On Aug. 28, 2026, the International Tennis Integrity Agency said Croatian coach Marino Jakic had been provisionally suspended since June 24, pending a full investigation of potential breaches of tennis’ anti-corruption rules in 2023. Jakic had appealed. On Aug. 18, an independent hearing officer upheld the suspension. No case against him had been decided, and he was still barred from the sport.
That is what a provisional suspension does. It removes a player, coach or official from tennis while a case is still open. This explainer sets out how the ITIA uses it under the Tennis Anti-Corruption Program (TACP), what it bans, how it can be challenged and what happens to the time served, using the agency’s own published decisions.
What a provisional suspension is
The ITIA describes provisional suspensions as imposed pending the full consideration of TACP charges. It is an interim measure, not a finding. The underlying case continues and ends either in a sanction, agreed or imposed after a hearing, or in no sanction at all.
The two grounds the ITIA cites most
Section F.3.b.i.1: failing to comply with a Demand. Refusing an investigator’s Demand is a ground on its own, whatever the investigation eventually finds. Russian player Mark Kaufman was provisionally suspended under this section from Dec. 24, 2025. When the ITIA later announced his sanction, it said the underlying offence was failing to co-operate with an investigation, including refusing a request to examine his phone. Azerbaijan Davis Cup captain Yalchin Manafli was provisionally suspended from June 11, 2026, for the same kind of refusal, the ITIA said.
Section F.3.b.i.4: a likely serious offense. This ground requires the ITIA to show a likelihood that the person has committed a corruption offence, and that tennis’ integrity would be undermined without a suspension, with the harm of not suspending outweighing the hardship to the person. In its January 2026 releases the agency quoted the threshold as an offence “above Category C2 of the Sanctioning Guidelines”. Its releases from 2023 used the older term “Major Offense” for the same section.
Who can be suspended
Anyone covered by the program, not only players. On Jan. 20, 2026, the ITIA announced five provisional suspensions under F.3.b.i.4 in one release: players Alana Tuayeva of Russia and Nikol Palecek of Serbia, and three national-level officials, Marko Ristic of Serbia and Zsolt Bagosi and Tamas Tarnai of Hungary. Jakic is a coach. Manafli, besides captaining his country’s Davis Cup team, has worked as a tournament director at World Tennis Tour events in Azerbaijan, according to the ITIA.
What it bans
The ban is total. In its August 2026 wording, the ITIA says suspended and provisionally suspended individuals may not play in, coach at or attend any event organised or sanctioned by World Tennis, the WTA, the ATP, the Grand Slams or any national association. Earlier releases named the agency’s members instead: the ATP, ITF, WTA, Tennis Australia, the French Tennis Federation, Wimbledon and the USTA. The change reflects the ITF’s rebrand as World Tennis, not a narrower ban.
How to challenge it
The suspended person can appeal the imposition of the provisional suspension to an independent Anti-Corruption Hearing Officer (AHO). The ITIA’s 2026 releases show how those appeals have gone:
- Mila Masic (Serbia) appealed on Jan. 23. AHO Charles Hollander KC dismissed the appeal on Feb. 19.
- Mark Kaufman appealed on Jan. 9, then told the AHO panel he intended to withdraw. After no further contact, AHO Diana Tesic dismissed the appeal on Feb. 18.
- Yalchin Manafli appealed. AHO Philippe Cavalieros dismissed it, finding substantial evidence supported the suspension.
- Marino Jakic appealed on July 13. AHO Amani Khalifa upheld the suspension on Aug. 18 as “supported by substantial evidence.”
Many never appeal. Draginja Vukovic of Serbia chose not to, and none of the five individuals in the Jan. 20 release did. In every 2026 appeal described in the releases cited here, the suspension stood.
What happens to the time served
If a sanction follows, the time already spent provisionally suspended is credited against it. The ITIA’s own dates show the arithmetic:
- Alana Tuayeva was provisionally suspended from Dec. 19, 2025. In March 2026 she accepted a suspension of three years and nine months and a $30,000 fine, of which $21,000 was suspended, after admitting to fixing two of her own matches at World Tennis Tour level. Her ban ends on Sept. 18, 2029, three years and nine months after the provisional suspension began, subject to repayment of outstanding fines.
- Mark Kaufman was provisionally suspended from Dec. 24, 2025. In August 2026 he accepted 18 months and a $5,000 fine, of which $3,500 was suspended. His ban ends on June 23, 2027, 18 months after the provisional suspension began.
A sanction without a provisional stage starts when it is imposed. Serbian player Luka Todorovic accepted a nine-week suspension and a $10,000 fine, of which $7,500 was suspended, for failing to report a corrupt approach in 2023. His ban began on Aug. 19, 2026, and ends on Oct. 21, 2026.
Anti-doping runs on a separate track
The ITIA also administers the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme, which has its own rules on provisional suspensions and is not covered by the TACP sections above. It also allows a voluntary route: in August 2025 the ITIA said Australian player Dayne Kelly had elected to enter a voluntary provisional suspension while under investigation for multiple anti-doping offences. For how doping cases have tested those rules, see our report on the Vondrousova ban and the wider fight over tennis’ anti-doping rules.
The question it leaves
A provisional suspension trades one risk for another. The TACP’s own test asks whether the harm of leaving someone active outweighs the hardship of sidelining them before anything is proven, and an appeal to a hearing officer is the way to test that judgment before the case is decided. Every player named in the 2026 releases cited here had a career-high ranking outside the world’s top 500, the level of the sport where the ITIA’s corruption cases are concentrated in these examples. For how appeals can go further, and go badly, see the match-fixing appeal that ended with a longer ban.
