The long-running legal dispute between the International Swimming League (ISL), a group of professional swimmers and World Aquatics finally has a trial date.
The class-action lawsuit led by named plaintiffs Tom Shields, Katinka Hosszu and Michael Andrew, along with a separate suit by the ISL, were initially filed in 2018, accusing World Aquatics of restricting their ability to compete.
The lawsuits allege that World Aquatics’ moves to block the 2018 Energy For Swim competition, and threaten athlete suspensions for participating, violated the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, which forbids organizations from engaging in anti-competitive behavior.
The ISL argues that by threatening the sanctions on the athletes, World Aquatics hurt its ability to attract top swimmers.
In a press release issued by Winston & Strawn LLP, the law firm representing the swimmers in the class-action lawsuit, a trial date of January 12, 2026, was confirmed, slated to take place in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco.
The firm adds that the lawsuit factors in subsequent competitions the ISL could have held in 2018 and 2019, in addition to the 2018 Energy For Swim meet.
“The plaintiffs allege that affected swimmers collectively would have earned millions of dollars in appearance fees and prize money at those events had they taken place,” Winston & Strawn LLP said.
“The plaintiffs are also seeking injunctive relief to prevent the Defendant World Aquatics from interfering in the future with swimmers’ ability to earn compensation by participating in professional swimming competitions, including those held by swimming leagues that are not sanctioned by World Aquatics.
“World Aquatics denies that it violated any law, denies that it organized an unlawful group boycott and denies that it prevented swimmers from participating in swimming competitions hosted by ISL in 2018 and 2019.”
Winston & Strawn LLP notes that any swimmer who signed a contract to participate in the Energy for Swim event in 2018, or signed a contract to participate in the ISL’s 2019 season, could be included in the lawsuit, and complete descriptions of the damages class can be found here.
The swimmers’ lead attorney is Jeffrey Kessler, who was also one of the co‑lead plaintiffs’ counsel in the House v. NCAA case.
The ISL ran for three seasons, beginning with a seven-meet schedule in 2019 before hosting expanded 13- and 18-event schedules in 2020 and 2021. In 2022, the league canceled its fourth season following the Russian invasion of Ukrainian, and never resumed operations.
In the long-running lawsuit led by Shields, Hosszu and Andrew, a lower court ruled in favor of World Aquatics in January 2023, but the ISL and Shields, Hosszu, and co. filed a joint appeal that June to reverse the ruling.
In September 2024, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a 3-0 ruling that the groups provided sufficient allegations to let their antitrust cases move forward against World Aquatics.
In December, the ISL sued the law firm Farella Braun + Martel in San Francisco Superior Court, accusing the firm of professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, and unfair business practices in its antitrust case against World Aquatics.
There are precedents:
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/it/ip_17_5184
https://time.com/6549761/european-super-league-fifa-uefa-competition-law/
According to this quote. If this goes through will there be a rollback on the Enhanced Games ban?
“The plaintiffs are also seeking injunctive relief to prevent the Defendant World Aquatics from interfering in the future with swimmers’ ability to earn compensation by participating in professional swimming competitions, including those held by swimming leagues that are not sanctioned by World Aquatics.”
In theory. The nuance in it is that the Enhanced Games’ affiliation with doping could run afoul of other rules that have been upheld by the CAS/courts, so they’d have to litigate that out.
The Enhanced Games ban is unlikely to be tested on an athlete, but rather will probably be tested by Brett Hawke (if any non-Enhanced swimmer ever chooses to train with him again). So it will depend on whether the courts think that affiliation with the Enhanced Games and Hawke’s direct coaching of confessed dopers runs afoul of allowable rules, or if it’s just an inhibition on free commerce.
Folks that I speak to expect that if it comes down to a verdict, the court would side… Read more »
Michael Johnson should have joined this lawsuit. He needs the money
I miss the ISL
(go dawgs)
The ISL should counter-sue Tina Andrew for all the nonsense and propaganda that she posted on Twitter using an official ISL team account.
This seems like it will come to a decision by a judge on how monopoly laws are applied in the USA.
On a related note, is it crazy to think someone would sue World Aquatics/USA Swimming because either ban participants from the enhanced games?
My thinking is that since WA and USAS ban doping and doping is borderline illegal, they might be able to.
I’m not a lawyer, but it does feel like the same fundamental underlying principle, with a little different nuance. The nuance is where things get interesting, I guess.
I’d argue they’re two very distinct products where USAS/WA would actually be competing with the ISL for participation and viewership. I think the only place it gets hairy is if they make any effort to block competitions.