SJM – My Thoughts on WPA’s Actions

336Robin said:
I'm not sure how CSI/Predator could get away with allowing a player that was playing Matchroom events when the WPA said they
were banned from their events.

Isn't that the center of the issue? Banning players or are paying promoters immune from the WPA rules?
Click to expand...
If it's the same as in the past, as long as they pay a sanction fee they can pretty much make their own rules as to who can or cannot play.
 
jay helfert said:
If it's the same as in the past, as long as they pay a sanction fee they can pretty much make their own rules as to who can or cannot play.
Click to expand...

I always felt like the WPA business model was weak.

They file a load of paperwork, contact other Pool bodies and say we represent this area, then turn to the promoters and say
we are going to do this for you, and we are going to charge assuming they needed it done.

I tried that one time, and I didn't get paid. I didn't do it again.

Imagine a WPA that still did what they always did, minus the power struggles and you'd still have the same WPA.

"Pride goeth before a fall."
 
jay helfert said:
If it's the same as in the past, as long as they pay a sanction fee they can pretty much make their own rules as to who can or cannot play.
Click to expand...
I started to think that was hard to square with the ultimatum the WPA put out. On closer look though the statement says: If you compete in non-WPA events that were eligible for WPA sanction, then you are banned from "further participation in events on a national, continental, or global level under the WPA."

I wonder if that leaves Predator (or similar promoters) wiggle room for events like the Michigan Open, but not on anything they style as a "World Championship." I can see the argument that anything styled as an "Open" event fits in any of those categories (just take a look at the field). Seems like it splits the baby with Predator giving them full fields for some events, but lets the WPA retain control over other "large" events, but this is all just from reading a few words in a not very well drafted statement, so take it with a grain of salt.
 
Last edited:
sjm said:
Oddly enough, although the Olympic push was a failure, it has borne some fruit. Ever since pool was recognized as a potential Olympic Sport in about 2000, gaining entry into the World Games, numerous National Olympic Committees have supported the efforts of pool professionals. This has much to due with the globalization in pool we have and continue to see. WPA has always set guidelines for tournaments and has maintained the schedule, the rules and the worldwide rankings. Pool, it seems has outgrown the WPA model, but that's just my opinion.
Click to expand...
To me, the WPA shouldn’t be considered pro….more like the old BSCC at the dawn of snooker, who governed the game on snooker.
The top snooker players formed their own organization, but they still had a relationship…the first disagreement was how to handle fouls…
…the pros introduced the ‘shoot again’ option after a foul…which the BSCC refused to adopt…it became know as the Professional rule.
The rule was eventually accepted by the main body. But they retained a reasonable relationship.
But where does the WPA get off thinking they can boss the pros around?
I can understand the pro orgs donating money to the amateurs, but not giving them the reins.
 
garczar said:
Question: do you think the Predator Pro Series fields are going to weaken much due to this? A lot of MR-linked players have played in them. I'm thinking you're gonna see more 700+ FR players in these events which is probably what CSI/FR had in mind in the first place.
Click to expand...
Very difficult to say, but certainly a few who've done fairly well in these events would be lost if they went the Matchroom route. Examples include winners in this series Wiktor Zielinski, Mario He, Roberto Gomez, Aloysius Yapp, Josh Filler, and, of course, the most successful player in the US Pro Billard series, Fedor Gorst.

I'm not sure whether you're right about Predator's original intent in producing the series.
 
JusticeNJ said:
I started to think that was hard to square with the ultimatum the WPA put out. On closer look though the statement says: If you compete in non-WPA events that were eligible for WPA sanction, then you are banned from "further participation in events on a national, continental, or global level under the WPA."

