MatchRoom's response to the WPA player sanctions:

[sjm]

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?

I'm not the guru on the early years of the WPBA, although I remember the formation of the organization of the tour in 1976. Hence, consider my historical take on the early years with a grain of salt. You must also note that I speak as a fan, not from the vantage point of a WPBA player.

In the period 1976 until about 1991, the WPBA was a mid-sized professional tour and while some of their events were major, many of their events were regional, with the New Jersey State Championships being a good example of the latter. Nearly all the competitors were American, with the most noteworthy exception being Sweden's Ewa Mataya. This was an era dominated by Jean Balukas, whose win rate was simply amazing. Fields were sometimes as small as sixteen players in those years, and qualifiers were a fundamental part of field filling.

In 1992 came the biggest turning point for the WPBA. They had briefly joined forces with the men, cohosting events that featured both men and women. A few women of that era have told me that the men were control hogs in the administration of the tournaments of that period, but I'm in no position to confirm it.

The women decided to break off from the men and establish their own exclusive tour. The result was what came to be known as the WPBA Classic Tour. This was a defining moment for women's pool, and sponsorships were gained, field sizes increased to 48 players and a lucrative tour for the ladies by the standards of the day was born. The result was that by 1995, several prominent stars of Worldwide cuesports (most notably Allison Fisher, Gerda Hofstatter, Jennifer Chen and Helena Thornfeldt) joined the ranks of the WPBA. As you suggest, women amateurs were inspired by all the WPBA players, and lest we forget, women's pool had more airtime than men's pool at the time.

The decision to break ranks from the men and start the WPBA Classic Tour was a big winner. The ladies were very serious about their appearances and their behavior in the arena, and they came to be viewed, in the eyes of many, as offering a more tasteful professional pool product than the men. Years of prosperity followed, and many other top International players wanted to be part of it (with the most noteworthy being Jasmin Ouschan, Karen Corr, Kim Shaw, Kelly Fisher, Xiaoting Pan and Ga Young Kim). The WPBA had grown into a tour of world beaters and they were thriving for many years hence. They had solid management and good event planning, with a very capable lady named Peg Ledman making some great deals with the venue sponsors.

The peak years, as you call them, were probably 1992-2009.

Tougher times came by 2010, as many venue sponsors were lost. The number of events per year began to drop to the point that the top international players started showing up less and less. The best events in women's pool, from the vantage point of this fan, were no longer those of the WPBA, but instead those of Asia, where numerous superstars of the game were emerging.

In short, you are right about the women's ability to organize, especially in the golden years of the WPBA, which I think were 1992-2009. They built a solid tour with insight and good management. In the end, however, they ran into the exact same problem the men had, the inability to attract much out-of-industry sponsorship. Without it, just like the men, they were tied tightly to the well-being of hotel concerns, the travel industry and pool industry concerns, and when the economy grew unkind to them all, they suffered just as the men did.

It is wonderful to see them regaining momentum, and here I speak of all of women's pool, not just the WPBA. The ladies have both the know-how and the initiative to preside over these more prosperous times, but they can also learn a lot from the men, for in men's pool, we've seen two new tours emerge in the last two years in a) the US Pro Billiard Series, and b) the Matchroom World 9ball Tour.

I join you in my admiration of what the ladies have shown themselves capable. They've certainly made their mark in both pro and amateur pool and will likely continue to do so. That said, men's pool is in good hands right now and it is growing. The ladies need to pay attention.

 

[The_JV]

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.

I've seen you post this several times within this thread. Although I don't consider it inaccurate. I do think this wrongly paints MR as the antagonist in this "conflict", if you will.

From the outside looking in. It appeared as though MR originally wanted to play nice with the WPA. However once the WPA made it clear that they didn't want to share the existing ball. Matchroom decided to buy their own bigger, more bouncy one and start their own league.

I personally see this whole thing as more miss-management by the WPA.

 

[Guy Manges]

I'm kind of shaking my head that so much of the debate is about supporting the players, or supporting WPA, or supporting MR. Nobody has mentioned supporting the fans. Without fans, pro pool doesn't exist, period. To make a semi-analogy, big companies fail when they're too inward looking; but those that start with a customer mindset make better decisions and prosper. I just wonder if WPA and MR have gotten a little tunnel-visioned, and how they might see things differently if they held every decision up the the light of whether it's going to help pool's fans.

