US court dismisses Lesia Tsurenko lawsuit against WTA over Russia-Ukraine dispute

A U.S. federal judge in Manhattan has dismissed a lawsuit filed by Ukrainian tennis player Lesia Tsurenko against the Women’s Tennis Association (WTA) and former CEO Steve Simon, in a ruling tied to the organisation’s handling of Russian and Belarusian players following the Russia-Ukraine war. The decision rejects Tsurenko’s claims of emotional distress and negligence, reinforcing the WTA’s authority over player participation policies.

Tsurenko, a former world No. 23, filed the lawsuit in 2025, alleging that the WTA’s stance after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 caused her psychological harm. The case centred on the governing body’s decision to allow Russian and Belarusian players to compete under neutral status, as well as alleged internal assurances that were not enforced.

A central element of her complaint related to her withdrawal from Indian Wells in 2023, where she was scheduled to face Aryna Sabalenka. Tsurenko attributed that decision to a panic attack, which she linked to the broader context of competing against players from Russia and Belarus amid ongoing geopolitical tensions.

Beyond the individual episode, the case raised a broader legal question regarding the responsibilities of governing bodies in professional sport, particularly whether emotional wellbeing falls within their duty of care in situations influenced by external conflict.

In her decision, U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald ruled that the WTA acted within its authority and that Tsurenko had not demonstrated that the organisation was required to suspend players or prevent emotional harm. The judgment reinforced the autonomy of sports governing bodies in determining participation criteria and conduct standards.

The ruling drew a clear legal distinction between physical safety and emotional wellbeing, stating that existing precedent in sport does not extend duty of care to psychological distress. This interpretation formed the basis for dismissing the negligence claims brought forward by Tsurenko.

“When courts have found that sports associations owe a duty to their players, those duties relate to ensuring players’ physical safety, not their emotional wellbeing,” Judge Buchwald wrote.

The judge also noted that the WTA had exercised reasoned decision-making in its response to the invasion, including measures such as banning national flags while allowing Russian and Belarusian players to compete under neutral status.

Tsurenko’s lawsuit included allegations that the WTA failed to enforce internal assurances regarding players who openly supported the war. She cited specific incidents, including a case in which a Russian player reportedly wore a patch linked to a sanctioned oil company, as evidence of inconsistency in policy application.

She also pointed to a conversation with Steve Simon, in which she alleged he indicated that players could express support for the conflict without consequence. According to Tsurenko, this contributed to an environment that intensified her psychological distress during competition.

Her legal claim sought damages for breach of contract and negligence, including emotional distress. The argument was built around the cumulative impact of competing on tour under conditions she described as increasingly difficult since the invasion began.

In its defence, the WTA maintained that it had consistently condemned Russia’s actions and taken steps to support Ukrainian players. At the same time, it upheld the principle that individual athletes should not be sanctioned for the actions of their governments, aligning with the broader approach adopted across international sport.

The dismissal of the case reinforces the governing body’s discretion in handling politically sensitive issues and sets a precedent regarding the limits of legal responsibility in professional tennis. It also clarifies that claims based on emotional distress face significant legal barriers under existing frameworks.

Neither Tsurenko’s representatives nor the WTA issued immediate comment following the ruling. However, the decision is likely to have wider implications for how similar disputes are approached in the future, particularly as tennis continues to navigate the intersection between global events and competitive sport.