I wonder if that leaves Predator (or similar promoters) wiggle room for events like the Michigan Open, but not on anything they style as a "World Championship." I can see the argument that anything styled as an "Open" event fits in any of those categories (just take a look at the field). Seems like it splits the baby with Predator giving them full fields for some events, but lets the WPA retain control over other "large" events, but this is all just from reading a few words in a not very well drafted statement, so take it with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...
I don't see the wriggle room. I believe any event having $25,000 added is eligible for WPA sanctioning and all events in the US Pro Billard Series would seem, therefore, to be eligible.
 
sjm said:
I don't see the wriggle room. I believe any event having $25,000 added is eligible for WPA sanctioning and all events in the US Pro Billard Series would seem, therefore, to be eligible.
Click to expand...
I was wondering more of what they say the ban covers (only "national, continental, and global" events are mentioned, no mention of state or local events, and as far as I know none of the words are defined anywhere) rather than whether an event is eligible for WPA sanction.

Again, this is me reading into words that might not have been so carefully chosen.
 
JusticeNJ said:
I was wondering more of what they say the ban covers (only "national, continental, and global" events are mentioned, no mention of state or local events, and as far as I know none of the words are defined anywhere) rather than whether an event is eligible for WPA sanction.

Again, this is me reading into words that might not have been so carefully chosen.
Click to expand...
Yes, maybe there's a loophole here, but I'm not in a position to judge.
 
sjm said:
Let me preface my remarks by saying that I may not have all the facts, but I have enough of them to assess the current situation. Let me add that I know another thread on this subject exists already, but I feel I am taking analysis of the subject matter in a very different direction and that is why I have begun this thread.

It is a sad day for free enterprise in pro pool.

WPA has flexed its muscle and has basically said to the players “while you are doing business with our biggest competitor, you’ll be barred from doing business with us.” It is as if Pepsi said “You can’t buy Coca Cola and if you do, you can’t buy Pepsi any longer.” Most of us believe in free enterprise, but it seems pro pool has been forced by the WPA to go in a different direction.

Most of us feel that there is room on pool’s landscape for both Matchroom and the WPA, but this turf war will have some consequences. Will there be a winner in this scuffle? It is tough to say.

I think it would be foolish to presume that Matchroom Pool has the entire financial weight of Matchroom Multi-sport behind it. Nor, for that matter, would it be wise to assume that the profits from long established brands like the World Cup of Pool, the World Pool Masters and the Mosconi Cup are available for reinvestment into major new tournament productions. It is entirely up to Matchroom.

Let history be our guide. I was among very few on this forum that understood that the IPT was not backed by all the assets of Kevin Trudeau and was not surprised in the least when the IPT business venture folded in its first year, collapsing under its own weight. Good business people know when to pull the plug on any business venture, large or small and, while many were repulsed by his character, Trudeau was a good businessman. The “too big to fail” concept does not apply to professional pool.

That is how business ventures work, and Matchroom's venture into major tournament pool is a venture begun in the fairly recent past. Like any other venture, it has its own set of financial books and records, and those records will, to a great extent, dictate its business strategies.

Matchroom Pool is growing our sport in ways we have not seen in decades, and most of the fans love their new events. Matchroom has delivered fields having a quality that is unsurpassed in the game’s history. They are offering the best professional pool product we have ever seen. They are globalizing our sport in ways not previously seen, creating pro tours in new corners of the world. We hope they are here to stay.

The real question of pertinence here is “will WPA’s actions impact Matchroom Pool’s ability to turn a profit going forward?” That is to be determined. Certainly, WPA is going to reduce Matchroom’s access to some of the world’s most elite players. How that translates to the bottom line is far from clear, and if Matchroom retains a sufficient nucleus of superstar players to keep their product elite, maybe the impact will be minimal.

The worst-case scenario, it would seem, is that reduced access to the most elite players will make it harder for Matchroom to make the best TV and sponsorship deals, which could possibly make their events less profitable, or even unprofitable. In that scenario, it is at least possible that Matchroom would exit the world of major tournament production and restrict its pool business to the World Pool Masters, the World Cup of Pool and the Mosconi. We would all like to think this unlikely because of Matchroom’s superb management team, but that would be to live in denial.

This is not a battle between good and evil, just a business turf war between competitors. Pool needs both WPA and Matchroom, and players need full access to all events.