They both work to the fans, Viewers, This is the future, Thank you for pointing that out... Some members of AZb responders don't show much need for fan or viewers, My favorite game is One p. I am my favorite fan or viewer and all the rest they know what they can do... Must get help... Guy

 

[justnum]

There is a theory that most of the world understands agriculture.

If a farmer breeds chickens, do those chickens have rights? Suppose chickens on your farm decide they want to move out of the chicken coop and start their own chicken farm.

This is a chicken egg argument. Its a popular conundrum. Does it apply in the WPA and MR?

Pool players existed before the WPA. The pool players are the farmers that allowed the WPA to come into existence.

The WPA shows little respect or courtesy for the people that gave them life.

 

[MattPoland]

I've seen you post this several times within this thread. Although I don't consider it inaccurate. I do think this wrongly paints MR as the antagonist in this "conflict", if you will.

From the outside looking in. It appeared as though MR originally wanted to play nice with the WPA. However once the WPA made it clear that they didn't want to share the existing ball. Matchroom decided to buy their own bigger, more bouncy one and start their own league.

I personally see this whole thing as more miss-management by the WPA.

I try to see both sides. I think the scales weigh heavily in Matchroom’s favor overall but I’m trying to not let that emotionally blind me from the merits of both sides. WPA as a bureaucratic body was designed not to fully cede all its authority over any single discipline like 9-ball. And Matchroom as a private for profit enterprise was designed to grab anything it could leverage for growth. These two were always going to collide and Matchroom just happened to choose the time and place that occurs. You may not agree but I think Matchroom recognized they (as the WPNPC) were always destined to be akin to the WPBSA and WPA akin to the IBSF. The rankings weren’t the kidnapping of Helen of Troy as much as they were just the last straw and an opportune excuse.

 

[Guy Manges]

I'm not the guru on the early years of the WPBA, although I remember the formation of the organization of the tour in 1976. Hence, consider my historical take on the early years with a grain of salt. You must also note that I speak as a fan, not from the vantage point of a WPBA player.

In the period 1976 until about 1991, the WPBA was a mid-sized professional tour and while some of their events were major, many of their events were regional, with the New Jersey State Championships being a good example of the latter. Nearly all the competitors were American, with the most noteworthy exception being Sweden's Ewa Mataya. This was an era dominated by Jean Balukas, whose win rate was simply amazing. Fields were sometimes as small as sixteen players in those years, and qualifiers were a fundamental part of field filling.

In 1992 came the biggest turning point for the WPBA. They had briefly joined forces with the men, cohosting events that featured both men and women. A few women of that era have told me that the men were control hogs in the administration of the tournaments of that period, but I'm in no position to confirm it.

The women decided to break off from the men and establish their own exclusive tour. The result was what came to be known as the WPBA Classic Tour. This was a defining moment for women's pool, and sponsorships were gained, field sizes increased to 48 players and a lucrative tour for the ladies by the standards of the day was born. The result was that by 1995, several prominent stars of Worldwide cuesports (most notably Allison Fisher, Gerda Hofstatter, Jennifer Chen and Helena Thornfeldt) joined the ranks of the WPBA over the next decade. As you suggest, women amateurs were inspired by all the WPBA players, and lest we forget, women's pool had more airtime than men's pool at the time.

The decision to break ranks from the men and start the WPBA Classic Tour was a big winner. The ladies were very serious about their appearances and their behavior in the arena, and they came to be viewed, in the eyes of many, as offering a more tasteful professional pool product than the men. Years of prosperity followed, and many other top International players wanted to be part of it (with the most noteworthy being Jasmin Ouschan, Karen Corr, Kim Shaw, Kelly Fisher, Xiaoting Pan and Ga Young Kim). The WPBA had grown into a tour of world beaters and they were thriving for many years hence. They had solid management and good event planning, with a very capable lady named Peg Ledman making some great deals with the venue sponsors.

The peak years, as you call them, were probably 1992-2009.

Tougher times came by 2010, as many venue sponsors were lost. The number of events per year began to drop to the point that the top international players started showing up less and less. The best events in women's pool, from the vantage point of this fan, were no longer those of the WPBA, but instead those of Asia, where numerous superstars of the game were emerging.

