ATP in letter to judge blasts Reilly Opelka for lacking credibility
Tour even questions Opelka's tournament excuse for testifying remotely
It’s not every day that a sports league or tour puts in writing that one of its players lacks credibility, but then there is the no-love-lost Professional Tennis Players Association versus ATP saga unfolding. In court papers the ATP wrote that testimony recently from Reilly Opelka lacked credibility.
To back up a little, the PTPA and 12 players, including the towering, burly Opelka, recently sued the ATP, WTA, the International Tennis Federation and the body that oversees drug testing in the sport for antitrust violations
The PTPA soon after filed a motion in the federal court charging the ATP with illegal lobbying of players to disavow the lawsuit. So the court held a hearing on April 11, and Opelka testified that an unnamed member of the Players Council told him that ATP chairman Andrea Gaudenzi had instructed this player to warn Opelka–and Nick Kyrgios–that they faced loss of their pensions and faced crippling legal fees if they did not drop their names from the lawsuit. The ATP denies they sent such a message (though the organization doesn’t deny briefing the Players Council on the ATP’s fee shifting bylaw, which burdens a member with the legal fees from an unsuccessful lawsuit against the organization)
In its letter to the court, ATP outside counsel Brad Ruskin had this to say of Opelka, “Mr. Opelka’s repetition of mistruths highlights the problem with second-hand information (from an unidentified source) and the reason it cannot serve as a basis to restrain ATP’s speech. That Mr. Opelka’s declaration said nothing about Mr. Gaudenzi further undermines Mr. Opelka’s credibility and the reliability of his allegations, made in court, for the first time, regarding Mr. Gaudenzi.”
And the ATP event took a swipe at the stated reason for Opelka testifying remotely and not in person on April 11: his attendance at the Barcelona tournament.
“Plaintiffs represented that Mr. Opelka had to `be in Barcelona on April 11 to compete in the Barcelona Open’ and insinuated that ATP was effectively retaliating against him by forcing him to miss play, ‘forfeit prize money and risk losing rankings points.’ At the hearing, counsel doubled down, saying: `He is playing in a tournament tomorrow.’ However, as Mr. Opelka admitted on cross, his first match was not scheduled to take place until April 14 at the earliest.”
The gloves are coming off in the battle between the ATP and PTPA, co-founded in 2020 by Novak Djokovic and Vasek Pospisil to represent tennis players whose organization contends are not properly represented by the tours. The ATP all but mocks the PTPA’s claim that it, and not the tour, represents players.
Ruskin in his letter portrayed the PTPA as “an organization whose stated mission is to undermine existing ATP governance by replacing the Player Advisory Council (“PAC”) and the board representatives they appoint with the PTPA.”
As for the PTPA in its letter to the judge, the group rehashed many of its arguments from the April 11 hearing: the ATP is pressuring players not to support the lawsuit, and the statement the ATP sought for the players to sign is evidence.
The ATP sent “ATP Board Director Luben Pampoulov into the private suite of a top-ranked player during the Miami Open to urge him to sign a loyalty oath to ATP,” the PTPA wrote. “Pampoulov admitted that when he approached one of those players, Sascha Zverev, in his private suite, he asked Zverev to sign the statement then and there—even providing a pen with which Zverev could sign it—despite knowing that Zverev had not been present for the full meeting at the time this statement was discussed with [Player] Council members
“Bans, loss of pensions, legal costs, ostracism, private pressure—these are all tools ATP is wielding.”
Judge Margaret Garnett had required these letters after the April 11 hearing and said she would rule shortly after. S0 that likely means a decision this week.o
The case is still in its early days, with the defendants’ answer to the original complaint not due until May 20. But the vitriol and hard words are in full swing.