Conditions to participate in the upcoming U.S. Open
- Thread starter jay helfert
- Start date
This is where you're confused...
THE 2021 INTERNATIONAL IS SCHEDULED
The 2021 INTERNATIONAL OPEN will be a 160-player 9-BALL OPEN field with a reduced entry fee of $500 and $50,000 in added prize money. The inaugural 32-player INTERNATIONAL ONE-POCKET INVITATIONAL will have an entry fee of $300 and $5,000 in added prize money
Corrected,
Player entries for the 2021 US Open Pool Championship will open at 9am ET on Friday, July 2, with the entry fee lowered to $750 per player for the event, which will take place at Harrah’s Resort Atlantic City from September 13-18
Thank you
They wouldn't do that! Would they????I wish they would've said that in the first place.
So now I take it Pat Fleming's gig is in the crosshairs?
Thanks again. This equates to $192,000 in entry fee money and $108,000 in added money. Not quite what they are purporting to do for the players, with nearly two thirds of the purse made up of entry fee money. Add in the excessive room rates (mandatory!) and it becomes like so many other events, where maybe the top twelve or sixteen will actually make any money, and the other 240 players will be scrambling to make expenses.
At least in Vegas (Diamond Pro and World Ten Ball) players can find inexpensive lodging and pay smaller entry fees. When Matchroom finds a way to offer good purses that are not primarily based on entry fees then they will have something more to offer the players.
I for one certainly hope not sir. The BCA needs to step-in and make it clear that it will not sanction events in the USA that are predatory or monopolistic in nature. If the BCA won't sanction it, the WPA shouldn't be able to - at least not in the U.S.
Matchroom should be respectful of U.S. event producers, they are our guest.
Complaining about payouts does not ensure long term viability.
Pool players are at the mercy of promoters. However few pool players are making an effort to get fans or students to show up at the tournament.
The majors are the events for the billiard industry to present it as an elite sports competition.
Some pool pros treat the majors like high school athletes, they think one big play will change the world.
Matchroom and Predator make investments they hope pay off. However there is no sense of community in the shark world of pool culture.
You're not wrong justnum. Not at all.
Here is what you look for:
It's what a person does that shows you what they are all about. When they do that, believe them. I promise you'll see it
again.
But who really gives a crap as long as they get to go enjoy the show right?
"How much can I make and what can I get away," with is the mentality that comes shining through the fake goodwill.
Hypothetically, if you go along with it as a customer, then you're a part of the problem but hey you got to see a show right?
It's not on the attendee or the viewer at all right? It's ok to let the other promoters and players get screwed over as as long as
the viewer gets what they want. In this day and age people have more information than they ever did. Markets change.
What happened to the other guy/promoter? Is he just collateral damage? Not really when someone who had a market and was doing just fine decided to openly attack a promoter that supplied a means of making a living for the pro players who are struggling as it is.
So who in their right mind would do something like that? Someone who is very, very sure of their position and wants control.
They have fallen for the delusion many often do when they think they're golden.
Never think you're golden! In this scenario most of the pro tournaments are tournaments of losers. There isn't a pro player
that couldn't make a living giving lessons in the area he lives. Its a question as to whether or not he wants to. There is no greater
credibility or instructional certificate that can be gotten.
Players want to play not give lessons but when insult gets added to injury how long are players going to look at themselves in a positive light about competing in events that are messing with their paycheck and destroying their life long friends?
It was a really, really bad move. Frankly I'm surprised how bad it is.
There is a tournament had every time there is money in the middle and there are plenty of those.
So who really needs tournaments unless they have more chances of pay?
When you have tournaments that are races to 4 with a shot shootout for tie breaking and you have more chances of losing than winning, "something is going to happen." I don't know what but some people may decide to stay home or go fishing. They might even find themselves a job.
I am not trying to say the current way things are getting done is bad.
These premier marketing events are supposed to motivate billiard players in all areas to develop excellence and see the highest standard of play. Which is what Billiard Network did with their youtube channel and having Earl become a commentator for matches.
With all the new social media and exercises and drills on the internet, I can imagine more DrDave competition exams being popular for beginner players.
Major tournaments show players which shots to know and what to practice. However reinforcing that attitude and getting players to put practice hours in at a pool table is where the conversion from occasional player to regular player can grow.
The pool room culture has to learn from premier events about what is and what is not acceptable.
Although I understand the spirit of what Matchroom is attempting here, I'd call their actions poorly considered.
Significant tours, including both PBT and WPBA, always had player contracts and clauses like these were commonplace, but not with this kind of severity.
The usual formula was merely to disallow a player from playing in an event that ran concurrent to their event. In other words, if a player under contract with the PBT played in something like the Music City Open the same weekend that a PBT event was being played, they would be guilty of a code of conduct violation and could be fined, suspended or both. The reasoning for such a policy had good business sense behind it. The PBT needed to be able to give a would-be venue sponsor of a pool event reasonable assurance of the participation of its contingent of players under contract. Without such an assurance, a venue sponsor would be far less likely to put up the sizable event sanctioning fees required. Had Matchroom gone only this far, I'd have been able to swallow it. Barring regular Matchroom event participants from playing in events contested concurrent to their own events would have been more reasonable, and one must infer that a Matchroom player contract may be in play somewhere down the road.
