Doubles stars sue ATP

[Yours!05]

Doubles stars sue ATP
From correspondents in New York
September 2, 2005

A GROUP of leading men's doubles players sued the ATP Tour today in a bid to prevent the professional circuit from changing scoring rules and the qualifying methods.

The complaint, filed in US District Court for the Southern District of Texas, seeks an injunction to stop the ATP from implementing the changes and charges the organisation and its directors with antitrust violations and breaches of fiduciary duties, according to a news release distributed at the US Open.

The changes, including a streamlining of scoring in doubles intended to shorten the matches, are scheduled to be phased in later this season.

Players taking part in the suit include American twins Bob and Mike Bryan, who were ranked No.1 in 2003 and for most of 2005, Bahamian Mark Knowles and Canadian Daniel Nestor, the top-ranked team in 2002 and 2004, and Mahesh Bhupathi of India, another former doubles No.1.

The players, who plan to hold a news conference at the US Open tomorrow, say the ATP scheme announced two months ago aimed at phasing out doubles specialists, requiring them to qualify for the singles tournament to be eligible to compete in doubles events.

They say the Players' Council voted 8-0 against the reform but that tournament directors pushed through the changes that would hold down costs by having fewer players overall in the tournaments since they would be playing both single and doubles.

"They are monkeying with the integrity of the game," Mike Bryan said.

"People are going to lose a lot of respect for doubles. The players voted against it and the tournaments passed it anyway, so it's a pretty corrupt system."

The rules changes would not affect the best-of-five sets played in doubles at the Davis Cup, according to an ITF spokesman at the US Open.

Although rule changes would not necessarily be adopted by grand slam tournaments, players argue that doubles specialists could have difficulty earning points to qualify for the grand slam events.

Reuters

 

[gugafanatic]

I really cant see the Bryans getting into main draws and beating the upcoming younger generation of ATP singles players.

They are doubles specialists and the singles ranking should in no way coincide with doubles.

 

[Matthew]

Well first of all, Bob and Mike could both have decent singles careers. Top 50, maybe Top 25. Fabrice Santoro anyone? Anyway...

I'm confused. I'm only 17 so I don't know much about law or anything, and I don't understand what grounds they are sueing on.

with antitrust violations and breaches of fiduciary duties

I'm assuming that is what is suppose to answer my question, but I don't exactly get what that means. Can someone explain?

 

[VamosRafa]

They offer law school courses on those subjects. But in a nutshell, the players believe the ATP has a duty to protect the players and their interests, and they breached that duty by adopting the rule changes. I'm not sure, though, if the duty between the ATP and its players rises to the level of a fiduciary. That's a heightened level of duty that occurs in certain situations. The Trustee of a trust, for example, has a fiduciary duty to the beneficiaries of the trust and must act in their best intererests. I find it interesting that the players believe the ATP owes them this heightened duty -- and must act in the players' interest and not in the ATP's own interest. I see it more of a business relationship than a true fiduciary relationship.

Anti-trust laws are even more complicated, but in essence, these laws are designed to prevent unfair competition such that a company, such as Microsoft, could totally monopolize an industry. You probably will recall that the government sued Microsoft for anti-trust violations years ago, as Microsoft had taken improper actions designed to minimize competition, especially with their word processing and browser programs. The idea is that consumers benefit from competition, and companies should not be allowed to take certain measures to prevent healthy competition.

I'd have to see a copy of the complaint, but I believe the players are arguing that by collaborating with the tournaments, the ATP has engaged in anti-trust violations, favoring singles players over doubles, and creating some type of a singles players monopoly to the detriment of doubles players.

 

[Chopin]

The rule changes are not fair to doubles players, I hope they suceed in defeating the ATP.

 

[gugafanatic]

The ATP should be working in the intrest of the players and not making radical changes to improve viewing for spectators.

 

[VamosRafa]

I just pulled up a copy of the complaint; it's 40 pages long. There are about 45 doubles players listed as plaintiffs -- the guys you would expect, Bryans, Knowles, Oliver, Ullyett, Black, Friedl, Damm, Erlich, Suk, Ram, etc.

