything else, let me know.

Ahmad Nassar, PTPA: No, I think you got it. I mean, this is a process, right? And every day starting today is a day we can meet with the Grand Slams or the tours and say, OK, how do we want to fix this?

I know that's not gonna happen today; it's still early, but I'm not gonna hold my breath. But we want to get there. We don't want to get to court in New York years from now after millions [of dollars spent]. We really do.

So I'll just end where we started: we want to roll up our sleeves and work. I don't have all the solutions; I don't pretend to. A lot of these issues are tough issues. We're not trying to blow anything up. We're certainly not trying to bankrupt anything; that's not going to help the players. What we're trying to do is revamp the system in a way that many others have wanted to do in the past, but just haven't been able to do, because of this whole rigged system.

---

Thank you for reading Bounces! To support my work here, and to read the follow-up interview on other current topics, please consider becoming a paid Bounces subscriber (which I’m very confident will be worth it for you if you are interested enough in tennis journalism to have made it all the way to the end of this interview!) -Ben