Players dropping out of the Matchroom/Predator CLP
- Thread starter CaleAYS
- Start date
DieselPete
Active member
This is absurd.
Consider that a tennis tournament is sponsored by Dunlop. A player has an endorsement deal with Wilson that requires him to play a Wilson racket and sport a Wilson logo on the chest of his shirt. Would it be acceptable for the tournament to tell the player that to enter the tournament he must also sport a Dunlop logo on his shirt? Even if that was under the guise that it is the "Dunlop Tournament" logo? I believe that pigs would f-ing fly before the players would allow the event to dictate to them what they must wear on their bodies/clothing.
It's your event. Good. Go ahead and put signage everywhere, have the logos up as we go to commercial and return, say over and over on the commentary that it is the "whatever tournament." To me, this response reads as, "We're allowing the players to honor their contracts while we make a backdoor move to trample all over them by putting our competing logo on their clothing as well."
Consider that a tennis tournament is sponsored by Dunlop. A player has an endorsement deal with Wilson that requires him to play a Wilson racket and sport a Wilson logo on the chest of his shirt. Would it be acceptable for the tournament to tell the player that to enter the tournament he must also sport a Dunlop logo on his shirt? Even if that was under the guise that it is the "Dunlop Tournament" logo? I believe that pigs would f-ing fly before the players would allow the event to dictate to them what they must wear on their bodies/clothing.
It's your event. Good. Go ahead and put signage everywhere, have the logos up as we go to commercial and return, say over and over on the commentary that it is the "whatever tournament." To me, this response reads as, "We're allowing the players to honor their contracts while we make a backdoor move to trample all over them by putting our competing logo on their clothing as well."
What a strange situation. It's a case where both Predator and the players both make a solid case for having things their way. As noted by Diesel Pete in post #26, Predator is not only the title sponsor here, but they also own the event, which does make this situation a little different than the norm. The players can wear their sponsor logos, but must aslo wear a patch that will promote the Predator Champions Pool League, too.
While the players may be making a stand here, when big-name players boycott an event that may have a bright future, they sometimes doom that event to extinction. I think we all remember what happened with the Ultimate 10-ball event. At a time when Matchroom is committing more and more dollars to pro pool, this action may not sit well with them, as JAM hinted in post #9. Matchroom, in my opinion, has done right by the players of late, having gone to great lengths to find a way to avoid cancellation of the 2020 Mosconi Cup. The four players that are walking out on this event walked away with a combined $90,000 in the 2020 Mosconi Cup.
My opinion is that sponsors like Cuetec should have authorized their player representatives to play despite the somewhat harsh, but not thoroughly unreasonable, rules being set by Predator, deferring the logo fight to another day. Getting in the way of an emerging event is a pretty lousy idea right now, and the danger is that Matchroom's appetite for introduction of new events may be diminished.
Right or wrong, the bottom line here, as I see it, is that the players are being forced by their sponsors to bite the hand that feeds them. Perhaps by taking a stand here, a future benefit will accrue to them and their sponsors, but I'm guessing that it won't play out that way.
A regrettable mess for sure.
While the players may be making a stand here, when big-name players boycott an event that may have a bright future, they sometimes doom that event to extinction. I think we all remember what happened with the Ultimate 10-ball event. At a time when Matchroom is committing more and more dollars to pro pool, this action may not sit well with them, as JAM hinted in post #9. Matchroom, in my opinion, has done right by the players of late, having gone to great lengths to find a way to avoid cancellation of the 2020 Mosconi Cup. The four players that are walking out on this event walked away with a combined $90,000 in the 2020 Mosconi Cup.
My opinion is that sponsors like Cuetec should have authorized their player representatives to play despite the somewhat harsh, but not thoroughly unreasonable, rules being set by Predator, deferring the logo fight to another day. Getting in the way of an emerging event is a pretty lousy idea right now, and the danger is that Matchroom's appetite for introduction of new events may be diminished.
Right or wrong, the bottom line here, as I see it, is that the players are being forced by their sponsors to bite the hand that feeds them. Perhaps by taking a stand here, a future benefit will accrue to them and their sponsors, but I'm guessing that it won't play out that way.
A regrettable mess for sure.
however they explain their policy, the end result is that the world 9-ball champion and the most recognized contemporary american player won't attend.
