Judge Expresses Skepticism On Merits Of ATP-Hamburg Case

By Daniel Kaplan, Staff Writer, SportsBusiness Journal

Judge Expresses Skepticism Regarding Merits Of ATP-Hamburg Case

HIGHLIGHTS FROM CLOSING ARGUMENTS: Meanwhile, the two sides offered their closing arguments, with Hamburg's lawyer, Rob MacGill, describing the case as not a classic antitrust one because the consumers were tournaments, and not fans. The Hamburg argument is that the ATP has monopolized the use of players, and the consumers of those players, tournaments, have a right to sue. MacGill argued the ATP is not a league, but 63 separate tournaments that compete against one another. Defense lawyer Brad Ruskin countered that what Hamburg alleges is simply how any league or circuit operates, and that the ATP events work together on many levels. He also took a swipe at the plaintiffs, noting that several German Tennis Federation officials, and one from the Qatar Tennis Federation, which owns 25% of the Hamburg event, left the court after their testimony was done. By contrast, the ATP officials stayed through until the end. However, after the plaintiffs objected, the judge instructed the jury to disregard this part of Ruskin's closing argument. Ruskin blasted Hamburg for having a sense of entitlement when he argued other events were more worthy of the top-tier status, by the basis of attendance, TV ratings and geographic location. In fact, he called Hamburg's argument that the ATP had conspired to move tournaments around in an effort to demote the German stop as an example of the event's self-inflated thinking that it was at the center of the ATP's strategy.

Print This Article