In short, you are right about the women's ability to organize, especially in the golden years of the WPBA, which I think were 1992-2009. They built a solid tour with insight and good management. In the end, however, they ran into the exact same problem the men had, the inability to attract much out-of-industry sponsorship. Without it, just like the men, they were tied tightly to the well-being of hotel concerns, the travel industry and pool industry concerns, and when the economy grew unkind to them all, they suffered just as the men did.

It wonderful to see them regaining momentum, and here I speak of all of women's pool, not just the WPBA. The ladies have both the know-how and the initiative to preside over these more prosperous times, but they can also learn a lot form the men, for in men's pool, we've seen two new tours emerge in the last two years in a) the US Pro Billiard Series, and b) the Matchroom World 9ball Tour.

I join you in my admiration of what the ladies have shown themselves capable. They've certainly made their mark in both pro and amateur pool and will likely continue to do so. That said men's pool is in good hands right now and it is growing. The ladies need to pay attention.

That was needed..

 

[kev_eh]

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

View attachment 717495

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.

I understood in the Ishaun interview that the MR contract wording I mentioned is something new, although I understand that what WPA really takes issue with is what you've noted above that MR is not respecting.

 

[Cameron Smith]

I understood in the Ishaun interview that the MR contract wording I mentioned is something new, although I understand that what WPA really takes issue with is what you've noted above that MR is not respecting.

I think the wording has been updated but it’s been there in one respect or another for a while. I remember a few years ago they had a clause about playing in a US Open like event, which they later clarified to be specifically about 9 ball.

Billiards Digest posted a response from Emily on their Facebook page (copied below) and it addresses the player contracts. In short it’s fairly standard and the PGA, UFC and alphabet orgs have it. But it’s to stop players from supporting something like a rival Mosconi Cup or anything that infringes on their copyrights or branding.

———————

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02BpqwV5YfaeS7LTAzGbxXgTJPa6yaEAHM9PLWe36wCjUTp5b5LwuSMDqv1sUKnooKl&id=100057395090951

𝗠𝗮𝘁𝗰𝗵𝗿𝗼𝗼𝗺'𝘀 𝗙𝗿𝗮𝘇𝗲𝗿 𝗔𝗱𝗱𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗪𝗣𝗔 𝗧𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝘀

Social media has been ablaze since World Pool-Billiard Association (WPA) President Ishaun Singh’s appearance last week on the “Doggin’ It” podcast on Window’s Open in which Singh defended recent threats and bans against players by several WPA member federations and hinted that further restrictions against player participation in specific events was likely forthcoming.

Following the Asian Confederation of Billiard Sports (ACBS) ruling that barred Singaporean pool players from participating in the recent Formosa Cup in retaliation of a non-sanctioned English Billiards world championship staged in Singapore in 2022, the Polish Billiard Association informed its players that they were restricted from playing in the Matchroom World Nineball Tour Asian Open in October.

Singh doubled down on the WPA’s approach to its ongoing sanctioning feud with Matchroom by saying, “We’re going to a General Assembly (Oct. 7 in Qatar), and one of the items will be the enforcement of rules that we have where if a player plays in non-sanctioned events, they won’t be welcome in WPA events.”

According to Singh in the “Doggin’ It” podcast, the WPA’s hardened stance is in large part a response to Matchroom player contract for the Asian Open which includes the following:
“Following completion of the Event, the Player shall not be entitled to participate in any 9-Ball event not forming part of the World Nineball Tour without the prior written consent of Matchroom (not to be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed.)”

Billiards Digest reached out to Matchroom Pool Marketing Director Emily Frazer for her response to several points discussed during the podcast.

