US Open payouts............

I hate this discussion. Matchroom ought to make tons of money on this, not lose tons. The WORST place to put money is into payouts. And despite the “low” added money, the winner of this event will win more than last year’s winner, and more than the winner of the last World 9-ball championship. Let’s stop expecting promoters to lose money, and start hoping they make money, so they keep doing it.

There was never any mention of how much added money or how many players could enter, although initially (as Mike said) it was meant to be 128 players, similar to past U.S. Opens. That all changed back in December when they'd already reached a full field. They had only advertised "increased prize money" and it is. In the last years of the previous incarnation of the U.S. Open the field was limited to 128 players with a $1,000 entry fee. That totaled $128,000 and with $50,000 added the purse was $178,000 (but not always).

So, guaranteeing a $300,000 purse is a substantial increase in prize money, especially with a similar sized field of 128 players. The fact that they filled the field with 256 players might have given them cause to add at least $50,000 (as in previous Opens) but that's not what happened. It would have been nice to see the U.S. Open be a First Tier event with 100K added. Maybe they will reconsider the payouts since the field filled up so fast, or perhaps as Mike Panozzo postulated maybe that will happen next year.

I can remember when Matchroom produced the World Pool Championships twenty years ago and it boasted a $100,000 first prize. It could have happened here too if the added money had really been $172,000 (total $428,000!). Wishful thinking I guess.

sjm said:

That's the way I remember it, too.

Click to expand...

Me three. I always saw "300k purse" with never a mention of field size.

Basically, you admitted that there wasn't any mention of the size of the field, so stop the "interpretation" the way you see fit your argument.

There is no reason for them to add more money since the event was advertised as 300K purse, period, nothing's more. It was a huge commitment at the time when no one knew how many players would enter. It was a project, with a plan and budget, from Matchroom, not Vivian Villareal's Air Championship Finale.

I'm seeing here just you and other people, for no reason, actually trying to find a reason, to bash a great event coming from a great organization who has been doing a lot for pool in the last several years.

Jay, any bad blood against Matchroom? Didn't they invite you for anything ? LOL really.

jay helfert said:

There was never any mention of how much added money or how many players could enter, although initially (as Mike said) it was meant to be 128 players, similar to past U.S. Opens. That all changed back in December when they'd already reached a full field. They had only advertised "increased prize money" and it is. In the last years of the previous incarnation of the U.S. Open the field was limited to 128 players with a $1,000 entry fee. That totaled $128,000 and with $50,000 added the purse was $178,000 (but not always).

So, guaranteeing a $300,000 purse is a substantial increase in prize money, especially with a similar sized field of 128 players. The fact that they filled the field with 256 players might have given them cause to add at least $50,000 (as in previous Opens) but that's not what happened. It would have been nice to see the U.S. Open be a First Tier event with 100K added. Maybe they will reconsider the payouts since the field filled up so fast, or perhaps as Mike Panozzo postulated maybe that will happen next year.

I can remember when Matchroom produced the World Pool Championships twenty years ago and it boasted a $100,000 first prize. It could have happened here too if the added money had really been $172,000 (total $428,000!). Wishful thinking I guess.

Click to expand...

The entry fee $1K must be highest for a televised event (not PPV). In fact all other Matchroom events (like World Pool masters, World Cup of Pool) have no entry fee All other major events (like World 9 Ball) have low entry fee (like few hundreds)
I would have expected that players fee be dropped or subsidised especially since there are 256 players. I can understand charging $1K entry fee during PPV pre-Matchroom era. Love Matchroom events and hope they will reduce entry fees for players in subsequent years.

spartan said:

... Love Matchroom events and hope they will reduce entry fees for players in subsequent years.

Click to expand...

The initial Matchroom news release (3/22/18), announcing their acquisition of the event, said:

"The event would maintain it’s $1,000 entry fee although the long-term goal will be to reduce that figure down to zero."

Jon...Are you talking about Pat Fleming's tournament, last October in Norfolk? That tournament added $50K and had 113 players. That was not the US Open. It was the International 9-ball Open. Different animal altogether. Just FYI, Behrmann's US Open paid $50K for first on at least two occasions. Earl won one of them. Barry also had fields reaching 256 players, as well, in a couple of US Opens.

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

BeiberLvr said:

Except that was a field of 113

This event has more than doubled.

Click to expand...

Jay...Matchroom making a big deal out of the "staggering" production costs is a bunch of baloney. Production costs are routinely offset by advertising in any successful event. With a worldwide audience, and the opportunity to sell advertising in many countries, Matchroom stands to make a tidy profit off of this tournament. The NFL Super Bowl generates 100's of millions of dollars ...in four short hours. Matchroom pool events, especially the Mosconi Cup are the "Super Bowls" of pool.

