WTA no legal duty to protect players from objectionable comments from other players, fans: court filing

Filing made in Tsurenko case; ATP year after Russian invasion was still spending in Russia

The WTA Tour said in court filings it has no legal duty to protect Ukrainian players from pro-Russian invasion sentiments expressed by other players, or fans, and asked the court to dismiss a player’s lawsuit and compel her to cover the organization's legal expenses.

Lesia Tsurenko sued the WTA and its executive chairman Steve Simon for their approach to handling the circuit’s response the brutal 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which led to a protracted war that continues to this day. Tennis, like many sports, has struggled with how to respond. Ukrainian players like Tsurenko–once ranked as high as 23 in the world but currently at 286–want Russian players barred, and if that doesn’t happen for the tour to take action against those who voice support for the invasion.

Wimbledon did bar Russian players in 2022, but under threats from the WTA and ATP of revoking all of the UK grass court tournaments sanctions, reversed course in 2023. Tournaments do not identify Russians by their country, but by and large there has been no other change other than most Ukrainian players declining to shake hands after a match if the opponent is Russian.

Tsurenko’s lawsuit accuses Simon of bias against Ukrainian players and even telling her he thought Russians should be allowed to play in the Olympics representing their country. Current Olympic rules are that Russians can compete as neutrals.

“Sports associations, such as WTA, do not have an independent duty under the law to protect professional athletes from playing a sport against other athletes – or from playing in a stadium with fans – who have political opinions (no matter how objectionable) they disagree with or who are citizens of countries that have engaged in horrible acts,” the WTA’s lawyers wrote in a court brief. “Nor do sports associations have a duty to protect athletes from opinions allegedly expressed by their management in a private conversation about whether a player should be affected by the opinions of other players or whether certain athletes would be allowed to compete in the Olympics.”

So the WTA did not just argue it couldn’t do anything about pro-invasion comments from Russian players, but it seems almost any objectionable comment. So do sports leagues like the WTA have a duty to police what is said among players? If a player went to Coco Gauff and said dark skinned people should not be allowed on tour, does that also qualify as an objectionable opinion that the WTA can’t do anything about? The WTA seems to qualify objectionable as comments that are political; but then almost any objectionable comment can be couched as political. Are there comments so obscene, like the Gauff example, that the WTA would have to intervene?

For Tsurenko the situation has appeared to ruin her career, caused her panic attacks and forced her to withdraw from matches. Clearly that has not been the effect on all Ukrainian WTA players, as Elina Svitolina has had a career renaissance, and other Ukranians are top players.

The WTA also takes a more sports league traditional approach seeking dismissal of the case: the lawsuit belongs in arbitration. The player-forms Tsurenko signed to play on the WTA includes an arbitration provision. Lawsuit v arbitration is a standoff that has been played out repeatedly over the last two decades in federal courts, usually with the arbitration provision winning out.

A sport like tennis is different from leagues that take this position like the NFL and NBA. There the provisions are collectively bargained (at least with the players, not coaches). In tennis the players are independent contractors who may feel they have no choice but to sign the forms to compete (the WTA in a footnote maintains the players do not have to sign in order to compete).

A similar argument is being waged in the Professional Tennis Players Association sweeping antitrust lawsuit against the ATP Tour, WTA and ITF (soon to include the Grand Slams as defendants). The circuits argue the lawsuit should be in arbitration.

Like the ATP, the WTA has a fee shifting provision that requires any member who sues the tour and loses to pay legal fees. And the WTA is asking the court to enforce those provisions against Tsurenko.

***

A little more on tennis and Russia. Was perusing through the ATP’s tax return for 2023 (it only became available in May), and the tour made nine grants worth $25,000 to tennis players in what is described as Russia and neighboring states. This is a sliver of the $770,000 granted to Europe, but more than the $20,000 granted to North America or the $15,000 for South Asia.

The grants were made at a time when many sports organizations were divorcing themselves from Russia, and there was an effort to isolate the country, much like South Africa during apartheid. It’s not a lot of money but curious given the global environment. In 2022, the ATP made over $143,000 in grants to the region Russia and neighboring states.

In fact, the ATP’s activities in Russia and neighboring countries does not appear to have slowed significantly. In 2023 the ATP listed $699,000 of expenditures in the region. By comparison Europe is $50 million, and North America $434,000. In 2022, when the war started, ATP expenditures in Russia and neighboring states was over $2 million, as it was for North America. Grants to Russia and neighboring states were $143,000 in 2022.