𝘾𝙖𝙣 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙖𝙙𝙙𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙈𝙖𝙩𝙘𝙝𝙧𝙤𝙤𝙢 𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙮𝙚𝙧𝙨 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙩 𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙪𝙨𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙗𝙚𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙙?
Firstly, it is one thing having these clauses in contracts and another actually enforcing them. Our contracts updated following the launch of the WNT and our disassociation with the WPA (to confirm compliance with WNT event rules, integrity, disciplinary matters etc.) including an update to this clause more generally rather than event specific type. The clause is otherwise as per our previous contracts and contains nothing that isn’t market standard.
𝙄𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙮𝙚𝙧𝙨 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙛𝙧𝙚𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙮 𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙘𝙝𝙤𝙤𝙨𝙚, 𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙪𝙧𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙪𝙡𝙖𝙧 𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙪𝙨𝙚?
We could ask the same of the WPA. The reality is it is the WPA who are threatening suspensions and bans so it us and more importantly the players who eagerly await the outcome of the WPA’s general assembly on 7 October. We will review the next steps thereafter but, in the meantime, let’s not forget that we are building a professional tour with more high-quality global events than anyone else. But in our case, bans have never been on the table. It’s never been an issue.
𝘼𝙜𝙖𝙞𝙣, 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙣, 𝙬𝙝𝙮 𝙞𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙪𝙨𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚?
It’s a standard way to have protection for the brand. What if another promoter started a team event the week after the Mosconi Cup using the same players?
𝘼𝙣𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙖𝙧𝙜𝙪𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙈𝙖𝙩𝙘𝙝𝙧𝙤𝙤𝙢 𝙞𝙨 𝙩𝙧𝙮𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙤 “𝙤𝙬𝙣” 9-𝙗𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙢𝙤𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙨 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙧𝙪𝙣𝙣𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙡𝙖𝙧𝙜𝙚 9-𝙗𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙩𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙣𝙖𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙨.
Prevent? The more the merrier I say! We’re working with over 20 different promoters in 2023 alone to put on WNT events, let’s face it there has never been so many 9-ball events in one calendar year: to state we are trying to prevent other promoters is factually incorrect.
Yes, we own the World Nineball Tour – no one can own the sport or naming rights to a country title for that matter, but we welcome other promoters to our exciting journey. Organizing a professional tour means dedicating all resources, time, and efforts to doing what it takes, that includes working relentlessly and with likeminded promoters therefore producing more events.
We don’t ask for anything from promoters to sanction their events to the WNT and we are not unreasonable in our sanctioning of ranking events. We request events to be played with consistent rules (which are continually reviewed and monitored), formats and to run their events by the high standard we have set.
𝙒𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙙𝙤 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙛𝙚𝙚𝙡 𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙝𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙩 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙨𝙪𝙙𝙙𝙚𝙣 𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙚 𝙗𝙚𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙙𝙧𝙖𝙬𝙣 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙖𝙣𝙙?
Your guess is as good as mine, but let’s face it the writings on the wall. For years there have been chancers throwing money at pool, none have lasted or managed to create a sustainable product like us. Now it’s finally happening, we’re organizing a professional tour and for some it’s about staying relevant and others it’s about supporting and getting on board. We acknowledge the importance and role of the amateur game, we support the process of growing the future champions, we’re even hosting Junior events that never existed before so of course we respect amateur pool. We do however have a business strategy and vision of making Nineball a mainstream sport and we are pressing ahead.
𝙁𝙞𝙣𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮, 𝙞𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙤𝙥𝙥𝙤𝙧𝙩𝙪𝙣𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙖𝙜𝙧𝙚𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩/𝙘𝙤𝙚𝙭𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙗𝙚𝙩𝙬𝙚𝙚𝙣 𝙈𝙖𝙩𝙘𝙝𝙧𝙤𝙤𝙢 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙒𝙋𝘼 𝙣𝙤𝙬 𝙙𝙚𝙖𝙙?
Never say never, but at this stage we’ve exhausted all options. We have progressed our plans with the launch of the WNT and WPNPC and our sole focus remains to build a huge platform for 9-ball pool, in the same way we have done to Darts and Snooker. We have a clear plan for our professional tour, we respect the amateur bodies but there is no need to interfere with the other. We are not looking for a fight, nor should they look for a fight with us; we can co-exist together.
For transparency (for the players sake), we tried to make it work: all we asked is that the WNT rankings be recognized as the official 9-ball rankings. It didn’t prevent the WPA from continuing with its own rankings or sanctioning 9-ball events that did not wish to form part of the WNT rankings. We guaranteed sanctioning fees payable to the WPA (not deducted from the players) and an annual increase in prize money for the players. The WPA prevented any form of constructive conversation from taking place by refusing to even engage in the discussions.
As I say, never say never, but we have now moved on.

 

[Bob Jewett]

.... once the WPA made it clear that they didn't want to share the existing ball. Matchroom decided ...

Maybe I missed something.

Matchroom was going along with WPA sanctioning and everything seemed fine. Then Matchroom said, in effect, "Only our ranking system is acceptable," and the WPA declined to use that system which was based only on Matchroom open events. At that point, Matchroom announced the breakup and said that only the World Championship (9-ball) would be sanctioned.

Do you remember a different sequence of events?