Originally I believed that the "added money" was $300k, making the total purse over half a million, with 256 players. They could have easily done this, and it's sad that now they're only adding $44k. Just like the next Mosconi Cup, the advertising revenue has amazing potential, simply due to the fact that we won for the first time in 10 years.

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

jay helfert said:

Interesting. I was wondering the same thing. Most of the lofty $300,000 purse comes from the entry fees ($256,000!). There is only $44,000 in added money, not so lofty after all. Mike Panozzo speaks of the added production costs, due to television (no information on that so far?) and staging costs. He seems optimistic that this will only affect this years U.S. Open. But that cost will not be reduced in year two either. It will still be just as great an expense to produce this event in year two and onward. Those "production" costs are not going to go down or miraculously disappear.

Initially this year's Open was billed as a $300,000 tournament with only 128 entries at $1,000 each. That would have resulted in a $172,000 Added event! By adding another 128 players, now it becomes a $44,000 Added tournament. Pretty disappointing I'm sure for many of the players who thought they were going to be playing in a 400K+ tournament. Such is Pool, but disappointing nonetheless when a revered name like Matchroom uses such tactics to defray the costs associated with an event.

Click to expand...

Scott Lee said:

Jon...Are you talking about Pat Fleming's tournament, last October in Norfolk? That tournament added $50K and had 113 players. That was not the US Open. It was the International 9-ball Open. Different animal altogether. Just FYI, Behrmann's US Open paid $50K for first on at least two occasions. Earl won one of them. Barry also had fields reaching 256 players, as well, in a couple of US Opens.

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

Click to expand...

Yes I assumed that was the event BRussell was referring to when he said

BRussell said:

They’re paying more to the winner ($50k vs. $40k last time) and to 2nd place ($25k vs. $24k).

Click to expand...

HelloBaby- said:

Basically, you admitted that there wasn't any mention of the size of the field, so stop the "interpretation" the way you see fit your argument.

There is no reason for them to add more money since the event was advertised as 300K purse, period, nothing's more. It was a huge commitment at the time when no one knew how many players would enter. It was a project, with a plan and budget, from Matchroom, not Vivian Villareal's Air Championship Finale.

I'm seeing here just you and other people, for no reason, actually trying to find a reason, to bash a great event coming from a great organization who has been doing a lot for pool in the last several years.

Jay, any bad blood against Matchroom? Didn't they invite you for anything ? LOL really.

Click to expand...

Mike Panozzo of Billiards Digest made similar remarks that I referred to. I have applauded Matchroom on many occasions for the great events they produce, certainly some of the best in the Pool universe. Typically well run, well attended, televised or streamed, with good payouts. What's not to like there?

In this one case I will question them on their payouts. This is so unlike the usual Matchroom event, with a large entry fee as opposed to being an Invitational. The fact that the majority of the purse comes from entry fee money was not lost on me and I spoke up, just as Mike did. When Matchroom staged the WPC there was no entry fee and it paid 100K on top! As the world leader in billiard productions they have a responsibility for the overall integrity of their events and how they are perceived.

As for me, I have no bone to pick with anyone and will continue to speak out on behalf of the sport and the players because that's who I am. I am not a shrinking violet about making my voice heard. Never have been and never will be! There have been many times down through the years where I have called out what I saw to be an unfair or unethical pattern of behavior in the billiard world (re: Don Mackey and Kevin Trudeau among others). This is certainly not the case here by any means. I just raised similar questions to the ones voiced by Mike Panozzo earlier. Once again I admire Matchroom for what they have done and continue to do in the billiard world, but will still not hesitate to ask questions if I feel they need to be asked.

I am basically retired from working in the billiard industry and did so at age 70, after over 35 years working tournaments. I didn't feel the need to make any dramatic statements about retirement, just quietly wind down my career. In the last few years I have only done a couple of commentary jobs, which are far less taxing then being a tournament director. I still love the game and follow what's happening, but don't attend nearly as many events as I did in the past. I enjoy my leisure time now, traveling and spending quality time with friends and family. I love it when someone drops in on me and we hit a few balls and reminisce. Please come by when you're in the neighborhood. :thumbup:

P.S. FYI, a representative at Matchroom did reach out to me months ago and inquired about the logistics of increasing the field to 256 players, and how the field could be reduced down to the final sixteen in only three days. I advised them on what needed to be in place to accomplish this and how it could be done. I'm glad to see that they have taken my advice and are preparing accordingly. I think this is one of the reasons for the added production costs associated with this event, the need for a large number of pool tables and accompanying officials.

Scott Lee said:

Jay...Matchroom making a big deal out of the "staggering" production costs is a bunch of baloney. Production costs are routinely offset by advertising in any successful event. With a worldwide audience, and the opportunity to sell advertising in many countries, Matchroom stands to make a tidy profit off of this tournament. The NFL Super Bowl generates 100's of millions of dollars ...in four short hours. Matchroom pool events, especially the Mosconi Cup are the "Super Bowls" of pool.

