MatchRoom's response to the WPA player sanctions:

sjm said:
Many are tempted to conclude that this turf war will come down to financial muscle, with Matchroom having deeper pockets than WPA. These are likely the same people that believed that the IPT in 2006 would last forever as Trudeau had very deep pockets, certainly far deeper than anyone involved with pool. The truth is that successful business people are the first, not the last, to pull the plug on a losing business venture. Underperforming divisions are regularly shut down even in the world’s largest companies.
Click to expand...
You can't compare Matchroom to Kevin Trudeau.

Matchroom have been broadcasting pool for over a quarter of a century for a start.

Last year they turned over over $200 million dollars with over $20 million in straight profit.

And they keep growing.

They could contract the top 16 players, pay them $100,000 pa each, which would cost them a mere 1.6 million dollars each year.

Then every other pool tournament would turn to dust.

Their intentions are clear to me. The announcement of the World Professional Nineball Pool Corporation sure sounds like an alternative to the WPA.

All because the WPA didn't want to officially recognize Matchroom's 9 Ball Ranking system.
 
MattPoland said:
View attachment 717318

So the head of a national federation views himself as a visionary that can see the best interest of the players (10 years into the future) and views the athletes as being unable to make decisions for themselves beyond 48 hours into the future. That sounded a bit insulting. Are the players not adults with agency, freedom and respect?

I support Matchroom giving date consideration to any WPA sanctioned “world championship” with $200k+ total prize fund. But not a continental championship that’s only offering medals. That much you have to let the players decide for themselves.
Click to expand...
Not only that, but the use of paragraphs must not be their strong point either.
 
MattPoland said:
View attachment 717318
Click to expand...
To me..... this Typical....Georgi B. Statement (your one of many, I just picked you out).
These types of responses.... I've heard over and over ad nauseum..... again & again over the decades from many different representatives of the sport from their Demographic..... none willing to ''keep it simple work with each other'' to pick a game/help the entire sport and players..... Instead it causes the typical responses that have never moved the game forward, it reeks of samo/SAMO.

It's an Octupus with too many legs and Because Of that, it starves itself.... It's again unable to catch ANYTHING.

bm
 
IMG_3939.jpeg


The letter writing campaign continues. Belgium coming in hot in favor of Matchroom
 
mista335 said:
You can't compare Matchroom to Kevin Trudeau.

Matchroom have been broadcasting pool for over a quarter of a century for a start.

Last year they turned over over $200 million dollars with over $20 million in straight profit.

And they keep growing.

They could contract the top 16 players, pay them $100,000 pa each, which would cost them a mere 1.6 million dollars each year.

Then every other pool tournament would turn to dust.

Their intentions are clear to me. The announcement of the World Professional Nineball Pool Corporation sure sounds like an alternative to the WPA.

All because the WPA didn't want to officially recognize Matchroom's 9 Ball Ranking system.
Click to expand...
Bingo!
 
This is some of what I'm hoping to see from all this.

1. GOV FUNDING: I appreciate that the WPA gives an IOC connection for regional federations to gain access to government funding for events, training programs and occasionally direct player financial support. Even going back to the Formosa Cup, there's a reason the ACBS could ban the Singapore players. ACBS didn't produce the event. That event wouldn't have been sanctioned if it wasn't for the fact doing so meant Taiwan was adding government money to the prize fund for it being sanctioned.

2. US FUNDING: US doesn't do government funding for that sort of thing as a matter of policy. The US Olympic & Paralympic Committee receives funding from private and corporate donations as well as selling TV broadcasting rights and sponsorships in the US.

3. BCA FUNDING: The BCA has previously fruitlessly attempted to gain a connection with the USOPC to similarly gain their support. As never ending the failed attempts of the WCBS to get cue sports in the Olympics, the BCA's attempts to get USOPC funding should be never ending but sadly I'm of the impression it's not very active anymore.

4. WPA TRANSPARENCY: There's been a lot of criticism on how WPA finances have been managed. As a non-profit, I'd like to see those finances publicly accessible. Mr. Anderson's stewardship of the WPA has drawn much of that criticism and it's unclear what his role (listed as CEO on the WPA website) is at this point and whether he's directly benefiting from WPA revenue. A full and detailed breakdown should be available from salaries, expenses, Olympic campaign efforts, drug testing programs, etc. Any programs those funds are directed toward should also have clearly defined objectives and reporting of their efforts available on the WPA website.

