I know I’m putting my head on the chopping block, but I think it is time that I considered the matter of whether the formation of a player’s union in pool is an idea whose time has come or something that is impracticable at this undeniable hinge of times in our sport.
The theoretical argument in favor of having a players union is obvious, and seems almost unworthy of mention. On the surface, it is as simple as the seemingly incontrovertible concept that there is strength in numbers.
The truth, however, is that a union must have a clear mission into which most of its members have bought, a common vision among its members, to thrive. Without this, a union will not know what to seek, what to accept, what to repel, what principles to stand for, and what the milestones are on its road to achieving its goals. In the absence of unity of purpose, the principle of strength in numbers can, so easily, give way to the equally accepted notion that “too many cooks spoil the broth.”
The IPT, in hindsight, offered players a chance to get rich quick and who can blame any of them for biting. As Blackjack Dave often pointed out, however, it was hardly the mission of the IPT to grow the sport, a conclusion strongly supported by the IPT’s choice to distance itself from, and occasionally mock, every organization concerned with the overall growth and well-being of our sport.
The only basis on which one could have possibly presumed that the riches of the IPT might somehow stimulate growth in the sport is what most Americans call one of three things: 1) “trickle down” economics, 2) supply side economics, or 3) Reaganomics (a catch-all term for the economic policies of Ronald Reagan’s administration in the 1980’s). The philosophical basis of these approaches, which repulsed so many back then, was that making the rich richer would result in economic investment that would ultimately enrich all others in the economy.
Many embraced the “trickle down” notion, but the stark reality is that nothing trickled down even when the IPT was solvent. On the contrary, far too many poolroom owners and numerous other proprietors in the pool industry that became associated with the IPT got burned.
Would a players union have evaluated the advisability of signing up with an organization that was, in the eyes of so many, attempting a hostile takeover of the sport? I truly doubt it, because players were so fixated on the riches of the IPT that any potential incongruities between the goals of the players union and those of the IPT would probably have been overlooked.
I believe that the formation of a players union must be preceded by the establishment of a meaningful mission and purpose of the players, a vision and plan to grow and advance their sport. It is far more difficult than it sounds, but it is the challenge of the moment for pro pool players everywhere. Right now, I still see far too many in the pro pool community struggling to come to a meaningful vision for the sport.
It is time for the players to get on the same page, and the fact that a union is forming must not be misconstrued as evidencing a unity of purpose among pro pool players. From my vantage point, the principle that “misery loves company” has been the catalyst that has led to the formation of a union. If this union is to have any positive impact at all, its theme must become “developing a vision and a means of attaining it is urgent.”
After long consideration of the matter, I have concluded that the formation of a players union is well-timed, but the players will need to pull together if they are to make it work.
The theoretical argument in favor of having a players union is obvious, and seems almost unworthy of mention. On the surface, it is as simple as the seemingly incontrovertible concept that there is strength in numbers.
The truth, however, is that a union must have a clear mission into which most of its members have bought, a common vision among its members, to thrive. Without this, a union will not know what to seek, what to accept, what to repel, what principles to stand for, and what the milestones are on its road to achieving its goals. In the absence of unity of purpose, the principle of strength in numbers can, so easily, give way to the equally accepted notion that “too many cooks spoil the broth.”
The IPT, in hindsight, offered players a chance to get rich quick and who can blame any of them for biting. As Blackjack Dave often pointed out, however, it was hardly the mission of the IPT to grow the sport, a conclusion strongly supported by the IPT’s choice to distance itself from, and occasionally mock, every organization concerned with the overall growth and well-being of our sport.
The only basis on which one could have possibly presumed that the riches of the IPT might somehow stimulate growth in the sport is what most Americans call one of three things: 1) “trickle down” economics, 2) supply side economics, or 3) Reaganomics (a catch-all term for the economic policies of Ronald Reagan’s administration in the 1980’s). The philosophical basis of these approaches, which repulsed so many back then, was that making the rich richer would result in economic investment that would ultimately enrich all others in the economy.
Many embraced the “trickle down” notion, but the stark reality is that nothing trickled down even when the IPT was solvent. On the contrary, far too many poolroom owners and numerous other proprietors in the pool industry that became associated with the IPT got burned.
Would a players union have evaluated the advisability of signing up with an organization that was, in the eyes of so many, attempting a hostile takeover of the sport? I truly doubt it, because players were so fixated on the riches of the IPT that any potential incongruities between the goals of the players union and those of the IPT would probably have been overlooked.
I believe that the formation of a players union must be preceded by the establishment of a meaningful mission and purpose of the players, a vision and plan to grow and advance their sport. It is far more difficult than it sounds, but it is the challenge of the moment for pro pool players everywhere. Right now, I still see far too many in the pro pool community struggling to come to a meaningful vision for the sport.
It is time for the players to get on the same page, and the fact that a union is forming must not be misconstrued as evidencing a unity of purpose among pro pool players. From my vantage point, the principle that “misery loves company” has been the catalyst that has led to the formation of a union. If this union is to have any positive impact at all, its theme must become “developing a vision and a means of attaining it is urgent.”
After long consideration of the matter, I have concluded that the formation of a players union is well-timed, but the players will need to pull together if they are to make it work.
? ) 
