(James Paterson is a lawyer and contributor to BackPageLead. He can be followed on Twitter @patersonlaw or http://twitter.com/patersonlaw)

The first decade of the new millennium was one of triumph for Roger Federer. 

The second decade has seen much more change - the end of his record grand slam semi-final appearance streak, tears following final defeats rather than victory, fatherhood and travelling with toddlers, the challenging emergence of a third musketeer in Novak Djokovic and now, on Thursday night, another Grand Slam defeat at the hands of Rafael Nadal.  Much of this change was to be expected as perhaps the game's best ever player enters the last few years of an iconic career. 

One change that was unexpected, was dissent from his peers.

In the lead-up to the Australian Open, Nadal broke ranks and said: "It is very easy [for Federer] to say, 'I am not going to say anything, everything is positive' and come off as a gentleman and burn the rest."

These fiery words were in response to recent comments from Federer that players should be less forthright in complaining about shortcomings in the Tour's structure. 

Nadal (and others) have been lobbying for a ranking system based on two years of results, and a reduction in the tour's schedule, generally opposed by Federer.  Other prominent players have also been less than enthusiastic about Federer's form in speaking for the general playing group, considering he is leaving others to do the heavy lifting.  Such is the angst among the general playing group about tour conditions that the sports law topic du jour has even been raised as a possibility - a player strike.

But before we break down the Federer/Nadal spat and the players' dispute, some background as to how we got here ...

The ‘ATP World Tour' is the series of tournaments we consider to be the ‘professional circuit'.  This tour is run by the Association of Tennis Professionals ("ATP"), a joint venture between the 61 tournaments and over 400 professional players, which culminates in an end-of-season championship tournament, the ‘Barclays ATP World Tour Finals' (formerly the ‘Tennis Masters Cup').  The four Grand Slams are not ATP tournaments but are instead regulated by the International Tennis Federation ("ITF"), with each slam run by its local federation organization.  

The ITF use ATP entry and ranking systems as the basis for determining entry and seeding into the Grand Slam events, and have also agreed not to organize a year-end event competing with the ATP's Tennis Masters Cup.  In return, the ATP may not schedule ATP events against Davis Cup matches, and awards ATP ranking points to Davis Cup tournaments.  Playing in the Grand Slams is mandatory for top ATP players under the ATP Rules. 

Tennis players are independent contractors - they individually enter into agreements with the ATP and ‘Grand Slams' to compete in their tournaments, and individually employ their own support staff in order to prepare for tournaments - meaning there is no union leader nor a collective bargaining agreement.  However, they are co-owners and controllers of the ‘ATP World Tour', a non-profit corporation governed by a seven-member Board of Directors—three elected by tournament members (representing the tour's different geographic regions), three elected by player members, and a Chairman/President, who has a casting vote. 

In order to represent the varied interests of players ATP Board level, the players have a 10-man council - comprised of four players ranked between 1-50, then two from the 50-100 rankings, two from the top 100-ranked doubles players, and two at-large members.  This Players Council then elect three people to represent the players at ATP board level. 

The player representatives and a proposed ‘Brave New World' tour restructure are where the recent anti-Federer sentiment has its origins. 

The ATP's Bylaws give the ATP Board discretion over the Tour's format - and just over 3 years ago it exercised that right to embark on an organisational shake-up after customer research supported a radical idea that fans wanted to see the best players playing against each other more often. The ATP simplified the Tour's format - channelling more top-tier players to the top-tier ATP tournaments as well as redesignating the tier categories of some tournaments.  This reconfiguration created geographic ‘swings' around the Grand Slams - linking the top-tier ATP tournaments to the increased prestige of the Grand Slams, as well as providing players with corresponding court surfaces for their preparation.