5. WPA DATE PROTECTION: The challenges of protecting dates for sanctioned vs. sanctioned events or sanctioned vs. unsanctioned events is too steep to overcome when you consider the needs of securing venues, broadcasters, different disciplines, different continents, field sizes (filling up), and generally recognizing player autonomy. That said, I think it's reasonable to at least attempt date negotiation and protection for only the world championships and maybe just a couple blue ribbon events. Given Matchroom's scale for money added, the WPA could be protecting Matchroom here.

6. WPA RANKINGS: Seriously. Let the Matchroom WNT have whatever it wants when it comes to the 9-ball rankings. License that as an optional right as a condition of holding the world championship for a specific discipline.

7. WPA PLAYER PROTECTION: The WPA has seemingly prioritized protecting the IOC structure and the federations over protecting the players. It needs true oversight of the federations and be less comfortable giving them free reign. The ACBS should never have been allowed to suspend Singapore pool players based on what's happening in Snooker. They should fight for Matchroom to not have non-compete clauses over players. They also should fight for regional federations to not have non-compete clauses over players. That should only be at the upper governing body to control.

8. WPA DRUG TESTING: I get it. It comes from the IOC and WADA. Even Matchroom is looking to implement drug testing within the WPNPC. Probably a necessary evil. However with the Billy Thorpe situation, the WPA has demonstrated a complete ineptitude in securing a provider that execute the program in a manner that gives the players resonable due processing. Billy should never have been given an interim-suspension followed by an interim reprieve followed by an official suspension over the calendar period that unfolded. That is a major shame on WPA. At this point coming together could mean seeing if WPA can turn to WPNPC for executing drug testing because POLADA certainly failed pool. If they can't do better, they deserve to go away.

9. WPA RESPONSIVENESS: It has been reported by players like Billy, Fedor and Kristina that they have been unable to receive communications (let alone advocacy) with their unique situations. This is something the WPA should exist for. There should be a player hotline with timely responses. Certainly, regarding suspensions, invites to events based on rankings, assistance with letters for travel visas to events, etc.

10. WPA GENERAL ASSEMBLY: I do like that the WPA board isn't simply ruling on everything. However the WPA does need the ability to organize timely remote decision making sessions away from the general assembly. I believe special sessions can be called if two or more regional federations support raising a topic. This kind of thing needs to be done more often. And somehow the WPA members need to show that they are acting in the interest of pool and the players and not just the interests of their own turfs, or else they'll lose the public.

11. WPA SELF PROMOTION: If they're doing good, it cannot go unsung. Like what I said about transparency, those victories need to be published on their website as news releases. Saying you have unsung victories, but nobody knows about them is not a defense, it's a fault.

12. WPA AUTHORITY: I think it does help having someone in an internationally recognized structure with authority over pool. It's more about what that authority is. They have no choice to follow IOC structure in that regard. They certainly should prevent every Tom, Dick and Harry from holding their own fake "World Championship". They should be the steward of the official internationally recognized set of rules. But they also should stay out of the way of the event promoters putting together a structure of promotion that is growing and succeeding. They shouldn't flex authority on how that's done unless the connection to protect the players is more substantive and not a veiled effort to protect the federations being outshined by that promoter.

13. MATCHROOM COLLISION COURSE: Matchroom isn't sanctioning events. The WPA has let that slide until the general assembly. I'm expecting suspensions and warning letters are only going to be enforced for conflicts with world championship-level sactioned events. The Asian Open and the World 8-ball Championship is an easy example although I interpret the WPA's letter to promise a decision on 10/7 won't affect players attending that event on 10/10 unless they've received previous warning from their own regional federation like the Polish have. That's a silver lining from a WPA perspective in being reasonable to players, but ultimately I still would like WPA to strip regional federations from having that level of kneejerk authority unless the matter is local to that region and relevant to that discipline. But Matchroom put us on this course when they didn't sanction events. So they need to own that. I think they're positioning themselves intentionally to make it look like WPA's fault.

14. MATCHROOM PREROGATIVE: Honestly, I don't mind Matchroom making these moves eventually. As Karl says, these are early days for the WNT. They're not making millionaires of these players just yet. And they are not providing salaries to the non-elite tour members. Taking us on this predictable collission course before they've done so is wildly premature in my mind. Like player contracts. It's way too soon for any party to have those provisions if their structure isn't providing full stable income to players. EPBF shouldn't have it. Matchroom shouldn't have it. Play ball with each other until you truly can provide for the athletes. There's not enough pie to go around otherwise. They launched the nukes too early.

