My recollection is that MR has an exception from the hotel requirement for local players.
Gorst dishes on US Open, lopsided prize funds, long race with Filler
- Thread starter jbart65
- Start date
My recollection is that MR has an exception from the hotel requirement for local players.
Rogan was pretty instrumental in popularizing UFC due to his commentary and analysis, so maybe he can do the same for pool since he has a passion for it. Even Dana White has listed him as a credit for the UFC's growth. I may not agree with all his conspiracy theories, but he may be what pool needs to become more mainstream.
He’s got a huge audience. He’s had Fedor and JJ on his show, exposing them (and pool) to millions of people who aren’t pool viewers. He also is knowledgeable about pool and is a genuine fan.
Getting Joe to play in the Open and maybe do some social media and commentary would be great for the sport.
The crazy thing is, he's had Fedor on the show twice, the first time only did 70K views in 2022, but the 2nd time did 417K views in 2025. That's a huge jump in viewership, so yeah, he's definitely exposed a lot of people to the sport. Also, he's got the best Earl Strickland impersonation
He also has a clip with Jeremy Jones that's part of the full interview that has 1.7M views, and a clip with Fedor that has 1.5M views.
Fedor hit the nail on the head, and it’s the part of the pool world people don’t talk about enough.
Tournament payouts haven’t kept pace with real-world expenses. Entry fees, travel, hotels, food, it adds up fast. If you’re not consistently finishing high, you’re essentially subsidizing your own competition. Even strong players can go to multiple events without cashing, especially on the global tournament trail where you're playing world beaters and unknown pool masters, and that P&L tilt toward losses gets steep quickly.
Someone like Finland's Aseni Sevastyanov can make the “live lean, chase events” model work better because of lifestyle flexibility. But most U.S.-based players are carrying a whole second financial life, rent or mortgage, insurance, taxes, whether they’re at the table or not. That’s the invisible pressure.
That said, there is a bright spot. I’m seeing more and more events happening right here in the U.S., which gives players of all levels a chance to stay active without constantly traveling across the globe. You may notice that Shane is getting more selective with which events he competes in.
There’s still prestige in competing on the big stage, no doubt. But prestige doesn’t pay the bills. Until payouts start reflecting today’s cost of living, more players are going to feel that squeeze, and it’s a conversation the sport needs to keep having.
Tournament payouts haven’t kept pace with real-world expenses. Entry fees, travel, hotels, food, it adds up fast. If you’re not consistently finishing high, you’re essentially subsidizing your own competition. Even strong players can go to multiple events without cashing, especially on the global tournament trail where you're playing world beaters and unknown pool masters, and that P&L tilt toward losses gets steep quickly.
Someone like Finland's Aseni Sevastyanov can make the “live lean, chase events” model work better because of lifestyle flexibility. But most U.S.-based players are carrying a whole second financial life, rent or mortgage, insurance, taxes, whether they’re at the table or not. That’s the invisible pressure.
That said, there is a bright spot. I’m seeing more and more events happening right here in the U.S., which gives players of all levels a chance to stay active without constantly traveling across the globe. You may notice that Shane is getting more selective with which events he competes in.
There’s still prestige in competing on the big stage, no doubt. But prestige doesn’t pay the bills. Until payouts start reflecting today’s cost of living, more players are going to feel that squeeze, and it’s a conversation the sport needs to keep having.
I agree with so much of your post, but I'm confused by this section. Finland is generally considered to be one of the most expensive places to live in Europe. Why would he have fewer financial burdens than a US-based player? I'll admit I don't know anything about his lifestyle. Does he not rent or own an apartment or house?
This is a generally well-reasoned post, but ultimately there is no conversation to have.
In the end, prize money has little, if anything, to do with changes in the cost of living. The thing driving prize money growth is the revenue growth of event producers. There's no such thing as what an event "should" pay in prize money. It should pay whatever the event producer's P&L allows. In all but a few cases, when it comes to revenue, the event producers are not raking it in but are struggling to make ends meet just like the pro players. Like the players, they have a budget and must manage their expenses with great care to turn a profit. Unless their P&L grows, prize money can't grow, so in the end, the fortunes of pool players are tied to the fortunes of the event producers, who cannot and should not be guided by changes in the cost of living.
The squeeze of which you speak is a living, breathing reality. Pool doesn't pay the bills for many. Still, if one includes money from cue deals, other sponsorships, exhibitions, and giving lessons, perhaps 100 can make a sustainable living at it, a number that is, to be fair, very disappointing. Even though the number of events is growing impressively, unless the sport itself grows substantially, there's no reason to believe that pool will pay the bills for hundreds of players any time soon. As you have implied, for all but the top players, pool is a hobby, not a profession.
agree. have no clue what she meant there.