For those of us who believe in free enterprise and that competition in the marketplace tends to result in a better product, however, it seems that WPA is playing what many of us call “dirty pool.”

The result might possibly be more money in pro pool. Maybe the long game is that the players make more money, but maybe WPA one day regains the monopoly it once enjoyed and returns to those times in which it had a lesser sense of urgency in growing the pro game. Time will tell.

Most of my sympathies lie with the players, who are, as a group, being abused here, but I feel sad for Matchroom, too, for they have invested heavily to bring the professional pool product to a level I haven’t seen in my 47 years as a pool fan and they must now overcome obstacles unnecessarily placed in their way.

Finally, I’d like to make a request of my AZB brethren. Let’s not ever view any players as defectors or traitors, for whatever choices they make, they remain victims denied a chance to maximize earnings in their chosen profession.
Click to expand...
Welcome to the world of the most dysfunctional sport on the face of the earth. It’s so far removed from any other sport in popularity which is pitiful. I expect Pickle ball to surpass it. Cornhole already has as far as TV coverage is concerned.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: sjm
atlas333 said:
Why?
Seems to me like you are really saying that the game of 9 ball is a joke with that comment. That's one reason I would love to see full rack rotation played for the major championships.
Click to expand...

Because the wing ball is a lock to be made and it's way too easy to get shape on the one ball. 9 ball is fine with the 9 on the spot!
 
It seems like a tough break for the women players, who all financially rely on WPBA purses and not Matchroom events. I would expect male only Matchroom events as a result, which isn’t good for the sport.
 
kling&allen said:
It seems like a tough break for the women players, who all financially rely on WPBA purses and not Matchroom events. I would expect male only Matchroom events as a result, which isn’t good for the sport.
Click to expand...
That's a fairly minor issue. I may be mistaken here, but I don't remember seeing even one woman in the field at the US Open 9-ball a couple of weeks ago.

The truth is that things are going quite well for the women, with several new women's 10-ball events being produced by Predator in both the USA and Europe.
 
Last edited:
justnum said:
The NYPL sent me a digital scan of this old billiard Brunswick publication. One Hundred Years of Recreation 1845-1945 from the Brunswick Balke Collender Company.

For those that have not seen it here is an excerpt. (This was my first digital scan request to the NYPL, it was easy)


Americans believe sports should be self governed by freedoms. The freedom to participate in leisure time activity.

The idea of a federation player restricted to federations participation is a clear culture shift. It took two hundred years but the world finally pushed back against US sports expansion.

View attachment 722707
Click to expand...
AMEN...
 
sjm said:
Let me preface my remarks by saying that I may not have all the facts, but I have enough of them to assess the current situation. Let me add that I know another thread on this subject exists already, but I feel I am taking analysis of the subject matter in a very different direction and that is why I have begun this thread.

It is a sad day for free enterprise in pro pool.

WPA has flexed its muscle and has basically said to the players “while you are doing business with our biggest competitor, you’ll be barred from doing business with us.” It is as if Pepsi said “You can’t buy Coca Cola and if you do, you can’t buy Pepsi any longer.” Most of us believe in free enterprise, but it seems pro pool has been forced by the WPA to go in a different direction.

Most of us feel that there is room on pool’s landscape for both Matchroom and the WPA, but this turf war will have some consequences. Will there be a winner in this scuffle? It is tough to say.

I think it would be foolish to presume that Matchroom Pool has the entire financial weight of Matchroom Multi-sport behind it. Nor, for that matter, would it be wise to assume that the profits from long established brands like the World Cup of Pool, the World Pool Masters and the Mosconi Cup are available for reinvestment into major new tournament productions. It is entirely up to Matchroom.

Let history be our guide. I was among very few on this forum that understood that the IPT was not backed by all the assets of Kevin Trudeau and was not surprised in the least when the IPT business venture folded in its first year, collapsing under its own weight. Good business people know when to pull the plug on any business venture, large or small and, while many were repulsed by his character, Trudeau was a good businessman. The “too big to fail” concept does not apply to professional pool.