So ultimately I tend to agree that we should be heading for a WPA and Matchroom path in the near term for the sake of the players but both side need to give a little. Maybe the WPA needs to give "a lot" but it's for the best of the sport. But I don't think MR is innocent here, I think they've been calculating in how this is playing out.
 
In this time of uncertainty its best to look at history.

If it weren't for the brave and fearless women of the WPBA, then there would be only one type of pool. Thankfully that has never happened.

In the decades since women founded their own tour, new pool interest has been generated.

The WPBA is still around and growing stronger than ever. Women are the innovators in pool.

In times of doubt, strike down the clout.

If MR is breaking away that is indicative their financial model is working and the risk to lose sanctioning is tolerable.

WPA tightening regulations is standard reaction to losing market control. WPA has the most power right now.

As the years go by MR is expected to experience growth and profits. WPA is expected to experience forced growth to match competition without evidence of a sustainable model.

How deep are the pockets of the federations joining WCBS? The newest member created its own game and is not continuing existing pool traditions.

It feels the WCBS is a way to export Heyball into known cuesport areas. I am not planning on owning a heyball table anytime soon.
 
mista335 said:
You can't compare Matchroom to Kevin Trudeau.
Click to expand...
I didn't compare them, instead sharply contrasting them.

I noted that when well-financed pool event producers are building their business models, they may jeopardize their financial future if they set up a super-aggressive cost structure before their revenue dictates doing so. In Trudeau's case, it blew up in his face quickly. As I noted, Matchroom Pool has wisely chosen to grow the game gradually, keeping cost structure tied to revenue.

There is a reason I'm Matchroom Pool's biggest fan, and I've celebrated the fact that they have proceeded with the financial discipline that Trudeau lacked.
 
The problem with IOC recognition is a culture based on the 1940s, where people are organized by country affiliation.

The problem in 2023 is there are many people in the US that are or are not legally recognized by the US government. The same goes for other countries.

The Philippines is consists of many regions, languages and dialects. The current WPA structure does not allow for the inclusion of representation along historical and cultural lines. In Asian culture its more common to represent the family first before the government.

If a new structure formed, one that recognizes the rights of players before the rights of a federation, then it brings the billiard world into 21st century governing.

The 20th century style of punishment to improve culture is outdated in many voting areas. A governing structure should exist to promote not punish. Punishment models have a poor record of success according to world history.

Sports is about a cultural exchange. Players should be allowed to tell their story, and use the sport as a platform for change. It is not a machine with blackbox functions.
 
Bob Jewett said:
For tournaments, maybe. Those players were not developed in the last four years.
Click to expand...
I think you are implying that today's pro player talent pool were brought up through the WPA and their affilicated federations. I would agree that is something to consider in evaluating WPA value. Those players are "content" to MR, and its investment in the sport. MR would prefer to bypass the WPA "middle man", and that's easy to make a case for if the latter can't show sustaining value, including making awkward inadvertent threats of suspensions based on their charter. MR is pushing WPA in that direction with its own "non-competitive" contract language with the players.
Notwithstanding the value equation to the players, I also like to draw the distinction of WPA as a not-for-profit governing body and MR as a for-profit corporation. Their motives and mandates are obviously different, but I think the players need both.
 
MattPoland said:
This is some of what I'm hoping to see from all this.

1. GOV FUNDING: I appreciate that the WPA gives an IOC connection for regional federations to gain access to government funding for events, training programs and occasionally direct player financial support. Even going back to the Formosa Cup, there's a reason the ACBS could ban the Singapore players. ACBS didn't produce the event. That event wouldn't have been sanctioned if it wasn't for the fact doing so meant Taiwan was adding government money to the prize fund for it being sanctioned.

2. US FUNDING: US doesn't do government funding for that sort of thing as a matter of policy. The US Olympic & Paralympic Committee receives funding from private and corporate donations as well as selling TV broadcasting rights and sponsorships in the US.

3. BCA FUNDING: The BCA has previously fruitlessly attempted to gain a connection with the USOPC to similarly gain their support. As never ending the failed attempts of the WCBS to get cue sports in the Olympics, the BCA's attempts to get USOPC funding should be never ending but sadly I'm of the impression it's not very active anymore.