They have sued the Tour, Mark Miles, Patrice Domingues, Charles Pasarell, Graham Pearce, Tomas Carbonell, Ricardo Arioly and Bob Brett. The basic complaint is that these defendants have violated the anti-trust laws by controlling and using the ATP to restrain trade, to monopolize and to attempt to monopolize the sport to the detriment of doubles players. They allege that defendants' actions will effectively eliminate competition from men's professional doubles, along with the careers of those who excel at it.

Lots of allegations in there. Among other things, they note that superstars like Agassi, Safin, Canas and Gaudio have losing records in doubles, even when they do choose to play. Interesting, that they put Canas in there.

Finally, at page 32, I get to the first claim , which is conspiracy in restraint of trade in violation of the Sherman Act (which contains antitrust laws). They allege, in essence that the doubles rules constitute a restraint of trade based on an agreement among competitors to thwart competition in the market for pro men's tennis by eliminating competition by doubles players. They say this has created a de facto "group boycott."

Second cause of action -- conspiracy to monopolize in violation of Sherman Act. Requests an injunction stopping the implementation of the new doubles rules, claiming the rules create a monopoly held by tourney directors and the ATP on the production of men's singles tennis and men's pro doubles tennis.

Third cause of action -- another monopoly claim in violation of Sherman Act.

Fourth cause of action -- Breach of fiduciary duty of care. They allege, as I suspected, that the ATP has a fiduciary duty to protect all player interests, and not just those of singles players. Alleges the changes will destroy the game of doubles tennis and irreparably harm the larger game of tennis.

Fifth cause of action -- Breach of fiduciary duty of loyalty. Same as the above, but claiming the ATP has been disloyal to doubles players, by putting the ATP's own interests ahead of the players.

Sixth cause of action -- declaratory relief -- Requests that the court declare that the new rules breach antitrust laws and fiduciary obligations, and thus are void.

They aren't suing for money. They basically are suing for an injunction prohibiting the rules from going in to effect.

So that's the gist. Lots of interesting background info on the history of the ATP and the doubles sport.

I think the complaint looks pretty good -- not sure whether the ATP has a fiduciary obligation to the players. Obviously, they have some kind of a duty to the players, but a fiduciary obligation is a high standard.

 

[Yours!05]

VamosRafa

Susan - thanks for sharing your expertise.

 

[VamosRafa]

Susan - thanks for sharing your expertise.

De nada. For once my two interests coincide. But I was pulling this for Bob Larson Tennis anyway. I'll probably do an analysis on it after Rafa is out of the Open. Hopefully I won't be working on that tomorrow.

 

[Rob_C]

The ATP should be working in the intrest of the players and not making radical changes to improve viewing for spectators.

The changes arent meant for the spectators benefit, they're meant to save the tournaments money. Tournaments have to provide hospitality for all main draw players, singles & doubles. The don't feel that most doubles players are big enough draws, or bring in enough revenue to justify the expense.

 

[DashaandSafin]

I dont think the ATP players should sue so quickly. They can keep on appealing to the ATP, until, of course, the ATP says no. I think changing doubles to 4 games and no Deuce's is ridiculous. Thats...really destroying the integrity of the sport, not powerful racquets like the Big Bubba.

 

[AndrewD]

VamosRafa,

I understand that the real reason for the lawsuit is that the players want the ATP board dissolved, not just the ruling on doubles overturned. What we've heard here, from players and coaches, is that the ATP is, allegedly, supposed to have a responsibility to act in the best interests of the players - all players, doubles and singles. By approving changes to doubles they've violated that responsibility.

What is interesting is the ATP's Mission Statement. It says:

As the governing body of the men's professional tennis circuit, the ATP is committed to 'creatively' and 'professionally' leading the worldwide growth of the game, building on the rich traditions of tennis and innovation to ensure it is always 'vibrant' and 'relevant' (the quote marks are mine).

Interestingly, no mention of the players in that which will, no doubt, prove to be a significant factor, with the players claiming the ATP was designed to work for them (as it was) and the ATP claiming it works only in the best interests (or, how they see them to be) of tennis.