Does anyone feel that a title sponsor -- the sponsor that provides the majority of the added money -- should not be able to control the advertising images of related products appearing at the event? I'm trying to imagine what would have happened if Tiger Woods had worn a "Built Ford Tough" hat at the Buick Open.
It seems to me that some don't want pool to have sponsors because sponsors might be looking out for their own interests.
It seems to me that some don't want pool to have sponsors because sponsors might be looking out for their own interests.
That is exactly how I feel. Exactly! It is amazing that there is a lot of railbird chatter about this problem, yet there's not much coming from the players themselves, who seem to be mute on this issue.
The only thing I can think of is that their "contracts" with their sponsors, say, Cuetec, as an example, have a clause that says the player cannot wear a logo of another sponsor.
But in this case, the logo is CLP, Championship League Pool. I don't see what harm that would do.
I think that that's exactly why companies sponsor athletes! Why else?
From a player's perspective, who is Matchroom or Predator to force a player to wear a logo on their shirt. This isn't a free invitational, all expenses aren't paid, the players have to pay an entry fee, along with all of their expenses including travel. As an event sponsor, Predator should control the event, its equipment, signage, marketing, rules etc, but to try and dictate what a competitor wears, I see that as too much. Predator isn't even providing the jersey for the event.
It looks like the best-paid players are taking the stand. SVB and Fedor at Cuetec, Sky at Meucci and Shaw at Peri Cues. Imagine being a lower level pro and having a smaller cue sponsor that has supported you for years, and now you are required to wear a Predator patch... Its not a good look for Predator. They do a lot for the game, but that doesn't make this okay, and you can see it happening at the "Predator World 10-Ball" and who knows where else.
I think SVB had problems with this in the past. Matchroom sold a patch location to the APA and made SVB wear it even though he was a CSI or VNEA rep. None of us should forget that hateful Mosconi MVP trophy either. Making Sky and Shaw hold that yellow Predator bumper sticker just looked classless to me, but sometimes I miss the vests.
It looks like the best-paid players are taking the stand. SVB and Fedor at Cuetec, Sky at Meucci and Shaw at Peri Cues. Imagine being a lower level pro and having a smaller cue sponsor that has supported you for years, and now you are required to wear a Predator patch... Its not a good look for Predator. They do a lot for the game, but that doesn't make this okay, and you can see it happening at the "Predator World 10-Ball" and who knows where else.
I think SVB had problems with this in the past. Matchroom sold a patch location to the APA and made SVB wear it even though he was a CSI or VNEA rep. None of us should forget that hateful Mosconi MVP trophy either. Making Sky and Shaw hold that yellow Predator bumper sticker just looked classless to me, but sometimes I miss the vests.
What is the incentive for a corporation to sponsor a tournament? There are so few corporate sponsors around that it seems reasonable to me that that sponsor gets some say in the advertising. They do in all other sporting events.
Predator could sponsor a Predator 10-ball championship for Predator players.
Meucci could sponsor a Meucci 10-ball championship for Meucci players.
Cuetec could sponsor a Cuetec 10-ball championship for Cuetec players.
...but i don't think there's enough sponsor money floating around ...
As Matchroom/Predator sees how this shakes up it's in their interests to make all the prospective players happy, and it's in the players interests to be realistic.
Predator could sponsor a Predator 10-ball championship for Predator players.
Meucci could sponsor a Meucci 10-ball championship for Meucci players.
Cuetec could sponsor a Cuetec 10-ball championship for Cuetec players.
...but i don't think there's enough sponsor money floating around ...
As Matchroom/Predator sees how this shakes up it's in their interests to make all the prospective players happy, and it's in the players interests to be realistic.
Play or don't play, many of us deal with this in our work lives, it is what it is and we make our decisions based on what's best for us.
This is a single event that they may or may not make money at anyway, those of us that deal with this kind of thing all the time lose way more money than any of these guys will by missing this event.
This is a single event that they may or may not make money at anyway, those of us that deal with this kind of thing all the time lose way more money than any of these guys will by missing this event.
BTW, this isn't Predators fault, it's cuetec and the other players sponsor's fault. The patch they have to wear is a "league" patch.
Hell, I'd want my player in it to "prove" perhaps my cue is better than theirs.
Cuetec sponsored players SVB and Gorst take #1 and #2 in Predator CLP event, see why the best in the world play Cuetec.
Seems like a good advertising opportunity
Hell, I'd want my player in it to "prove" perhaps my cue is better than theirs.