4. WPA TRANSPARENCY: There's been a lot of criticism on how WPA finances have been managed. As a non-profit, I'd like to see those finances publicly accessible. Mr. Anderson's stewardship of the WPA has drawn much of that criticism and it's unclear what his role (listed as CEO on the WPA website) is at this point and whether he's directly benefiting from WPA revenue. A full and detailed breakdown should be available from salaries, expenses, Olympic campaign efforts, drug testing programs, etc. Any programs those funds are directed toward should also have clearly defined objectives and reporting of their efforts available on the WPA website.

5. WPA DATE PROTECTION: The challenges of protecting dates for sanctioned vs. sanctioned events or sanctioned vs. unsanctioned events is too steep to overcome when you consider the needs of securing venues, broadcasters, different disciplines, different continents, field sizes (filling up), and generally recognizing player autonomy. That said, I think it's reasonable to at least attempt date negotiation and protection for only the world championships and maybe just a couple blue ribbon events. Given Matchroom's scale for money added, the WPA could be protecting Matchroom here.

6. WPA RANKINGS: Seriously. Let the Matchroom WNT have whatever it wants when it comes to the 9-ball rankings. License that as an optional right as a condition of holding the world championship for a specific discipline.

7. WPA PLAYER PROTECTION: The WPA has seemingly prioritized protecting the IOC structure and the federations over protecting the players. It needs true oversight of the federations and be less comfortable giving them free reign. The ACBS should never have been allowed to suspend Singapore pool players based on what's happening in Snooker. They should fight for Matchroom to not have non-compete clauses over players. They also should fight for regional federations to not have non-compete clauses over players. That should only be at the upper governing body to control.

8. WPA DRUG TESTING: I get it. It comes from the IOC and WADA. Even Matchroom is looking to implement drug testing within the WPNPC. Probably a necessary evil. However with the Billy Thorpe situation, the WPA has demonstrated a complete ineptitude in securing a provider that execute the program in a manner that gives the players resonable due processing. Billy should never have been given an interim-suspension followed by an interim reprieve followed by an official suspension over the calendar period that unfolded. That is a major shame on WPA. At this point coming together could mean seeing if WPA can turn to WPNPC for executing drug testing because POLADA certainly failed pool. If they can't do better, they deserve to go away.

9. WPA RESPONSIVENESS: It has been reported by players like Billy, Fedor and Kristina that they have been unable to receive communications (let alone advocacy) with their unique situations. This is something the WPA should exist for. There should be a player hotline with timely responses. Certainly, regarding suspensions, invites to events based on rankings, assistance with letters for travel visas to events, etc.

10. WPA GENERAL ASSEMBLY: I do like that the WPA board isn't simply ruling on everything. However the WPA does need the ability to organize timely remote decision making sessions away from the general assembly. I believe special sessions can be called if two or more regional federations support raising a topic. This kind of thing needs to be done more often. And somehow the WPA members need to show that they are acting in the interest of pool and the players and not just the interests of their own turfs, or else they'll lose the public.

11. WPA SELF PROMOTION: If they're doing good, it cannot go unsung. Like what I said about transparency, those victories need to be published on their website as news releases. Saying you have unsung victories, but nobody knows about them is not a defense, it's a fault.

12. WPA AUTHORITY: I think it does help having someone in an internationally recognized structure with authority over pool. It's more about what that authority is. They have no choice to follow IOC structure in that regard. They certainly should prevent every Tom, Dick and Harry from holding their own fake "World Championship". They should be the steward of the official internationally recognized set of rules. But they also should stay out of the way of the event promoters putting together a structure of promotion that is growing and succeeding. They shouldn't flex authority on how that's done unless the connection to protect the players is more substantive and not a veiled effort to protect the federations being outshined by that promoter.

13. MATCHROOM COLLISION COURSE: Matchroom isn't sanctioning events. The WPA has let that slide until the general assembly. I'm expecting suspensions and warning letters are only going to be enforced for conflicts with world championship-level sactioned events. The Asian Open and the World 8-ball Championship is an easy example although I interpret the WPA's letter to promise a decision on 10/7 won't affect players attending that event on 10/10 unless they've received previous warning from their own regional federation like the Polish have. That's a silver lining from a WPA perspective in being reasonable to players, but ultimately I still would like WPA to strip regional federations from having that level of kneejerk authority unless the matter is local to that region and relevant to that discipline. But Matchroom put us on this course when they didn't sanction events. So they need to own that. I think they're positioning themselves intentionally to make it look like WPA's fault.