Still, how do you define 'vibrant' and 'relevant'? Vibrant and relevant to who? If they change the doubles format then, obviously, it's no longer vibrant and relevant for the doubles players. Also, who is this target audience that vibrancy, relevance and innovation are intended to appease?

I did posit a question to Weller Evans asking which public the ATP gears their marketing towards as Ive read that these changes come after much consultation and polling of tennis fans. Asked around quite extensively out here (also asked the umpire's association) and no-one's heard a thing. Unfortunately, I don't think my question is one of those selected to be answered by Mr.Evans

 

[Matthew]

Thanks a lot Susan. Thats a lot of info.

 

[VamosRafa]

Interesting thoughts, Andrew. The suit just asks that the new rules be declared null and void, and that the ATP and the other defendants be precluded from enforcing them. I suppose that if that were to occur, there could be a reshuffling of the Board, as a practical matter, even though it is not part of the case.

But I suspect the real purpose of the lawsuit is to get the parties together and to perhaps work out a solution that all sides can live with.

 

[rfprse]

VamosRafa,
Since you have a close relationship with Rafa, would you be able to explain how Rafa ended up as a poster boy for the "enhancement" of doubles conjured up by ATP?
I was not sure he was really welcoming such a change of doubles format as ATP claims or it was used out of context by ATP, when I read ATP announcement of the change.

 

[VamosRafa]

VamosRafa,
Since you have a close relationship with Rafa, would you be able to explain how Rafa ended up as a poster boy for the "enhancement" of doubles conjured up by ATP?
I was not sure he was really welcoming such a change of doubles format as ATP claims or it was used out of context by ATP, when I read ATP announcement of the change.

I wouldn't call it a close relationship. I think they asked him about it, and he said he'd play more doubles if the format made it more convenient for him to play both singles and doubles. And he would. Until recently, he played doubles in nearly every tournament. Even though he's a top player, he is still fine-tuning his game, and believes doubles helps with that. But obviously, now that he's going deeper into the singles draws, he's finding it more difficult to play doubles. The proposed format will make it easier for him to play doubles. And I'm sure the ATP seized on that, because he's one of the few "star" players who will play in both draws.

 

[AndrewD]

I think, in all fairness to Nadal, it is very unlikely he was making a conscious statement regarding the new doubles format. More than likely he was just answering a simple question as to whether or not he'd play more doubles in the future and he said yes (in much the same way that former greats like Edberg, Becker, Sampras, Cash, Rafter, etc did in their early days). Unfortunately it ended up as a great quote/endorsement for the ATP. Of course, if they'd asked him would he still be playing doubles in another 2 years time I'll bet the answer would be different.

I realise he's the 'future of tennis' -or how ever else you want to phrase it- but I do think it particularly callous of the ATP to make use a teenager in that way, just to drive their agenda.

 

[rfprse]

I think, in all fairness to Nadal, it is very unlikely he was making a conscious statement regarding the new doubles format. More than likely he was just answering a simple question as to whether or not he'd play more doubles in the future and he said yes (in much the same way that former greats like Edberg, Becker, Sampras, Cash, Rafter, etc did in their early days). Unfortunately it ended up as a great quote/endorsement for the ATP. Of course, if they'd asked him would he still be playing doubles in another 2 years time I'll bet the answer would be different.

I realise he's the 'future of tennis' -or how ever else you want to phrase it- but I do think it particularly callous of the ATP to make use a teenager in that way, just to drive their agenda.

I share the same thought about the case. That's why I'd like to hear an "insider" story. It seems to be a rather devious act of ATP using a teenager in such a way. Hope someone in Nadal's camp will make it clear to the tennis fans who are angry at ATP's behavior.
If ATP really keeps on taking the same side of tournaments and the sponsors instead of players whom they are supposed to protect, players really need a new organaztion. Who knew I would say Hewitt was onto something. Ferreira, where are you?

 

[Jill]

Is there anywhere to read the complaint? I'd like to take a peek at it but Westlaw doesn't seem to have it yet (that or I don't know how to use the court documents locator properly). thanks!