Cuetec sponsored players SVB and Gorst take #1 and #2 in Predator CLP event, see why the best in the world play Cuetec.
Seems like a good advertising opportunity
Predator does a lot for pool and players. They have every right being the title sponsor to put their logo and advertisements anywhere they want at the event. Hell they could print their logo across the middle of the felt if they wanted. I don’t think that’s the issue at all. But forcing players that aren’t sponsored by Predator to promote their brand on their clothing if they want to play in a Matchroom event is obviously a issue for several reasons.
If they only had to display the CLP logo on their jersey then I don’t see the big deal, but with players dropping out it seems the Predator brand logo was married into the CLP logo. More information would be nice.
Yeah but later this year when Matchroom releases the SVB and Fedor Mosconi Cup posters or other promo material and there they are with a Predator patch who wins? This isn’t exaggerated. They literally did it with Fedor last year.
Last edited:
This is so stupid!
If Predator owns the event, they could easily plaster their logo all over the place, they could project it down on the felt between rack, they could run commercials etc...How's that not enough exposure? Do they have to tattoo their logo on the players faces before they're happy? A pool player is not going to get rich anyway, you want to take away his tiny stipend or free cue, just so you could own absolutely everything? This is what happens when completely unchecked greed is allowed to step into a small struggling sport. 5-600 dollar shafts, painted cues for 1000 dollars and now this.
If Predator owns the event, they could easily plaster their logo all over the place, they could project it down on the felt between rack, they could run commercials etc...How's that not enough exposure? Do they have to tattoo their logo on the players faces before they're happy? A pool player is not going to get rich anyway, you want to take away his tiny stipend or free cue, just so you could own absolutely everything? This is what happens when completely unchecked greed is allowed to step into a small struggling sport. 5-600 dollar shafts, painted cues for 1000 dollars and now this.
In snooker, the event sponsor's logo is always on the player's shirts/waistcoats, they then get an additional 1 or 2 patches for their own personal sponsors.
Given this is a Matchroom event, presumably they just followed the tried and tested model that has worked for years without too many problems (and possibly didn't see why this would be an issue).
I guess perhaps the key difference is that I've never heard of a snooker tournament being sponsored by a cue maker (although pretty sure some of the players have had rival betting company logos on before, I'm sure Ronnie had a Chinese firm for a while).
Given this is a Matchroom event, presumably they just followed the tried and tested model that has worked for years without too many problems (and possibly didn't see why this would be an issue).
I guess perhaps the key difference is that I've never heard of a snooker tournament being sponsored by a cue maker (although pretty sure some of the players have had rival betting company logos on before, I'm sure Ronnie had a Chinese firm for a while).
DieselPete
Active member
There are a few posts that take this position, which is certainly a worthy position to discuss. I'd like to see the logo.
If it says PREDATOR in a 60 point font and then says Championship League Pool in a teenie-tiny 12 point font underneath, so only the PREDATOR part will really be visible on the screen, my answer is that it is a significant harm to me if I am paying a player to have a Meucci logo on his shirts.
I understand your argument, I really do, but snooker and pool are not the same thing at all. Snooker players are well paid with sponsors outside the industry, appearance fees for exhibitions and coaching (if they want to do that sort of thing), and good prizes for even mediocre placing.
Pro pool players get a pittance for sponsorship, and some of the best sponsors they could hope for are cue makers. Other options for sponsorship are sponsors who for one reason or another are not allowed to sponsor major sports, or can't afford to. Shady betting companies are the richest but are in and out of the sport, it used to be cigarettes, now maybe vaping pens and stuff like that. Even sponsors of the bottom variety are rare and hard to come by. The sponsor covers maybe the entry fee, possibly travel, but that's probably it, unless you're top 5. So you have to beat world beaters, with little guarantee of winning anything at all. Even a 3. place could be as bad as a break-even proposition in many tournaments
Matchroom should realize that this is the reality of things, and rather than wishing it were different, accept it and work from there.
Last edited:
"They do a lot for the game, but that doesn't make this okay, and you can see it happening at the "Predator World 10-Ball" and who knows where else." Yeah, let's see if they try that at the four men's Pro events they have on the WPA calendar for later this year in the US. Of course those will presumably just be streamed and not televised.
All valid points, but I would imagine Matchroom's stance would be simply:
We're not stopping you wearing your sponsor's logo, you just have to wear the event sponsor's logo as well, take it or leave it.