 

[kev_eh]

I think the wording has been updated but it’s been there in one respect or another for a while. I remember a few years ago they had a clause about playing in a US Open like event, which they later clarified to be specifically about 9 ball.

Billiards Digest posted a response from Emily on their Facebook page (copied below) and it addresses the player contracts. In short it’s fairly standard and the PGA, UFC and alphabet orgs have it. But it’s to stop players from supporting something like a rival Mosconi Cup or anything that infringes on their copyrights or branding.

———————

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02BpqwV5YfaeS7LTAzGbxXgTJPa6yaEAHM9PLWe36wCjUTp5b5LwuSMDqv1sUKnooKl&id=100057395090951

𝗠𝗮𝘁𝗰𝗵𝗿𝗼𝗼𝗺'𝘀 𝗙𝗿𝗮𝘇𝗲𝗿 𝗔𝗱𝗱𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗪𝗣𝗔 𝗧𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝘀

Social media has been ablaze since World Pool-Billiard Association (WPA) President Ishaun Singh’s appearance last week on the “Doggin’ It” podcast on Window’s Open in which Singh defended recent threats and bans against players by several WPA member federations and hinted that further restrictions against player participation in specific events was likely forthcoming.

Following the Asian Confederation of Billiard Sports (ACBS) ruling that barred Singaporean pool players from participating in the recent Formosa Cup in retaliation of a non-sanctioned English Billiards world championship staged in Singapore in 2022, the Polish Billiard Association informed its players that they were restricted from playing in the Matchroom World Nineball Tour Asian Open in October.

Singh doubled down on the WPA’s approach to its ongoing sanctioning feud with Matchroom by saying, “We’re going to a General Assembly (Oct. 7 in Qatar), and one of the items will be the enforcement of rules that we have where if a player plays in non-sanctioned events, they won’t be welcome in WPA events.”

According to Singh in the “Doggin’ It” podcast, the WPA’s hardened stance is in large part a response to Matchroom player contract for the Asian Open which includes the following:
“Following completion of the Event, the Player shall not be entitled to participate in any 9-Ball event not forming part of the World Nineball Tour without the prior written consent of Matchroom (not to be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed.)”

Billiards Digest reached out to Matchroom Pool Marketing Director Emily Frazer for her response to several points discussed during the podcast.