That is how business ventures work, and Matchroom's venture into major tournament pool is a venture begun in the fairly recent past. Like any other venture, it has its own set of financial books and records, and those records will, to a great extent, dictate its business strategies.

Matchroom Pool is growing our sport in ways we have not seen in decades, and most of the fans love their new events. Matchroom has delivered fields having a quality that is unsurpassed in the game’s history. They are offering the best professional pool product we have ever seen. They are globalizing our sport in ways not previously seen, creating pro tours in new corners of the world. We hope they are here to stay.

The real question of pertinence here is “will WPA’s actions impact Matchroom Pool’s ability to turn a profit going forward?” That is to be determined. Certainly, WPA is going to reduce Matchroom’s access to some of the world’s most elite players. How that translates to the bottom line is far from clear, and if Matchroom retains a sufficient nucleus of superstar players to keep their product elite, maybe the impact will be minimal.

The worst-case scenario, it would seem, is that reduced access to the most elite players will make it harder for Matchroom to make the best TV and sponsorship deals, which could possibly make their events less profitable, or even unprofitable. In that scenario, it is at least possible that Matchroom would exit the world of major tournament production and restrict its pool business to the World Pool Masters, the World Cup of Pool and the Mosconi. We would all like to think this unlikely because of Matchroom’s superb management team, but that would be to live in denial.

This is not a battle between good and evil, just a business turf war between competitors. Pool needs both WPA and Matchroom, and players need full access to all events.

For those of us who believe in free enterprise and that competition in the marketplace tends to result in a better product, however, it seems that WPA is playing what many of us call “dirty pool.”

The result might possibly be more money in pro pool. Maybe the long game is that the players make more money, but maybe WPA one day regains the monopoly it once enjoyed and returns to those times in which it had a lesser sense of urgency in growing the pro game. Time will tell.

Most of my sympathies lie with the players, who are, as a group, being abused here, but I feel sad for Matchroom, too, for they have invested heavily to bring the professional pool product to a level I haven’t seen in my 47 years as a pool fan and they must now overcome obstacles unnecessarily placed in their way.

Finally, I’d like to make a request of my AZB brethren. Let’s not ever view any players as defectors or traitors, for whatever choices they make, they remain victims denied a chance to maximize earnings in their chosen profession.
Click to expand...
Again the wright words... Guy Thank you Stu
 
JAM said:
Pool politics! In such a fractioned industry, it's uncanny how something of this magnitude is happening. We railbirds can all have opinions, but it's the pool players on the international professional tournament trail who are the ones whose opinions matter most.

Most who have been reading my posts since 2003 are aware of my disdain for the BCA, the so-called "governing body of North American professional pool." Today it is an industry-member organization, though they are supposed to be governing professional pool.

For many years, I have also expressed how useless the WPA is, only to be told by a few that the WPA is needed for the Olympic Games, and we need them in professional pool.

Europe has good governing bodies called "federations" in professional pool. USA is nothing. For the European pros, this political quagmire of WPA v. Matchroom is major.

While the majority seem to think F the WPA and bend the knee to Matchroom, my thought is why isn't anybody hold the BCA's feet to the fire and step up to the plate and defend American professional pool? If their only interest is industry members' sales, then quit calling themselves the "Billiard Congress of America" and call themselves the "Billiard Industry Member Association of America," BIMAA fo short.

I thing BCA is partially responsible for the lack of professional-caliber players in USA today. If we had a federation like Europe supporting professional pool, things might be quite different here on American soil. I can count on one hand how many professional-caliber players live here today. It was quite different 30, 40 years ago. Is the BCA to blame? Well, in a way, yes.

So while everyone is debating how useless the WPA and/or how much it is needed, my American view is look to the BCA to stand up and do the right thing for American professional pool like their name implies.
Click to expand...
The BCA Must have some accountability for and you are wright they must stand up, Many years they have been an up and down road... The BCA might feel we don't have the weight too equat... Guy
 
justnum said:
I know a coded message when I see one.

how I know? Its classified.
Click to expand...
brainlet.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top