To enforce this structure, the ATP's ‘Brave New World' plan also introduced regulations to mandate top player participation - allocating greater ranking points to top tier events as well as being able to impose sanctions such as loss of ability to earn ranking points in later tournaments for non-compliance - all having an impact on entry into and seeding in the Grand Slams.  For example, all qualifying players are required to play all eight Tier I events (the ‘ATP World Tour Masters 1000'), at least four of the eleven Tier II events (the ‘ATP World Tour 500') and at least two Tier III events (‘ATP World Tour 250'). Further, all qualifying players were also required to play in the year-end Tennis Masters Cup championship.  These changes to ATP Rules also added a ‘Special Events' rule on the top 50 players, prohibiting them from participating in any non-ATP, non-Grand Slam events during the weeks of and surrounding the ATP events. In return, the tournaments agreed to increase the prize money levels.

These changes included a downgrade of a Hamburg, Germany tournament from first tier to second tier status, resulting in the loss of almost all the ATP top 10 players from the event - which led to the German Tennis Federation suing the ATP alleging anti-competitive conduct in the tour's restructure (see Deutscher Tennis Bund v ATP World Tour). 

While this action was eventually dismissed, the existence of the dispute was enough the stir the player's into action.  Federer, Nadal and then World No. 4 Nikolay Davydenko held a press conference to express concerns that there had been a lack of consultation with top players regarding the Brave New World restructure and the legal action. This led to the game's triumvirate, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic nominating for the 10-man player council.  Federer and Nadal were eventually elected, with Federer acting as President.  

After the legal action was dismissed, the ‘Brave New World' changes were implemented but the player grumblings over Grand Slam prize money have persisted over the past 12 months - notably on the need for prizemoney increases for the early exiting (lower-ranked) players.  The new structure has also highlighted a growing chasm between the tour's elite and its journeymen, as many of the tour's mandatory participation rules (and corresponding prize money increases) have been geared towards the players with higher rankings, without much benefit for, say, the doubles specialist.

So back to the dispute and the 2012 Australian Open, where player discussions about a Grand Slam boycott have been leaked, along with Nadal's comments suggesting Federer is not adequately using the role of Player Council president to effect changes for the entire playing group. 

Nadal sought to quickly douse the flames in subsequent media conferences, highlighting the pair's long-standing friendship. However, it would seem his voice is echoed by at least some on the tour.  In response the current ATP Chair, former Australian Davis Cup player Brad Drewett, has indicated that the board is listening to the players and highlighted a shorter 2012 season with an extra two weeks off, as well as a 20 percent increase in prize money occurring over the next three years.

But the issue does not appear to be going away anytime soon. In the lead up to the Australian Open, Reuters reported of players having a clear majority of votes in order to affect a strike of the event in protest of the lopsided payment structure, albeit the group did not ultimately pursue that course. 

On the tour scheduling and prizemoney issues, former world No.1 Andy Roddick noted that "[U]nity is a hard thing to attain ... While I think we have probably the majority, it's easy to talk about it, but it's another thing to go through the process and the work and the hours to try to get an angle."  Especially so when a shorter schedule for a top 10 player earning lots of cash doesn't necessarily mesh with the view of a tour grinder eking out a living.  A boycott would be a bold move, but are the top 10 players, for whom Grand Slam events are all consuming, really going to take such a step to assist journeymen competitors - particularly someone like Federer in the last year or two of his prime years?

Senior players have since downplayed that possibility. Former Players' Council president Ivan Ljubicic indicated that striking was never a real option, and discussion of its occurrence was just players getting a little hot and excited in the meeting.  The players plan to meet again in the months after the Australian Open to see whether any progress has been made by the ATP before working out next steps. 

Aside from creating a dissenting footnote to the otherwise pristine Federer career, the ‘Brave New World' saga has highlighted that obtaining a consensus among the players- particularly where the disparity between elite and journeyman is so large - is as difficult as herding cats. It also serves to demonstrate that the ATP World Tour's unique ownership structure, where players own half of the tour - having an equal voice at the board room table compared to, say, the NFL or NBA where a players' union negotiates with team owners - is not an automatic salve for labour issues.

While the players are clearly unhappy with the current arrangement, they are a little like the federal Opposition at the moment - happy to say no to the status quo, but without yet providing a clear alternative position.  This alternative position will need to be put forward before the threat of a strike is seen as credible, and gaining player consensus on anything more than cosmetic change to the Grand Slam prizemoney purses seems some way away.