.png)
4 hours ago
1
The breakaway players’ union that is suing the tours and grand slam tournaments has thrown its weight behind Tara Moore’s $20m (£14.7m) legal battle against the Women’s Tennis Association in a new front in the sport’s civil war.
The Guardian has learnt that Moore, a former British No 1 doubles player who this week brought a legal action for negligence against the WTA after being handed a four‑year ban for doping, is using lawyers from the Professional Tennis Players Association’s legal partner, King & Spalding.
The PTPA has already brought a legal claim against the WTA, the men’s Association of Tennis Professionals and three of the grand slam tournaments, accusing them of collaborating to reduce prize money and imposing a restrictive ranking system, in the same US federal court where Moore has filed her claim, that of the southern district of New York.
The players’ union, which was set up by Novak Djokovic six years ago but which he left last month, is also in the midst of a $1bn investment round to fund a new global tour, in another potential threat to the WTA and ATP.
PTPA sources told the Guardian that it is not paying Moore’s legal bills but is supportive of her claim, with King & Spalding understood to have been engaged on a pro bono – that is, free of charge – basis.
Moore was first suspended in June 2022 after testing positive for boldenone and nandrolone at a tournament in Bogotá. The 33-year-old has always denied doping and in December 2023 she was cleared by an independent tribunal, which found that contaminated meat was the “likely source” of the positive tests.
An appeal by the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) to the court of arbitration for sport overturned that ruling, however. In July 2025 Cas reimposed Moore’s original four‑year ban, removing the 19 months already served, in a ruling that stated she had not sufficiently proven the high levels of nandrolone in her system were accidental.
Moore is now suing the WTA for negligence, arguing that it failed to warn players about the risk of contamination from eating meat, specifically before the tournament in the Colombian capital. She is seeking $20m in compensation for what the claim describes as reputational and financial ruin, arguing that the WTA failed in its duty of care to protect athletes.
Moore also alleges that the authorities, specifically the ITIA, showed preferential treatment to more high‑profile players such as Jannik Sinner and Iga Swiatek, who were handed bans of three months and one month respectively following contamination.
A WTA spokesperson said: “We are aware of Tara Moore’s filing in the US district court and will respond through the appropriate legal process. The arbitration was conducted by a neutral arbitrator, and there is no basis to vacate the arbitrator’s award. We respect the judicial process and will not comment further while the matter is pending.” The ITIA was unavailable for comment.
A source with knowledge of the case told the Guardian: “We’re supporting Tara, as she has been treated appallingly. It appears clear there are different systems in place for different people.”
The PTPA dropped its anti-trust lawsuit against Tennis Australia last month after reaching a peace deal before the Australian Open, but is still suing the other three grand slam tournaments and the tours.
The court documents state that Tennis Australia has agreed to cooperate with the PTPA against the other tournaments, including providing confidential financial information, in return for being removed from the claim and avoiding liability for potential damages that could reach tens of millions of pounds.