 

[AAAA]

They offer law school courses on those subjects. But in a nutshell, the players believe the ATP has a duty to protect the players and their interests, and they breached that duty by adopting the rule changes. I'm not sure, though, if the duty between the ATP and its players rises to the level of a fiduciary. That's a heightened level of duty that occurs in certain situations. The Trustee of a trust, for example, has a fiduciary duty to the beneficiaries of the trust and must act in their best intererests. I find it interesting that the players believe the ATP owes them this heightened duty -- and must act in the players' interest and not in the ATP's own interest. I see it more of a business relationship than a true fiduciary relationship.

Anti-trust laws are even more complicated, but in essence, these laws are designed to prevent unfair competition such that a company, such as Microsoft, could totally monopolize an industry. You probably will recall that the government sued Microsoft for anti-trust violations years ago, as Microsoft had taken improper actions designed to minimize competition, especially with their word processing and browser programs. The idea is that consumers benefit from competition, and companies should not be allowed to take certain measures to prevent healthy competition.

I'd have to see a copy of the complaint, but I believe the players are arguing that by collaborating with the tournaments, the ATP has engaged in anti-trust violations, favoring singles players over doubles, and creating some type of a singles players monopoly to the detriment of doubles players.

Sincerely, easily your best post.

 

[barry]

Doubles stars sue ATP
From correspondents in New York
September 2, 2005

A GROUP of leading men's doubles players sued the ATP Tour today in a bid to prevent the professional circuit from changing scoring rules and the qualifying methods.

The complaint, filed in US District Court for the Southern District of Texas, seeks an injunction to stop the ATP from implementing the changes and charges the organisation and its directors with antitrust violations and breaches of fiduciary duties, according to a news release distributed at the US Open.

The changes, including a streamlining of scoring in doubles intended to shorten the matches, are scheduled to be phased in later this season.

Players taking part in the suit include American twins Bob and Mike Bryan, who were ranked No.1 in 2003 and for most of 2005, Bahamian Mark Knowles and Canadian Daniel Nestor, the top-ranked team in 2002 and 2004, and Mahesh Bhupathi of India, another former doubles No.1.

The players, who plan to hold a news conference at the US Open tomorrow, say the ATP scheme announced two months ago aimed at phasing out doubles specialists, requiring them to qualify for the singles tournament to be eligible to compete in doubles events.

They say the Players' Council voted 8-0 against the reform but that tournament directors pushed through the changes that would hold down costs by having fewer players overall in the tournaments since they would be playing both single and doubles.

"They are monkeying with the integrity of the game," Mike Bryan said.

"People are going to lose a lot of respect for doubles. The players voted against it and the tournaments passed it anyway, so it's a pretty corrupt system."

The rules changes would not affect the best-of-five sets played in doubles at the Davis Cup, according to an ITF spokesman at the US Open.

Although rule changes would not necessarily be adopted by grand slam tournaments, players argue that doubles specialists could have difficulty earning points to qualify for the grand slam events.

Reuters

Hope the Double players win. The ATP does not represent the players, just the tournament organizers. The players for years have been trying to force the ATP to correct the draws. They feel like many ranking should determine seeds, and seeding order should be consistent for every tournament.

 

[gully]

Hope the Double players win. The ATP does not represent the players, just the tournament organizers. The players for years have been trying to force the ATP to correct the draws. They feel like many ranking should determine seeds, and seeding order should be consistent for every tournament.

I too hope the doubles players win, becuase their liveliood is at stake.

But the rest of this comment is just a lame attempt at a threadjack, since the draws do not need "correcting" (unless your name is barry and you don't like 'em) and ranking does determine seeding at every tournament except Wimbledon (which uses a formula based on rank), and seeding order is consistent at all tournaments, as it ensures that seeds do not meet each other prematurely.

The fact that it's not done "barry's way" does not mean "the players have been trying to force the ATP to correct the draws" -- a comment which is flat-out ludicrous. No, they haven't. Got evidence to show that they have "been trying"? No, he hasn't. All he's got is a nutjob theory and an internet connection.

Back on topic, and away from the threadjack attempt: Susan, thanks for your analysis and expertise on the suit. Much appreciated. While I (and everyone else, it seems) is against the ATP on the doubles changes, I can't really see how the case can succeed in court.

