By Daniel Kaplan, Staff Writer, SportsBusiness Journal
|
ATP Antitrust Trial Heats Up On Day Two |
The second day of the antitrust trial against the ATP grew testy, with the lawyer for the men's tennis group yesterday accusing the German Tennis Federation (GTF) of falsifying documents. The German and Arab organizers of the Hamburg, Germany, stop are suing the ATP for planning to demote the event next year as part of a calendar reorganization. The case is shaping up as a landmark trial to test how far a non team sports governing body can go in setting the calendar and mandating player participation. But yesterday boiled down to often contentious exchanges between ATP lead lawyer Brad Ruskin and the President of the GTF, Georg von Waldenfels. Ruskin outlined that the transfer fee the GTF paid the ATP for the '05 sale of a 25% interest in the tournament was based on a lower sale price than the federation actually received. And he said the financial loss the GTF cited for '06 in its application to be a top-tier event was understated based on other financial documents the ATP received as part of discovery in this case. Whether this will be enough to convince the eight jurors von Waldenfels, who said he was unaware of all the details, is not credible is another question.
ATP ON THE OFFENSIVE: Ruskin himself was often chided by U.S. District Court for Delaware Chief Judge Gregory Sleet for his questioning, and at one point was told to stop editorializing. Ruskin also sought to undercut Hamburg's contention that it was never notified of plans for the demotion prior to the announcement. Citing meeting minutes from a '06 GTF meeting, Ruskin cited discussions among the federation's board members about changing the tournament status and date along the lines of what transpired. But von Waldenfels said, "From my point of view, if you ask it today, I'm not willing to be part of a cartel in which competition is thrown away. It's the wrong way for tennis in this world, even professional tennis." Much of the rest of the day was taken up by disputes about whether ATP bylaws allow for the organization to unilaterally downgrade an event. While the plaintiffs posted an ATP bylaw that seemed to show the ATP had acted against its own rules, the defense posted language from the contract for the '05 sale of the Hamburg tournament interest that seemed to by comparison allow for the right of the ATP to change the date and status.