A federal judge in New York has denied motions to dismiss the 2025 tennis antitrust lawsuit brought by the Professional Tennis Players' Association and 15 current and former players against the ATP and WTA Tours and three Grand Slam organizers. Judge Margaret Garnett ruled Thursday that the claims survive the pleading stage, and she also rejected bids to move the case to arbitration and to dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction.

The suit, filed in March 2025 in federal court in New York, alleges that the governing bodies conspired to deprive players and fans of the full benefits of competition while locking athletes into a system that damages their bodies and their finances. At the motion-to-dismiss stage, the judge must assume the allegations are true. The complaint alleges that "defendants and other tournament operators have entered into interlocking structures that suppress competition for professional tennis players' services."

Garnett also denied a joint motion from the tours to remove the PTPA as a plaintiff entirely. The organization, co-founded by 24-time Grand Slam singles champion Novak Djokovic and retired Canadian player Vasek Pospisil in 2020, launched the suit alongside the player plaintiffs. Djokovic left the organization in January 2026, days after the PTPA secured a settlement with Tennis Australia that removed the Australian Open organizer as a defendant.

Which defendants remain in the case?

The ruling leaves the ATP, the WTA, the USTA (organizer of the U.S. Open), the French Tennis Federation and the All England Club facing the antitrust claims. Tennis Australia was removed as a defendant at the end of 2025 following its settlement. The tennis anti-doping authorities and World Tennis were removed last fall.

What does the ruling change?

The decision clears the case for a lengthy and expensive litigation phase. The remaining defendants now face three realistic paths:

• Continue litigating, which would likely trigger evidence discovery, depositions and public disclosure of financial arrangements and personal communications;
• Enter settlement discussions with the plaintiffs, individually — as Tennis Australia did — or collectively;
• Appeal parts of Garnett's ruling, though discovery may proceed during any appeal.

The next in-person hearing is scheduled for Oct. 29, with all parties ordered to submit a joint letter summarizing their next steps no later than three business days beforehand.

For practitioners, the ruling is significant on standing as well as substance: the court's refusal to strip the PTPA of plaintiff status confirms that a players' association can pursue antitrust claims alongside individual athletes. Pospisil, a PTPA co-founder, said the court had made clear that the association can stand up for players in court. "That matters to every player on tour, not just those whose names are on the complaint," he said.

How did the parties respond?

The USTA said in a statement Thursday night that it would review the order and intended "to vigorously defend" itself. "The USTA has consistently operated in the best interests of the players and the sport," the statement read in part. "As a non-profit governing body, our mission is to grow tennis at every level — reinvesting the revenue generated by the (U.S.) Open back into all areas of the game, including record breaking levels of prize money, world-class facilities, and grassroots community programming nationwide."

The USTA added: "In 2026, we continued these efforts, once again offering the largest player compensation in the history of the sport. … We will continue to work with the players to address the issues that they have directly identified as important to them."

PTPA executive director Romain Rosenberg called the decision a moment of vindication. "For years, players were told this case would never get past the first hurdle," he said. "It has. Every defendant stays. Every claim stays. The players' association stays. Our door has always been open. Tennis Australia showed that a defendant can choose cooperation and reform over litigation. We invite every remaining defendant to make the same choice."

The FFT declined to comment. The All England Club had not responded to a request for comment as of Friday afternoon ET.

Why does this matter for the PTPA?

Garnett's ruling may prove a lifeline for the PTPA, which has battled infighting and internal lawsuits of its own through 2026. Djokovic, 39, said his January departure came "after ongoing concerns regarding transparency, governance, and the way my voice and image have been represented." The ruling keeps the association at the center of the most consequential antitrust challenge professional tennis has faced, with discovery looming over the sport's governing bodies and three of its four Grand Slam tournaments.