Matchroom is not barring others from playing in what they obviously perceive as the fake US Opens of CSI. I understand their view, for they must feel it damages the brand of the name US Open. The CSI events can feature weak fields with as few as 13 players at times, and typically feature fields that are easier than something like Turning Stone. At Matchroom, they are merely saying they must approve. My guess is that they are going to be very lax in granting such approval in the near term, but this is likely to change as Matchroom's monopoly on the top events grows.
I understand where Matchroom is coming from in this case, but feel strongly that their actions are both premature and overly severe, Once they single-handedly offer pro players a good shot at making a solid living, I'll probably approve of it when they flex their muscle, but for now I disapprove.
Significant tours, including both PBT and WPBA, always had player contracts and clauses like these were commonplace, but not with this kind of severity.
The usual formula was merely to disallow a player from playing in an event that ran concurrent to their event. In other words, if a player under contract with the PBT played in something like the Music City Open the same weekend that a PBT event was being played, they would be guilty of a code of conduct violation and could be fined, suspended or both. The reasoning for such a policy had good business sense behind it. The PBT needed to be able to give a would-be venue sponsor of a pool event reasonable assurance of the participation of its contingent of players under contract. Without such an assurance, a venue sponsor would be far less likely to put up the sizable event sanctioning fees required. Had Matchroom gone only this far, I'd have been able to swallow it. Barring regular Matchroom event participants from playing in events contested concurrent to their own events would have been more reasonable, and one must infer that a Matchroom player contract may be in play somewhere down the road.
Matchroom is not barring others from playing in what they obviously perceive as the fake US Opens of CSI. I understand their view, for they must feel it damages the brand of the name US Open. The CSI events can feature weak fields with as few as 13 players at times, and typically feature fields that are easier than something like Turning Stone. At Matchroom, they are merely saying they must approve. My guess is that they are going to be very lax in granting such approval in the near term, but this is likely to change as Matchroom's monopoly on the top events grows.
I understand where Matchroom is coming from in this case, but feel strongly that their actions are both premature and overly severe, Once they single-handedly offer pro players a good shot at making a solid living, I'll probably approve of it when they flex their muscle, but for now I disapprove.
I feel the hesitancy and political correctness in your comment. At some point a pig in pink dress with a bow tie is still a pig.
It just takes a few days to come to the conclusion that it is what it is. Control moves can be real ugly and should be avoided.
After looking at it for several days with no one speaking up it was time to call it out.
It just takes a few days to come to the conclusion that it is what it is. Control moves can be real ugly and should be avoided.
After looking at it for several days with no one speaking up it was time to call it out.
Being empathetic with Matchroom is one thing, but at the end of the day, they should have done more research if they felt the other U.S. Open trademarks were going to devalue their recent foray into Open style events.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Matchroom isn't here to save Pro Pool, they are here to make money. They are more than happy to run off their competition, heck they even have their own "World Rankings." If you are buying that a for-profit sports/media company has the best interests of the game and pro player's at the heart, I've got some ocean-front property in Arizona to go with it.
Matchroom's profit motive will serve pool well.
Matchroom, similarly, didn't get involved with snooker years ago to save that sport, but when the business grew along with the demand for the pro snooker product, the prize money available to pro players went through the roof.
Matchroom's profit motives in pool, if achieved, will grow both the sport and the income which participants can derive from it by competing.
I'm not totally convinced the clause was anything other than sloppy wording or just ill-thought-out. I don't think Matchroom is trying to run everyone out of business because I doubt any other group is really a threat to them. The only thing they would be concerned about is protecting their trademarks. I doubt they really care what other promoters are doing because they aren't competing with them for tv time or sponsors.
I'm under no illusions that Matchroom isn't here to make money. If they review this initiative and find there is no future in it, they will pull the plug. I think that is fine because they will do whatever they can to increase the game's profile, which is important for them to also increase their profits. They did exact same thing for Darts and Snooker and now we have players making close to $1m per year. I don't think it's any different than the APT, PGA, NBA etc. All groups are in it to make money off of the sport, enriching the players is probably tertiary in their list of priorities. Ultimately, they are investing because they believe there is a money-making opportunity. If they are right, I expect everyone to benefit in some small way.
In an interview right after he retired as Chairman of Matchroom Sport, Barry Hearn spoke of the ethos, values, and priorities of his company: "... our interest in profit is third, not first. The game is first, the players are second, and then profitability of the business is third." He also spoke of valuing prize money levels, opportunity, and diversity.
He wasn't speaking directly about pool. But let's hope that he, Steve Dawson, Eddie Hearn, and Emily Frazer act consonant with what Barry said in that interview as they move forward with pool.