The agreement brings to a close a long-running dispute over the governing body’s past actions to block the rival International Swimming League (ISL)
World Aquatics, the global governing body for aquatic sports, has announced a settlement with a class of elite swimmers, bringing an end to a years-long antitrust lawsuit.
The organisation, formerly known as FINA, will establish a $4.6 million fund to compensate athletes who were impacted by its efforts to block the rival International Swimming League (ISL).
The settlement resolves the case of Shields et al. v. Fédération Internationale de Natation, filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. According to a statement from World Aquatics, the fund will be distributed to swimmers who signed contracts for ISL events in Turin in 2018 and during the 2019 ISL season, ensuring they “are more than fully compensated.”
World Aquatics’ President, Husain Al Musallam, hailed the resolution as a significant benefit to athletes, while also distancing the current administration from the past.
“This lawsuit dates back to the previous management of FINA, and, regrettably, it has dragged on for so many years,” Al Musallam said in the statement.
“However, I am pleased that we are finally able to step in and provide this significant sum of money for the swimmers, many of whom were badly let down. I do not believe that it would have been fair for our athletes to continue to suffer financially, and this settlement ensures that the swimmers are fully compensated and reflects World Aquatics’ continuing commitment to the development of the sport of swimming and support for swimming athletes around the world.”
The ISL, a professional team-based league, was founded to offer swimmers higher prize money and new competitive opportunities. The lawsuit, led by prominent swimmers like Tom Shields, Michael Andrew, and Katinka Hosszu, alleged that FINA used its dominant position to threaten bans on athletes who participated in ISL events, a move that effectively forced the cancellation of the ISL’s first planned meet in 2018.
A turning point in athlete-governing body relations
The initial lawsuit, filed in 2018, accused the governing body of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act by leveraging its control over major events like the World Championships and the Olympic Games to maintain a monopoly over the sport.
A US District Court initially dismissed the case, siding with FINA, but a 2024 ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed that decision, allowing the swimmers’ case to proceed to trial. Facing the renewed legal challenge, World Aquatics chose to settle with the athletes.
While the settlement resolves the swimmers’ class action, a separate lawsuit filed by the ISL itself against World Aquatics remains pending.
The ISL, which operated from 2019 to 2021, has since been dormant, primarily due to financial challenges. The lawsuit’s conclusion also comes as World Aquatics reports record-high prize money payouts, with swimmers earning $7.1 million in 2024.
Devils in the details
The settlement with the swimmers came after a significant back-and-forth in the legal system, with multiple rulings that shaped the case’s trajectory.
US District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley initially granted FINA’s motion for summary judgment, essentially ruling in the governing body’s favor and denying the swimmers’ claims. In her order, the judge stated, “the record does not have sufficient evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could deduce any relevant market” for top-tier swimming competitions.
She concluded that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of defining the relevant market, which is a required element under the “rule of reason” antitrust analysis. The court also found that FINA’s rules did not prevent swimmers from participating in unsanctioned events, as the ISL was able to host competitions on its own.
The swimmers and ISL jointly appealed the decision. In 2024, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a 3-0 ruling that reversed the lower court’s decision and allowed the antitrust case to proceed. The appellate court’s decision was a major victory for the athletes, and it’s what ultimately led to World Aquatics entering into settlement discussions.
The appellate court found that a jury could reasonably conclude that FINA’s rules “cut off ISL’s access to top-tier professional swimmers, an input necessary for ISL to compete”.
Echoes of the past: The Enhanced Games controversy
The legal issues at the heart of the ISL dispute share striking similarities with a more recent and controversial challenge to World Aquatics’ authority: the Enhanced Games.
Like the ISL, the Enhanced Games is a new, privately funded competition that promises to provide lucrative opportunities for athletes. However, its core difference is its explicit rejection of anti-doping regulations, actively encouraging the use of performance-enhancing drugs under medical supervision.
In response to this new venture, World Aquatics introduced a new by-law that threatens to ban individuals who “support, endorse, or participate” in events that embrace prohibited substances. This is the same type of exclusionary threat that formed the basis of the ISL lawsuit.
The Enhanced Games has since filed an $800 million antitrust lawsuit against World Aquatics, USA Swimming, and the World Anti-Doping Agency, arguing that this new by-law is an illegal effort to “crush” a competitor.
While the legal and economic principles are similar to the ISL case, the ideological divide is far more significant. For World Aquatics, the ISL was a business dispute that could be resolved with a settlement and a change in policy.
The Enhanced Games, however, represents a fundamental challenge to the very integrity and values of “clean sport” that the organisation is built upon, making its hard-line stance not just a legal strategy, but a defense of its core mission.