14. MATCHROOM PREROGATIVE: Honestly, I don't mind Matchroom making these moves eventually. As Karl says, these are early days for the WNT. They're not making millionaires of these players just yet. And they are not providing salaries to the non-elite tour members. Taking us on this predictable collission course before they've done so is wildly premature in my mind. Like player contracts. It's way too soon for any party to have those provisions if their structure isn't providing full stable income to players. EPBF shouldn't have it. Matchroom shouldn't have it. Play ball with each other until you truly can provide for the athletes. There's not enough pie to go around otherwise. They launched the nukes too early.

So ultimately I tend to agree that we should be heading for a WPA and Matchroom path in the near term for the sake of the players but both side need to give a little. Maybe the WPA needs to give "a lot" but it's for the best of the sport. But I don't think MR is innocent here, I think they've been calculating in how this is playing out.
Click to expand...

when barry hearn announced last year that they were moving on without the WPA he said it was the rankings that was the contention point. which is funny because WPA rankings has been dysfunctional for years. at the time they had mika immonen as number one or two. a moneyboard ranking is simply better
 
MattPoland said:
I’m curious if the WPA is voting to suspend players for (1) participating in unsanctioned events, (2) participating in unsanctioned events when a sanctioned event is available, or (3) participating in an unsanctioned event when a significantly major sanctioned event (like a World 8-ball Championship) is available. I don’t like player suspensions at all. But I do wonder if most of the public is assuming #1 and maybe the intent is actually #3. There’s definitely a lot of knee jerk emotional reactions and exaggerations going on. I’m trying to make sure I have a good grasp on the facts and getting a chance to respond rather than react.
Click to expand...
I thought it was about MR contract wording. Players would be signing a contract where the promoter (MR) could decide where they "work". That's pressure for players. MR has a well-connected money machine, and players would have to break their bonds with WPA if they give control of their work (and sport?) to MR.
 
It sure would be interesting to see an actual accounting from a player's perspective as far as how much money they've had deducted from their purses and/or their entry fees over the years. It would then be a pretty easy calculation to determine if that money was worth it or not, at least from the player's perspective.

The other thing about the WPA that I don't get is -- could someone sympathic to Matchroom's vision somehow get onto the WPA board, or even possibly takeover? I have no clue how the organization works.
 
justnum said:
In this time of uncertainty its best to look at history.

If it weren't for the brave and fearless women of the WPBA, then there would be only one type of pool. Thankfully that has never happened.

In the decades since women founded their own tour, new pool interest has been generated.

The WPBA is still around and growing stronger than ever. Women are the innovators in pool.
Click to expand...
I'm among the most serious fans ever of the WPBA. I've been to about sixty events live over the years and could probably write a book about much of the organization's history.

It's obvious from your post that you don't know and haven't researched WPBA history before posting here. No, it's not stronger than ever. Twenty-five years ago, it was a 16-event tour annually and the greatest players of both Europe and Asia were found in almost every WPBA field, the most noteworthy exception being Shin Mei-Liu of Taiwan. For example, when you went to a WPBA event twenty years ago, along with the top Americans such as Jeanette Lee, Loree Jon Jones, Vivian Villareal, Monica Webb, Belinda Calhoun, and Robin Dodson) you usually saw each of these Europeans: Allison Fisher, Karen Corr, Helena Thornfeldt, Ewa Laurance, Jasmin Ouschan and Gerda Hofstatter. You also got to see Asian superstars Jennifer Chen, Xiaoting Pan, and Ga Young Kim.

That list includes 10 BCA Hall of Famers (counting Jasmin, who is a lock once she is old enough for induction) and a few other world beaters that were found in almost every field. The WPBA was a who's who of women's pool and winning an event was near impossible for all but the future hall of famers in the fields. Today, many of the top female players in the world based on Fargo don't play in WPBA events at all and many others only play occasionally.

All of that said, women's pool is moving forward nicely in the last few years, with a couple of new events emerging in both WPBA play and in Europe. I like the growth I'm seeing, because WPBA had fallen on challenging times for many years and now seems to have some very positive momentum, mostly thanks to Predator, the producer of most of these new events.

The statement that "women are the innovators in pool" has, at times been true, but unless you mean Emily Frazer, it isn't true now. Nearly all of the growth in our sport over the last few years has been on the men's side of pro pool competition.