Originally I believed that the "added money" was $300k, making the total purse over half a million, with 256 players. They could have easily done this, and it's sad that now they're only adding $44k. Just like the next Mosconi Cup, the advertising revenue has amazing potential, simply due to the fact that we won for the first time in 10 years.

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

Click to expand...

Matchroom is a business, not a bookie...just because an event has the potential to be a success, that doesn't mean it will be.

You've presumably seen previous Matchroom events and so know that they don't scrimp when it comes to the production element.

This being year 1 of the new Matchroom era, they aren't going to throw money at it and just hope it works. They will build it up over time. Regardless of whatever was included in the initial purchase, there will inevitably be some form of startup costs and so it is very likely the event won't be profitable for them in year 1 and they will need to manage that.

Hence, it would be a surprise if things didn't change over the next few years, but to assume they can just sell loads of advertising from day 1, when previously no one even wanted to put it on TV seems a bit naive.

The biggest issue is paying out half the field. It only caters to the dead money, and I don't believe a professional tournament of this level should be doing such a thing.

With a $300,000 prize pool and paying out the standard 25% of the field, I believe a better payout structure would be.

BeiberLvr said:

The biggest issue is paying out half the field. It only caters to the dead money, and I don't believe a professional tournament of this level should be doing such a thing.

With a $300,000 prize pool and paying out the standard 25% of the field, I believe a better payout structure would be.

Click to expand...

If it was a poker tournament only 32 players would be getting paid! It's very hard to cash in a poker tourney but that's why there is good money on top!
It might look something like this: 1. $80,000 2. $40,000 3-4. $20,000 5-8. $10,000 9-16. $6,000 17-32. $3,250

This is matchroom's philosophy, everyone are winners. That's why Mosconi cup losers still gets 10K a player and a participation medal too.

1st rd losers at the World Pool Masters still got 1K+.

gxman said:

This is matchroom's philosophy, everyone are winners. That's why Mosconi cup losers still gets 10K a player and a participation medal too.

1st rd losers at the World Pool Masters still got 1K+.

Click to expand...

Also, can't Anyone still pay/enter this event? Isn't it the newcomer we're truly rooting for in the end?

One's things for sure....''the past has proven itself more than enough''.

[/quote]

.............................

gxman said:

This is matchroom's philosophy, everyone are winners. That's why Mosconi cup losers still gets 10K a player and a participation medal too.

1st rd losers at the World Pool Masters still got 1K+.

Click to expand...

Not remotely the same thing, both of those events require qualification / invitations to enter, you can't just rock up and pay an entry fee.

Given the hard work required to gain entry into either and the already high profile (i.e. televised around the world and already promoted by Matchroom), that is why there is prize money for the 1st round loser / Mosconi Cup losing team.

If you ever get the chance, watch any interview with Barry Hearn, talking about snooker prize money and you will see it is absolutely not his philosophy to pay out to early losers.

One thought is that maybe Matchroom wants to keep this a pro-type event instead of having the recreational or social shooter compete. The $1,000 entry and Vegas expenses are good deterrents to eliminate average working stiffs.

What I wrote on FB, I share here.

Here's my loose change. When Kevin Trudeau's International Pool Tour (IPT) came to the fore with multiple mega-million-dollar events, to include gifting BCA Hall of Famers $30,000 and a free bye at the King of the Hill Tournament in Orlando, all 150 players who were selected to be IPT members had visions of dollar signs dancing in their heads for their future.

Heck, some road warriors and international players came out of the woodwork to jump in the IPT train. Even the Rocket himself, Snooker Champion Ronnie O'Sullivan, wanted to give the IPT a shot [pun intended]. For the first time in a long time, pool players felt like athletes, sportsmen, and were given respect with green rooms and other perks along the way.

Fast forward, though, and we all know what happened. The Monday morning quarterbacks, of course, stated they knew all long that the IPT was doomed for failure because of those large payouts, and then there was the morbid hatred that some seemed to have (and still do) for Mr. Trudeau himself.

My thought about the Matchroom payouts for U.S. Open is this. I believe they are trying to put pool on the map. They say you can't put whipped cream on a hot dog, but in this instance, I hope Barry Hearn puts a lot of whipped cream on this hot dog known as pool. It's a gamble, but it just might pay off. Look at the Mosconi Cup.

Some players would give their eye teeth to compete in that. Let's hope the rest of the Matchroom-promoted pool events garner the same respect from the players, railbirds, pool enthusiats, and social shooters, and maybe along the way, pool with all its warts and stereotypes will emerge as a viable sport, worthy of Olympic Games.