𝘾𝙖𝙣 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙖𝙙𝙙𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙈𝙖𝙩𝙘𝙝𝙧𝙤𝙤𝙢 𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙮𝙚𝙧𝙨 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙩 𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙪𝙨𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙗𝙚𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙙?
Firstly, it is one thing having these clauses in contracts and another actually enforcing them. Our contracts updated following the launch of the WNT and our disassociation with the WPA (to confirm compliance with WNT event rules, integrity, disciplinary matters etc.) including an update to this clause more generally rather than event specific type. The clause is otherwise as per our previous contracts and contains nothing that isn’t market standard.
𝙄𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙮𝙚𝙧𝙨 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙛𝙧𝙚𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙮 𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙘𝙝𝙤𝙤𝙨𝙚, 𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙪𝙧𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙪𝙡𝙖𝙧 𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙪𝙨𝙚?
We could ask the same of the WPA. The reality is it is the WPA who are threatening suspensions and bans so it us and more importantly the players who eagerly await the outcome of the WPA’s general assembly on 7 October. We will review the next steps thereafter but, in the meantime, let’s not forget that we are building a professional tour with more high-quality global events than anyone else. But in our case, bans have never been on the table. It’s never been an issue.
𝘼𝙜𝙖𝙞𝙣, 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙣, 𝙬𝙝𝙮 𝙞𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙪𝙨𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚?
It’s a standard way to have protection for the brand. What if another promoter started a team event the week after the Mosconi Cup using the same players?
𝘼𝙣𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙖𝙧𝙜𝙪𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙈𝙖𝙩𝙘𝙝𝙧𝙤𝙤𝙢 𝙞𝙨 𝙩𝙧𝙮𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙤 “𝙤𝙬𝙣” 9-𝙗𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙢𝙤𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙨 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙧𝙪𝙣𝙣𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙡𝙖𝙧𝙜𝙚 9-𝙗𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙩𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙣𝙖𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙨.
Prevent? The more the merrier I say! We’re working with over 20 different promoters in 2023 alone to put on WNT events, let’s face it there has never been so many 9-ball events in one calendar year: to state we are trying to prevent other promoters is factually incorrect.
Yes, we own the World Nineball Tour – no one can own the sport or naming rights to a country title for that matter, but we welcome other promoters to our exciting journey. Organizing a professional tour means dedicating all resources, time, and efforts to doing what it takes, that includes working relentlessly and with likeminded promoters therefore producing more events.
We don’t ask for anything from promoters to sanction their events to the WNT and we are not unreasonable in our sanctioning of ranking events. We request events to be played with consistent rules (which are continually reviewed and monitored), formats and to run their events by the high standard we have set.
𝙒𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙙𝙤 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙛𝙚𝙚𝙡 𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙝𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙩 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙨𝙪𝙙𝙙𝙚𝙣 𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙚 𝙗𝙚𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙙𝙧𝙖𝙬𝙣 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙖𝙣𝙙?
Your guess is as good as mine, but let’s face it the writings on the wall. For years there have been chancers throwing money at pool, none have lasted or managed to create a sustainable product like us. Now it’s finally happening, we’re organizing a professional tour and for some it’s about staying relevant and others it’s about supporting and getting on board. We acknowledge the importance and role of the amateur game, we support the process of growing the future champions, we’re even hosting Junior events that never existed before so of course we respect amateur pool. We do however have a business strategy and vision of making Nineball a mainstream sport and we are pressing ahead.
𝙁𝙞𝙣𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮, 𝙞𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙤𝙥𝙥𝙤𝙧𝙩𝙪𝙣𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙖𝙜𝙧𝙚𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩/𝙘𝙤𝙚𝙭𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙗𝙚𝙩𝙬𝙚𝙚𝙣 𝙈𝙖𝙩𝙘𝙝𝙧𝙤𝙤𝙢 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙒𝙋𝘼 𝙣𝙤𝙬 𝙙𝙚𝙖𝙙?
Never say never, but at this stage we’ve exhausted all options. We have progressed our plans with the launch of the WNT and WPNPC and our sole focus remains to build a huge platform for 9-ball pool, in the same way we have done to Darts and Snooker. We have a clear plan for our professional tour, we respect the amateur bodies but there is no need to interfere with the other. We are not looking for a fight, nor should they look for a fight with us; we can co-exist together.
For transparency (for the players sake), we tried to make it work: all we asked is that the WNT rankings be recognized as the official 9-ball rankings. It didn’t prevent the WPA from continuing with its own rankings or sanctioning 9-ball events that did not wish to form part of the WNT rankings. We guaranteed sanctioning fees payable to the WPA (not deducted from the players) and an annual increase in prize money for the players. The WPA prevented any form of constructive conversation from taking place by refusing to even engage in the discussions.
As I say, never say never, but we have now moved on.

What a great response from Emily. The ball is clearly in the court of WPA. There's a sport (WPA) and there's a league (WNT). Both have to co-exist and have complementary mandates. They exist BECAUSE of the players, and the players should have their say as members (and drivers) of both. Maybe a player rep elected for each?

Sent from my SM-A505W using Tapatalk

 

[justnum]

Emily Frazer is a woman. Some people have trouble listening to a woman on the job.

Outside of Emily Frazer which one person has put the time in with pool players and time with one of the greatest promoters/investors of sports.

It all started when Emily took the job and none of the players knew how to project a professional image on screen. I imagine it was the same in boardroom meetings with WPA.

Emily is proving more popular with promoters and players than the WPA. All indicators suggest Emily is willing to work with more stakeholders to create a platform for success.

The WPA is only allowing federation officials to govern a game. WPA general assembly has a high threshold to obtain membership. WPA is has an elitist culture to protect the bureaucracy of pool. Players and promoters don't have the rights to govern pool.

This is pool's tearing down of the Berlin Wall. Is a sanction paywall what the sport, fans or players want more of?

When has the sanction paywall ever helped anyone?

 

[skogstokig]

Maybe I missed something.

Matchroom was going along with WPA sanctioning and everything seemed fine. Then Matchroom said, "Only our ranking system is acceptable," and the WPA declined to use that system which was based only on Matchroom open events. At that point, Matchroom announced the breakup and said that only the World Championship (9-ball) would be sanctioned.

