Garnett denied all six, which means the case now moves to its next phase, where the defendants must hand over documents and give sworn evidence.
Tennis Australia is no longer a defendant. It settled with the plaintiffs, and the court filing records only that a settlement was reached and that all related deadlines were suspended; the terms are not in the public record, and the removal was announced late in the year. The International Tennis Federation and the International Tennis Integrity Agency were also defendants when the case was filed in March 2025, but the players dropped them when they amended their complaint on June 24, 2025.
1. What is this decision? decide who is right
At this stage, the judge does not decide who is right. In the event of a motion to dismiss, he must consider the allegations of the complaint to be correct and ask one question. if all this turns out to be true, would that constitute a violation of the law? Garnett did not investigate any evidence, hear any witnesses, and verify any factual claims, because none of that is allowed at this point.
He was asked whether the players’ account, which is believed to be true, describes an illegal restraint of competition under the Sherman Act, a US law that prohibits agreements between competitors that suppress the market.
Skepticism about the existence of a conspiracy is not enough to warrant dismissal
His answer is yes, and he said it in a way that cuts both ways. The court, he wrote, must accept the complaint’s allegations “without giving credence to the defendants’ arguments about what they believe the facts will ultimately show.” When Tours offered innocent explanations, he declined to weigh them, noting that choosing between two plausible readings “is not a choice for the court to make on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.”
And he clearly cited the governing standard. “Scepticism of the existence of a conspiracy is not enough for dismissal. a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it strikes a reasonable judge that actual proof of those facts is improbable.”
2. Why the WTA failed to send its players to arbitration?
The WTA argued that its Rules oblige players to submit any dispute to the American Arbitration Association, a private body that resolves disputes out of court, confidentially, without a judge, jury and without public records. It is a much more relaxed option for the defendant.
Garnet read the clause carefully. It covers “any dispute… arising out of the application of any provision of this Code” and “application” means the application of the rule in an individual case. In other words, the point is built for the daily disputes of the circle; A player who believes his rating points have been miscalculated has been denied entry, a penalty he believes is unfair.
This lawsuit is not that. The players don’t say the WTA misapplied its rules. they say the rules themselves are the product of illegal collusion. As the judge put it, the plaintiffs “basically assume the opposite, that the WTA applied its rules exactly as they were written.”
He also rejected the WTA’s counterargument that, by referring to the AAA’s procedures, the Rules gave the arbitrator the power to decide even this question because the narrow clause plus a reference to those procedures was not the “clear and unmistakable” delegation required by law.
3. Why the US Open waiver didn’t work either
The USTA relied on a waiver of legal agreement seven of the plaintiffs signed to play in the 2024 or 2025 US Open, which sends any claims “related or incidental” to their participation to arbitration. In other words, you entered our tournament, you signed our form, so your complaint belongs to private arbitration.
Garnett found that no named plaintiffs have agreed to submit these claims to arbitration. Signing a tournament entry form is not the same as agreeing to be sued in a conspiracy lawsuit against the entire structure of the sport.
4. Why does each Tour (ATP and WTA) have to respond to other Tour players?
The ATP has asked for exemptions from requirements for female players and the WTA for males. The argument seemed to be common sense. men and women play separate tours, separate markets, and have done so for decades.
Garnett’s answer is the most revealing part of the opinion. Plaintiffs simply do not notice that the two schemes exist side by side. They point to ATP and WTA bylaws that restrict tournament operators from holding certain competitive events; an implied agreement that neither Tour will host events that compete for the other’s players; and the United Cup.
Combined men’s and women’s events are nothing new, from Indian Wells and Miami to Madrid, Rome, Cincinnati and, of course, the Canadian Open, but they are organized by tournament operators. The United Cup is owned and operated by both Tours, which is why it matters here.
Then comes the mechanism, which is worth quoting in full; “More than likely, for example, if the WTA were to lift its caps on the prize money that sanctioned tournaments could pay female tennis players, it would dramatically increase market pressure on the ATP to lift its corresponding caps on male prize money.”
Each Tour, according to this theory, benefits from the other holding the line. The complaint also mentions a specific example. both Tours have rejected events at the BNP Paribas Open, the Masters 1000 and the WTA 1000 in Indian Wells, in what players say is evidence of an agreement to maintain the pay structure.
5. Why Wimbledon and Roland Garros must answer in a New York court
The AELTC and FFT argued that the English club and the French federation had no standing to sue in Manhattan. Garnett invoked New York’s longstanding statute that allows a court to assume jurisdiction over a foreign defendant through acts of a co-conspirator in the state.
Co-sponsored by the USTA, the action is a staging of the US Open, though not just because it takes place in New York. An overt act, in this context, means a specific step taken to carry out the implied agreement, and it should not be illegal in itself. He writes that what is important is what happens in Flushing Meadows. participants are selected by ranking criteria agreed between the Slams and Tours, players must surrender commercial rights without separate payment and comply with Grand Slam rules approval restrictions, and prize money is paid according to arrangements that players say are bound by all contracts.
Because Wimbledon and the FFT sit in the same governing structure that writes those rules and benefits from them, the USTA’s behavior in New York is attributed to them.
6. Why the Grand Slams failed to reject the claims
The three Slams, which are still active, insisted that nothing specific linked them to the conspiracy. Garnett noted three written agreements. The Ranking Points Agreement, dating from around 1998, links Slam results to tour rankings and, at players’ expense, forces attendance in the system; the Grand Slam Rulebook, jointly written by the common governing body known as Grand Slam Tennis; and ATP and WTA regulations and by-laws binding the FFT as operator of the Paris Masters and binding the USTA as operator of Cincinnati until 2022.
Regarding the damage, he lists the three effects he complains about. the result is reduced because players who opt out cannot compete at all; and quality deteriorated due to forced attendance and “unreasonably long schedules.”
Slams’ responses that these rules fund their tournaments and protect their brand may later prevail, but those are arguments about the evidence, and the evidence does not weigh on a motion to dismiss.
7. Why doesn’t ATP go to Delaware?
The ATP cited a clause in its bylaws designating Delaware as the venue for disputes with its members, and asked that the men’s players’ claims against it be split and sent there. Garnett conceded that such clauses should almost always apply, then found this to be one of the rare exceptions; splitting the case would mean that the same players would bring nearly identical claims against alleged co-conspirators in two courts at once, with the risk of conflicting rulings.
8. Why does PTPA stay in business?
The Tours argued that the players’ association had no members, no injury, and therefore no standing to sue. The court found that it had associational status, the organization’s right to sue on behalf of its members, relying in part on Saisai Zheng’s affidavit confirming its membership, and noted that the organization was not required to name its injured members at this stage.
9. What is happening now?
Both parties, the fifteen players and the PTPA on one side, the ATP, WTA, FFT, AELTC and USTA on the other, must tell the judge how they intend to proceed. They must submit a joint letter three business days before Oct. 29, when they are scheduled to visit a Manhattan courtroom for a next-step conference.
The defendants now have three options. They can fight, which means disclosure by handing over internal emails. letters, contracts and financial records and handing executives over through depositions, where they answer attorneys’ questions for hours under oath. They can regulate, which means money, rule changes, or both. Tennis Australia has already done that and is out of business. Or they can try to appeal parts of the decision, which rarely stops the clock, so documents still need to be filed during the appeal hearing.
What tennis has lost, in other words, is the ability to finish this quietly. The next step is for the sport’s governing bodies to demonstrate how their system actually works.