Also, it would be interesting to know the context of Rafa's comments on the changes. Do you think they were fully explained to him, or do you think he was merely asked if he'd play more doubles under certain circumstances? Do you think that conversation was held in Spanish or English? Knowing this would help us know just what Rafa was intending with his comments.

 

[Yours!05]

Doubles Controversy Just About Over

Doubles Controversy Just About Over

September 6

The raging controversy over the future of men's doubles is virtually over after newly hired chairman of the board Etienne de Villiers delivered a very promising settlement proposal to the 45 players who last Thursday sued the ATP Tour.

The key points from de Villiers:

* Revocation of the "2008 Rule," which would have prohibited any player from participating in doubles at an ATP event who was not concurrently in the singles draw. That would have effectively killed doubles.

* Accept the several low-financial impact proposals from the players, including the hiring of a director of doubles, who would be a sort of advocate for the doubles players. Other items on that players list include requiring tournament directors to post placards on the grounds showing the doubles rankings and the doubles draw and making a full effort to promote doubles with free clinics and radio, TV and newspaper spots.

* Continue with plans for an experimental use of altered scoring for the rest of the season, beginning after the U.S. Open. That means no-ad scoring (receiving team getting choice of ad or deuce box on the seventh and final point), tiebreaks at 5-5 instead of 6-6 and super-tiebreaks is sets are one-all.

There is still a hard core of players who want to get rid of the scoring changes as well, but there appears to be a growing feeling that de Villiers is going to be reasonable to deal with in settling all the issues that have driven doubles players to sue, and they're willing to drop the suit.

Players are scheduled to meet again Wednesday with representatives of de Villiers, who is in London recovering from successful prostate cancer surgery.

http://blogs.sun-sentinel.com/sports_tennis/

 

[gully]

Doubles Controversy Just About Over

Like too often is the case these litigious days, the threat of a lawsuit is apparently all it takes to change the minds of those in charge. Oh well -- Weller's comments were interesting, and let's be glad most proposed changes will be abandoned (as well as the suit itself, I suppose).

 

[andfor]

Hope the Double players win. The ATP does not represent the players, just the tournament organizers. The players for years have been trying to force the ATP to correct the draws. They feel like many ranking should determine seeds, and seeding order should be consistent for every tournament.

Chadwixx? Is that you using Barry's name again? Shame on you.

 

[VamosRafa]

Sincerely, easily your best post.

*lol* As long as the players keep suing the ATP, I may be in business around here.

But as I said before, I think the players were forcing the ATP's hand, and it appears to have worked. Litigation has its uses, but it generally is a no-win situation when the parties involved, such as here, have every reason to try to work out an amicable solution.

I hope it works out. The new rules seemed OTT, but at the same time, one can understand that tournaments cannot subsidize events that do not generate money, and in fact, cost money. There has to be a happy medium, and let's hope they find it.

 

[AndrewD]

Like too often is the case these litigious days, the threat of a lawsuit is apparently all it takes to change the minds of those in charge. Oh well -- Weller's comments were interesting, and let's be glad most proposed changes will be abandoned (as well as the suit itself, I suppose).

I agree, his comments were interesting but also a little bit unsettling. Personally, Id still like to know who the ATP thinks its target public is - the fans ( is it all fans of all nationalities or more specific group), the networks or the promoters.

Regardless, if they do go through with the changes then I'll make a very simple point of not attending any ATP events. I'll go to ITF or WTA ones but not ATP. I realise, in the grand scheme of things, that doesn't amount to much but I wouldnt be willing to support a system that reduced any aspect of tennis to a raffle. Also, if I pay for a ticket I want to get my money's worth and I wont be getting that by watching an abridged version of the game.

 

[wildbill88AA]

fyi-for those unaware of the silly rule changes.

http://www.atptennis.com/en/newsandscores/news/2005/doubles_changes.asp

 

[rfprse]

I think atp should clarify what would be used as the measure of success of the new scoring format, which they seem to hold on for the rest of season. I'm happy for the doubles players if they can keep their jobs as a result of revoking the "2008" rule. But from the general tennis public's perspective, if they keep the format change, it just amounts to killing the doubles anyway.