Do you remember a different sequence of events?

at the time a separate 9-ball ranking didn't exist. the WPA ranking is cross discipline. i can understand why MR wanted a separate ranking for the only game they promote, because that's what relevant for their invitational events etc. and in my opinion their ranking system has turned out great, as has the inclusion of non-MR events into it. i know it would take a lot for the WPA to agree on it, but it wouldn't be completely unreasonable given that a separate ranking didn't exist.

 

[chevybob20]

Show me a business that doesn’t intend to make a profit and doesn’t intend to dominate all competitors and I’ll show you a failed organization.

The WPA has profiteered off of pool and very little was returned to the pool world. It was not their intent but it is the reality that came of their efforts. I’m not judging the WPA on their efforts. I’m judging them on their results.

Matchroom events are very entertaining.

 

[chevybob20]

I think I found the WPA’s problem, they don’t have any marketing types or people who can choke down their ego enough to make the best business decisions.

My WPA Statement, instead of sanctioning players:

“At the WPA we are excited about the opportunity that Matchroom and other non-sanctioned events are providing pool players and pool fans alike. We look forward to working will all those who have an interest in promoting pool. However we do worry that if we lack coordination, significant pool tournaments may be diluted which hurts the long term prospects of the sport, and by extension, the players and fans.

We remain steadfast in our dream and goal that some form of cue sports join its rightful place among the Olympic Games, which would preserve and enhance opportunity of cue sports worldwide for all participants and investors. A particular concern is that Matchroom is highlighting one particular game (9-ball) at expense of others. We at the WPA feel that the best way to promote pool is providing an opportunity for multiple disciplines to shine.

That being said, the world of pool is big, perhaps bigger than the general public believes, and we look forward to working on a path forward with all investors to provide the best for our players and fans.”

I’m belly laughing because I used to believe that too. Pool is played by a huge number of people. It’s a sport that can be played at a decent level very late in life. Finding the formula to bring money into the sport has been a challenge. The WPA has failed at that challenge. I can watch corn hole on TV but not Pool. That fact alone stands as testimony to the failure of all who has tried, especially the WPA.

Next up, Matchroom. I wish you luck.

 

[klikr]

𝘼𝙜𝙖𝙞𝙣, 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙣, 𝙬𝙝𝙮 𝙞𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙪𝙨𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚?
It’s a standard way to have protection for the brand. What if another promoter started a team event the week after the Mosconi Cup using the same players?
𝘼𝙣𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙖𝙧𝙜𝙪𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙈𝙖𝙩𝙘𝙝𝙧𝙤𝙤𝙢 𝙞𝙨 𝙩𝙧𝙮𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙤 “𝙤𝙬𝙣” 9-𝙗𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙢𝙤𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙨 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙧𝙪𝙣𝙣𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙡𝙖𝙧𝙜𝙚 9-𝙗𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙩𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙣𝙖𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙨.
Prevent? The more the merrier I say! We’re working with over 20 different promoters in 2023 alone to put on WNT events, let’s face it there has never been so many 9-ball events in one calendar year: to state we are trying to prevent other promoters is factually incorrect.

Two statements next to each other, heavily contradicting each other. I understand that in the first answer, it's about the players, who shall not compete in a similar event from a non-MR promoter. In the second answer, she embraces a possible market competition - just not with the same players...? I'm lacking words for that.

 

[chevybob20]

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.

Anything involving charity to sustain day to day operations is a failure. Government funding is charity at the barrel end of a gun.

 

[chevybob20]

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.

Yup. My guess, they will follow the money. The dollar never lies.

Beggars can’t be choosers.

 

[buckshotshoey]

Anything involving charity to sustain day to day operations is a failure. Government funding is charity at the barrel end of a gun.

I'm glad that someone else sees it. Keep the government out!

I see the WPA to be like a government. When there is no transparency, the money is wasted, and growth is stifled.

Maybe the WPA could be improved? How are the WPA board members selected?

 

[MattPoland]

Anything involving charity to sustain day to day operations is a failure. Government funding is charity at the barrel end of a gun.

US doesn’t do government funding to sports. Are you concerned about the fact that other countries do?

 

[stewie]

Two statements next to each other, heavily contradicting each other. I understand that in the first answer, it's about the players, who shall not compete in a similar event from a non-MR promoter. In the second answer, she embraces a possible market competition - just not with the same players...? I'm lacking words for that.

You are reading this wrong. The more events, the better. But whoever runs an event should be protected from copycats. Mike Zuglan would not be happy with somebody else coming up with a second Turning Stone either. Many different events is what everyone wants and should support.