After all the complaints about CBS’s coverage of this year’s Masters—missed shots, obstructed views, the Rory back nine glitch—I was eager to see how the network might rebound for the PGA Championship. After all, the CBS crew is at Augusta every year, and network producers know that course intimately. The PGA Championship, on the other hand, was being held on a course in suburban Philly that hadn’t hosted a pro tournament since 2018—a veritable lifetime ago in this industry.

For the most part, CBS matched the moment—especially given the leaderboard chaos on Sunday. The lack of drama at the end, though, cut into the excitement. Unlike at the Masters, CBS producers caught all the relevant shots, and their skillfully deployed drones helped tell the story. Sure, there were some challenges: Viewers had to suffer through two more groups before Rai could be crowned; there were still too many times when viewers didn’t know where a ball ended up; and there were a couple gratuitous Nantz-gasms pertaining to Rocky. But those are minor quibbles. In total, this performance marked a nice comeback for CBS’s golf production.

Also: Kudos to ESPN’s Scott Van Pelt and David Duval, who flawlessly and effortlessly called the weekend morning rounds on ESPN. Van Pelt was beyond comfortable and Duval seemed to have no filter—in a good way.

And now for the main event…

There was the French Revolution, and then there is whatever has been unfolding across big-money sports these past few years: a rolling declaration of the rights of man—and athlete. Across collegiate sports, motor racing, and nearly every other corner of the sports industrial complex, the pattern is straightforward: First comes the antitrust lawsuit, then comes the renegotiation of the entire economic order.

Pro tennis has now entered its own age of revolt. The French Open begins today, but before a single ball is struck at Roland-Garros, the tournament has already become the backdrop for what increasingly looks like a labor uprising. In New York federal court, leaders of the insurgent Professional Tennis Players Association have filed an emergency motion alleging that tournament officials denied them accreditation. The group, backed by players including Nick Kyrgios and Zheng Saisai, is now seeking a court intervention not only for the French Open, but Wimbledon as well. Without access, the PTPA argues, its representatives cannot monitor conditions on behalf of players or protect members from being pressured behind closed doors into surrendering rights.

The fight traces back to the sweeping antitrust action that the PTPA launched in March 2025, which sought to fundamentally reshape the sport. At the center of the dispute is prize money—and, naturally, the players’ desire for more of it. Their argument is simple enough: In a world where Larry Ellison can pay $100 million for a prestigious—but still second-tier—tournament like Indian Wells, why does tennis still have only four Grand Slams? The answer, according to the players, is coordinated restraint of trade.

The suit also attacks the ATP and WTA ranking systems, which the PTPA has argued operate like instruments of control. Under the current structure, players can lose standing not only for subpar play but due to injury, childbirth, death of a family member, and other circle-of-life events that might pull them off the court for a sustained period of time. In short, the players have argued, they’d make more money and enjoy more autonomy if their professional leagues removed the restraints preventing tournaments from competing freely against one another and eliminated the ranking systems’ coercive leverage.

The immediate question is whether denying accreditation to the PTPA constitutes unlawful retaliation. The larger issue, however, is whether an American judge is willing to wade into the governance of international tennis and actually do something about it. It’s one thing for a U.S. court to regulate an American league. It’s quite another to reach across the Atlantic and police red clay in Paris and manicured grass just outside of London.

The French Open and Wimbledon organizers—though notably not the Australian Open, which settled earlier this year and pledged cooperation with plaintiffs—are leaning heavily on that jurisdictional argument. In papers filed today, they urged Judge Margaret Garnett to stay out of the mess altogether, contending that the connection to New York is simply too remote for an American court to interfere with accreditation decisions made overseas. They add the accreditation controversy involves PTPA staff, not the player-plaintiffs who are actually suing.

The PTPA has not yet responded, though its reply is expected shortly. And the contours of the argument are already visible from the group’s opposition to the defendants’ broader motion to dismiss. Yes, Roland-Garros takes place in France and Wimbledon occurs in the U.K., but the business of tennis reaches deeply into the United States: giant outdoor viewing parties in New York parks; Wimbledon-branded strawberries-and-cream experiences and Pimm’s Cups sold stateside; and the roughly $650 million that TNT Sports is paying over a decade for U.S. broadcast rights to the French Open. This may be global tennis, but it is also undeniably American commerce.

Since this arrives as an emergency motion, Judge Garnett will likely rule quickly. And while the dispute ostensibly concerns something as mundane as locker-room credentials, the decision may reveal far more about where the broader antitrust case is headed—and which side is closing in on match point.

Speaking of legal disputes that travel quite literally, consider the predicament facing Spain as its national team, fronted by teenage sensation Lamine Yamal, prepares for next month’s World Cup matches in Atlanta. This, too, has become a jurisdictional headache, though of a different kind.

Spain is staring at a $46.6 million arbitral award stemming from the wreckage of the global financial crisis, when the government rolled back renewable-energy subsidies after encouraging investors to pour money into green projects. One of the affected firms, private-equity-backed Blasket Renewable, has spent years chasing payment around the world, including through U.S. courts. The dispute has now reached the U.S. Supreme Court, where Spain has asked the justices to clarify whether foreign sovereigns enjoy immunity from these kinds of collection efforts. The court has invited the Trump administration to weigh in.

Blasket, meanwhile, has no intention of waiting. The firm is pursuing aggressive discovery in search of attachable assets, and that effort has now swept up Spain’s national football team. These subpoenas, targeting U.S. vendors like Hilton and Adidas, seek details including where the Spanish squad plans to stay in Atlanta, the travel arrangements of accompanying government officials, and even endorsement deals involving players. Spain has moved to quash this effort, arguing that the football federation operates independently from the government and that the discovery effort amounts to a harassing fishing expedition that could jeopardize player safety. Blasket has countered that the federation is hardly independent in practice and that public money may be helping finance the U.S. trip. If so, the team and its cashflow becomes fair game for asset discovery.

A federal judge in D.C. has ordered the parties to meet and confer before returning later this month for a discovery hearing if no compromise has emerged. Which means that while four dozen national teams prepare for a World Cup stretching across the U.S., Mexico, and Canada, more than a few foreign ministries are probably wondering whether a trip to America also means wandering into the blast radius of U.S. judgment enforcement.

Thanks, Eriq. See you all tomorrow.

John

Need help? Review our FAQ page or contact us for assistance. For brand partnerships, email ads@puck.news.

You received this email because you signed up to receive emails from Puck, or as part of your Puck account associated with {{customer.email}}. To stop receiving this newsletter and/or manage all your email preferences, click here.

Puck is published by Heat Media LLC. 107 Greenwich St., New York, NY 10006