On the men's side, we've reached the point where the men seemingly have a decent event to play in every week of the year. In September 2023 alone, they've got Turning Stone, the Texas Open. the MVP event at Raxx, the Connecticut Open, the Michigan Open and the US Open 9-ball. The good times are rolling for the men and the AZB money list confirms it.

I'm hopeful that the recent resurgence in women's pool will continue and that women's pool is entering a period of great prosperity, but your sense of where things are right now is delusional.
 
Last edited:
Professional pool is at a huge crossroads here.

Will the current crop of players learn from past mistakes and make good decisions this time around?

I guess time will tell.
 
sjm said:
I'm among the most serious fans ever of the WPBA. I've been to about sixty events live over the years and could probably write a book about much of the organization's history.

It's obvious from your post that you don't know and haven't researched WPBA history before posting here. No, it's not stronger than ever. Twenty-five years ago, it was a 16-event tour annually and the greatest players of both Europe and Asia were found in almost every WPBA field, the most noteworthy exception being Shin Mei-Liu of Taiwan. For example, when you went to a WPBA event twenty years ago, along with the top Americans such as Jeanette, Loree Jon, Vivian, Monica Belinda, and Robin) you usually saw each of these Europeans: Allison Fisher, Karen Corr, Helena Thornfeldt, Ewa Laurance and Gerda Hofstatter. You also got to see Asian superstars Jennifer Chen, Xiaoting Pan, and Ga Young Kim.

That list includes 9 BCA Hall of Famers and a few other world beaters that were found in almost every field. The WPBA was a who's who of women's pool and winning an event was near impossible for all but the future hall of famers in the fields. Today, many of the top female players in the world based on Fargo don't play in WPBA events at all and many others only play occasionally.

All of that said, women's pool is moving forward nicely in the last few years, with a couple of new events emerging in both WPBA play and in Europe. I like the growth I'm seeing, because WPBA had fallen on challenging times for many years and now seems to have some very positive momentum, mostly thanks to Predator, the producer of most of these new events.

The statement that "women are the innovators in pool" has, at times been true, but unless you mean Emily Frazer, it isn't true now. Nearly all of the growth in our sport over the last few years has been on the men's side of pro pool competition.

On the men's side, we've reached the point where the men seemingly have a decent event to play in every week of the year. In September 2023 alone, they've got Turning Stone, the Texas Open. the MVP event at Raxx, the Connecticut Open, the Michigan Open and the US Open 9-ball. The good times are rolling for the men and the AZB money list confirms it.

I'm hopeful that the recent resurgence in women's pool will continue and that women's pool is entering a period of great prosperity, but your sense of where things are right now is delusional.
Click to expand...

I was initially referencing those peak separation years for the WPBA. I imagine that time as similar to today where a group of players will separate.

Stronger than ever in terms of experience. Not prize money.

My intent was to show pool players formed a group around their gender identity and began a tour. Their ability to self organize is worth noting.

I agree with your assessment at the pro level.

Cue equipment is designed specifically for women. Innovation worth noting.


What was it like when the WPBA was
beginning the change? Can you talk about if its similar to today?
 
Last edited:
kev_eh said:
I thought it was about MR contract wording. Players would be signing a contract where the promoter (MR) could decide where they "work". That's pressure for players. MR has a well-connected money machine, and players would have to break their bonds with WPA if they give control of their work (and sport?) to MR.
Click to expand...
I think there's two issues there. One is whether WPA will vote to enforce 1.14.1.
https://wpapool.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/2022-WPA-Sports-Regulations.pdf

IMG_3940.jpeg


I suspect that they'll have a spirited discussion first on the scope of that enforcement. Do they start requiring written consent for players to join every unsanctioned event by any promoter? Obviously per the rule it only says that's needed if the event is held in the same period as a WPA event. So if there's no conflict there's no issue. But do make it more relaxed and decide to only enforce that if the event is held in the same period as a major WPA event, like a world championship.

In either case, it's about Matchroom not sanctioning their events and having calendar conflicts like the MR UK Open vs. the WPA European Championships or MR Asian open vs. WPA 8-ball World Championship.

The issue about clauses in contracts is completely unrelated. WPA certainly is welcome to take issue with it. Draw attention to it to curry favor with the public. And even rule on it at their general assembly. But as far as I can tell, it truly is a separate issue from sanctioning, calendar protection, and play suspensions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top