Finally! Kudos
jbart for compiling such a list. Hopefully you could update it, as there could be more to add.
Thus far I'd like to comment on a couple of things you mention. It is about the points system MR uses.
First, being too top heavy. This is what Barry Hearn wants. Quotes:
his strategy has deliberately centered on raising payouts at the top tier
Elite earnings boosted: Hearn's model has focused on significantly increasing the prize money for winners and top-performing players to make the sport more commercially attractive.
Critics have pointed out that the distribution of wealth remains heavily weighted toward the top. Lower-ranked players still struggle to make a sustainable income and sometimes lose in the early rounds of tournaments with very little or no prize money.
So this is hardly going to change soon.
Last, the rankings, which are basically the same payouts being equal to points. Yes, it is not good enough. But the problem is, MR does not know any kind of a really balanced ranking system, because they simply took the same approach they were already using in snooker and darts.
There are better ways to weigh various tournaments, but chances we see any changes in this department are feasible.
