Some of this I have sympathy with. A lot I don't.

They effectively seem to be arguing against random drug testing rather than focusing on looking for change to unfair elements of the system.

They claim a ranking system that rewards players based on how far they reach in an event is "unfair", claiming it forces players to play events when it's a best of 18 system. They argue it doesn't reflect who you beat or how close matches are - quality points based on opponents ranking were dropped ages ago (in part because players were complaining about them even though I thought they made sense) and how close a match is is ultimately irrelevant.

You could introduce some sort of bonus system whereby if you win a set you get X% of the round points or something (similar to 6 Nations where you get a bonus point for keeping a losing score within a certain number of points), but it's quite messy and I don't understand how it anything to the game or the players' experience.

I suspect they may be angling for a system based more like golfs? But the suggestion it's unfair the ranking system only rewards tournaments within the system is ludicrous - noone forces players to play WTA events. They could spend an entire year playing UTR, local events and exhibitions. But there's no reason the WTA/ATP should have to recognise those in the ranking system, it's a members association for starters. The reality is the players want to play the big keystone events, so they need to be ranked high enough to do so - what they want is to play a bunch of random big money events outside the Tour, but still be able to turn up at Wimbledon.

Not convinced. It seems some potentially good and meaningful points have been drowned out by pages of verbose posturing and general whining. As a result it loses a lot of impact for me, which is a shame. They would have been far better advised to drop the swathes of stuff that blatantly have zero merit and no chance of success and focus on a few key aspects.

-- Edited by PaulM on Tuesday 18th of March 2025 08:55:12 PM

indiana wrote:

---

Apart from making it more complicated to try and reward getting close in matches, I just in principle hate the idea. Sorry, I like that it's so much just about winning and losing, however players get it done or fail to get it done in a wonderful scoring system. It's about winning that final point.

And yes, in the bigger scheme of things,163 pages does, without reading any of it, strike me as likely verbose and unfocused, thus very unhelpful to its better thoughts and / or what they are most concerned about.

---

 And, yes, there's the nub 

163 pages is off the scale ridiculous

I'm not going to bother to read any of it 

When something actually gets changed, I'll have a look at it

Until then, they can use their 163 pages as a doorstop 

There is quite a lot of this about in society - not just in sports - recently: I would summarise it as "I want to play in the sand box that you created and curate, but I want to do it on my terms". It is nearly always phrased as "I have the right" rather than "I want", but want is what it is.

... and unfortunately (in my eyes) legislatures around the world are siding with the complainant in a lot of the cases citing a "fairness" mantra that really shouldn't apply.

It seems primarily to be a negotiating ploy rather than a serious legal case.

Really interested to read all your comments above. I agree that potentially valid points (prize money cap, sponsorship restrictions, use of player images) are drowned out by a lot of public posturing which undermines the credibility of any argument. Also agree with dodrade that it is more a negotiating ploy and believe this 'case' will never go to court.

I am not sure what value there is (or maybe there is from a legal perspective?) of individual players being named, and it's been pointed out that many players (eg Djokovic, Jabeur) fall under the PTPA so technically are included.

There was quite an interesting, if VERY one sided, interview with Matt Futterman on The Tennis Podcast yesterday: shows.acast.com/thetennispodcast

9vicman wrote:

---

So there are also complaints in the UK and EU. And none other than Jay Clarke is one of the complainants in the UK.

---

 I assume that just means he is a member of the PTPA.