All true, sjm. I even doubt 50 players can make a sustainable living at the game. Not by pool itself.
Most top pros, as you are aware, also offer paid lessons. A surprising number also own pool halls - Shaw, Feijin, Chua, Hoang and Pehlivanovic immediately come to mind.
I don't see any reason to believe non-pool companies are about to start advertising in pro pool. Makes me wonder why Matchroom even bothered, to be frank.
Most top pros, as you are aware, also offer paid lessons. A surprising number also own pool halls - Shaw, Feijin, Chua, Hoang and Pehlivanovic immediately come to mind.
I don't see any reason to believe non-pool companies are about to start advertising in pro pool. Makes me wonder why Matchroom even bothered, to be frank.
I've been following him for a short while, but he moved from his hometown in Finland to be closer to a pool room, and he scrimps and saves so he can travel around the world to attend pool happenings. He's very thrifty, for lack of a better word. If I can find the video/podcast where I learned more about him, I'll share. He is an interesting fellow.
I may not have explained this clearly before, so let me try again.
What is improving is the number of events happening on American soil. For U.S. players, that matters. Traveling domestically is far less expensive than flying to Europe or Asia, and that alone can make a real difference in a player’s bottom line. If more American pros can stay competitive, and even profitable, because they’re not burning money on international travel, that’s a positive step.
Yes, some players supplement income through cue deals, raffles, and auctions with sponsor products. But let’s be honest. That’s not the same as cash in hand.
At the end of the day, the real issue is payouts. “Build it, and they will come” only works if the numbers make sense. Right now, they don’t. A true full-time professional who consistently turns a profit in pool is still the exception, not the rule. And when you factor in that the cost of living has skyrocketed over the decades, it’s hard to argue that payouts have kept pace.
That said, if players can reduce expenses, the way Finland's Arseni does, and find a way to stay in the black without chasing events all over the world, that’s a step in the right direction.
Prize money is not prize money is not prize money. Pool rooms that host events do so knowing that there're going to lose money. They host/add money as a give back to the players and to advertise the room and maybe try to leave their mark a bit on the sport. Major tournaments are a different matter. They are looking at the bottom line maybe not for the specific event but certainly for the future of the brand they want to promote. I think we need to separate the two when looking at prize monies and the politics of sport.
Simplistic view by a pro.
Predator is different animal from pure event promoters like MR WNT who are basically service intermediaries with limited revenue streams while Predator is a manufacturing products business. Different operating models. My guess is Predator ad spend marketing budget is few million a year and they are pumping that into the PBS business to generate revenue for their products. Say their marketing budget is $4M per year. They pump all that into PBS and PBS lose $1M a year (after adding sponsorships, entry fees and less prize funds, production costs etc). On face of it, PBS shockingly lose big money.
But assume PBS generate same revenue on their products as $4M they use to spend (before PBS) on external ads. Then in reality, they are better off by $3M. PBS tour growing bigger every year I think now total prize funds more than WNT own produced events (not including smaller events produced by others that they just add to their tour). So maybe they are not doing as badly as other people think otherwise they would have cut or run like many promoters
Nice catch.
Gorst's opinion is simply that, no question. Since Predator is private, no one outside the company knows how it is funding its tour.Simplistic view by a pro.
Predator is different animal from pure event promoters like MR WNT who are basically service intermediaries with limited revenue streams while Predator is a manufacturing products business. Different operating models. My guess is Predator ad spend marketing budget is few million a year and they are pumping that into the PBS business to generate revenue for their products. Say their marketing budget is $4M per year. They pump all that into PBS and PBS lose $1M a year (after adding sponsorships, entry fees and less prize funds, production costs etc). On face of it, PBS shockingly lose big money.
But assume PBS generate same revenue on their products as $4M they use to spend (before PBS) on external ads. Then in reality, they are better off by $3M. PBS tour growing bigger every year I think now total prize funds more than WNT own produced events (not including smaller events produced by others that they just add to their tour). So maybe they are not doing as badly as other people think otherwise they would have cut or run like many promoters
Private-market research suggests Predator's annual revenue is $5 million to $6 million a year. Operating profits are likely in the $500,000 to $1 million range if margins are 15% to 20%.
If these numbers are fairly good estimates, I'd be surprised if the marketing budget was millions a year, but good accountants can find ways to stretch ad dollars quite far.
I have to believe Predator is not losing money for the reason you cited. If the company can sustain these purses, great.
That'll catch you a beating