The Executive Board of the Men’s Professional Tennis Tour (MPTT) has announced changes to its rules pertaining to doubles play for the upcoming tour season. The Executive Board consists of three player representatives and three tournament directors. The MPTT “Doubles Enhancement” rules changes, listed below, apply to all MPTT Tour events except the four grand slam tournaments, which are not controlled by the MPTT. (However, grand slam seeding is determined by points accumulated during the previous 12 months of MPTT Tour competition.)
1. Sets will be first to five games instead of six.
2. Tie-breakers will be played at 4—4 instead of 6-6.
3. Instead of regular scoring, games will use no-ad scoring, meaning that at deuce, the receiving team will choose whether the serve will go to the deuce or ad court, and whoever wins the next point will win the game.
4. At one set all, a match tiebreaker will be played that is first to 10 points, win by two.
5. Players are prohibited from entering a doubles draw unless they also enter the singles draw, instead of being able to enter one or the other or both.
6. Doubles draws shall be seeded according to the players’ combined singles and doubles rankings, instead of based on the players’ best ranking in either singles or doubles.

The MPTT’s stated goal in implementing these rule changes is to make doubles a more attractive and vital part of the men’s pro tennis circuit, by making doubles matches shorter and of a more predictable length for ease in scheduling and more showcasing on feature courts; offering entertainment that will be more marketable to fans, sponsors, and television broadcasters; and making doubles matches less demanding in an attempt to attract more recognized players from the singles draw. The MPTT has included in press releases about the rules changes the following quote from the 2005 Master’s Cup doubles champion: “It’s better to play shorter doubles matches to encourage singles players to play more doubles. If the rules changes result in more singles players playing doubles, it will be better for the game, better for doubles, better for the tournament and the fans.”

Not everyone feels the same way. As professional tennis has evolved, specialization has occurred, and high-level doubles play requires a very different set of skills from high-level singles play. Several of the world’s top doubles players are doubles specialists who do not have very high singles rankings. In fact, very few highly ranked singles players play doubles, and many doubles specialists do not play singles at all. Many top-ranked singles players have stated that they would not be induced by the new rules to participate in doubles, because they prefer to concentrate their energy on their singles play.
Forty-five doubles specialists, led by Joe Dublin, have joined as plaintiffs to sue the MPTT. 

The plaintiffs have defined men’s professional tennis as the relevant product market, with submarkets of singles and doubles. They contend that the new rules “will upset tradition and unfairly change the system to exclude doubles specialists in favor of singles players.” The plaintiffs assert that not only will the new seeding system exclude doubles players in regular Tour events, it will also exclude most doubles players from the doubles draw at the grand slam events because those draws are seeded according to Tour rankings based on play during the preceding year.

Rules that have the effect of replacing doubles specialists with singles players in the doubles draw will increase the profits of tournament directors by reducing the costs of providing housing for a separate group of doubles players, reducing the costs of marketing and promoting doubles, and reducing the costs of offering lucrative prize money to compete with other tournaments for the best doubles entrants. The plaintiffs contend, therefore, that the tournament directors, who are business competitors, have joined in an agreement that unreasonably restrains trade under § 1 of the Sherman Act. They also claim that the new rules constitute a group boycott in violation of § 1 because they force out doubles specialists.

For their § 2 claim, the plaintiffs will have to prove that the MPTT is engaging in a willful attempt to assert or maintain monopoly power in the product market of men’s professional tennis. Plaintiffs argue that the MPTT Tour enjoys monopoly power over men’s professional tennis, including its submarkets of singles and doubles. They further argue that the new rules were enacted with a specific intent to ensure that the singles submarket enjoys monopoly power by destroying competition in the doubles submarket (tournaments will no longer have to compete for the best doubles players). This will harm consumers by turning doubles into a sideshow of singles players, providing a less skilled and therefore less attractive entertainment product. Effectively, doubles will be reduced from being its own legitimate sport to being a marketing tool—an opening act—for the singles tournaments.

The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction against implementation of the new rules, as well as court costs, attorneys fees, and any further relief the court deems proper.

1. Are the plaintiffs likely to succeed on their § 1 claim?

2. Are the plaintiffs likely to succeed on their § 2 claim?

3. Should the MPTT’s Executive Board reconsider the rule changes in light of the lawsuit?

4. If so, what new changes to the “Doubles Enhancements” would enable the MPTT to turn this situation into a public and player relations success story?