http://www.prosnookerblog.com/2015/04/23/mount-reflects-on-snooker-journey/
PSB: Looking at the sport generally as someone who has been so heavily involved with players spread across the ranking list, would you say that the game is now in a healthy position?
PM: It depends how you measure healthy. As a business it’s clear that World Snooker is much healthier and making good profits and the players at the very top are much better off financially as there are far more playing opportunities.
The flip side of the business is that the increasing number of mid to lower ranked players are struggling to make any sort of living, for several reasons.
Firstly their expenses have gone up dramatically. Secondly in the higher earning tournaments they are either severely disadvantaged by the seedings (UK championship especially), or need to spend a large part of their first round winnings on entry fees, travelling and local taxes in China and other foreign countries where about 20% is taken at source with no allowance for expenses.
Thirdly, the time it takes for prize monies to be paid is scandalous. All of the players who are out of the World Championship will not have a pay day until August, apart from a couple of European Tour events in July and August, and history tells us they don’t make much in them.
Fourthly, they are being asked to enter and pay entry fees and expenses way before the tournaments. With events in China for instance, the gap between paying entries and receiving prize money is over five months.
In short, without any financial support or sponsorship, which has become far more difficult to acquire, it’s difficult financially for these guys to stay on tour.
On the subject of sponsorship there are several big issues. Most companies will not get involved because of the emphasis on betting companies. It just doesn’t do their company profile any favours.
This is not such a major issue for World Snooker because they receive the sponsorship from the gambling companies and the TV revenue. They can decide how much is used in the prize pot or added to their bottom line, but it is an issue for the players.
You only have to look at how few players have logos, or more to the point how many do not. In 2010, top 32 players could attract an annual sponsor to pay £10,000 – £32,000 – just for wearing their logo – and top 16 players were well above that.
There is not much of that around now and when a sponsor does get involved, such as Kreativ Dental, they can then be enticed into World Snooker sponsorship, for probably not that much more than they were playing their chosen array of players, and have their logo on all players and have banners on TV. The money they spent on individual players goes into World Snooker’s pot to be spent at World Snooker’s discretion. They then show a strong profit and loss for the last financial year and good dividends of over £120,000 for several in World Snooker, including the Commercial Director who is responsible for striking the sponsorship deals. Those players lose out.
Prize money has increased but if you take away the very large prizes for the winner and runner up, as well as the events that where already around (e.g. Championship League), the amount available to those players that compete but are not yet appearing in the latter stages of tournaments has not changed in line with expenses.
A positive is that spectators now have much more opportunities to watch live snooker, either at venues or on TV, so that is a bonus. My main concern is that the emphasis on money is maybe taking some of the soul out of the game and there are some sacrifices on quality to enable the quantity.
There is obviously a new generation of snooker fans, which is good, that are looking for more than traditional professional snooker events and there are now a variety of formats which address that.
Maybe these new formats will attract more and more fans who also want to play the sport, in the same way 20/20 cricket has revitalised cricket in general.
The warning is that first class county cricket matches are attracting fewer fans which could have a long term effect on England’s International prospects and the future of test cricket.
This is only a problem for the purists and maybe pandering to the new audience is the best way forward. Time will tell for snooker and cricket.
PSB: It is no secret that life on tour can be tough financially for all but those at the top of the world rankings, do you think that more should be done to help support those who are struggling in this respect?
PM: Yes. It’s all about fairness in my mind, or lack of it, and World Snooker and the WPBSA investing in the future, as is done to some extent in China and Thailand where they are financing WPBSA academies.
I know there is a view not to pay losers but if a player has qualified for the tour, there are ways of introducing a “minimum wage” approach so that basic expenses are covered.
For instance the WPBSA has a bank balance that is increasing, year on year, by around £300,000 (currently standing at over £1.3m), which is not that dissimilar to the levy paid by the players on every amount of prize money they win.
As an association for the members, why not scrap the levy and give their members a fair share in the retained profits to give them breathing space? A large amount of “profit” in the game is going in dividends (£120,000 each) to directors, who are already on good salaries, probably in recognition of how they have helped grow the sport. What about the contributions that the players, at all levels, make to growing the sport. They should use some of the large profits to help the players.
PSB: Looking at the sport generally as someone who has been so heavily involved with players spread across the ranking list, would you say that the game is now in a healthy position?
PM: It depends how you measure healthy. As a business it’s clear that World Snooker is much healthier and making good profits and the players at the very top are much better off financially as there are far more playing opportunities.
The flip side of the business is that the increasing number of mid to lower ranked players are struggling to make any sort of living, for several reasons.
Firstly their expenses have gone up dramatically. Secondly in the higher earning tournaments they are either severely disadvantaged by the seedings (UK championship especially), or need to spend a large part of their first round winnings on entry fees, travelling and local taxes in China and other foreign countries where about 20% is taken at source with no allowance for expenses.
Thirdly, the time it takes for prize monies to be paid is scandalous. All of the players who are out of the World Championship will not have a pay day until August, apart from a couple of European Tour events in July and August, and history tells us they don’t make much in them.
Fourthly, they are being asked to enter and pay entry fees and expenses way before the tournaments. With events in China for instance, the gap between paying entries and receiving prize money is over five months.
In short, without any financial support or sponsorship, which has become far more difficult to acquire, it’s difficult financially for these guys to stay on tour.
On the subject of sponsorship there are several big issues. Most companies will not get involved because of the emphasis on betting companies. It just doesn’t do their company profile any favours.
This is not such a major issue for World Snooker because they receive the sponsorship from the gambling companies and the TV revenue. They can decide how much is used in the prize pot or added to their bottom line, but it is an issue for the players.
You only have to look at how few players have logos, or more to the point how many do not. In 2010, top 32 players could attract an annual sponsor to pay £10,000 – £32,000 – just for wearing their logo – and top 16 players were well above that.
There is not much of that around now and when a sponsor does get involved, such as Kreativ Dental, they can then be enticed into World Snooker sponsorship, for probably not that much more than they were playing their chosen array of players, and have their logo on all players and have banners on TV. The money they spent on individual players goes into World Snooker’s pot to be spent at World Snooker’s discretion. They then show a strong profit and loss for the last financial year and good dividends of over £120,000 for several in World Snooker, including the Commercial Director who is responsible for striking the sponsorship deals. Those players lose out.
Prize money has increased but if you take away the very large prizes for the winner and runner up, as well as the events that where already around (e.g. Championship League), the amount available to those players that compete but are not yet appearing in the latter stages of tournaments has not changed in line with expenses.
A positive is that spectators now have much more opportunities to watch live snooker, either at venues or on TV, so that is a bonus. My main concern is that the emphasis on money is maybe taking some of the soul out of the game and there are some sacrifices on quality to enable the quantity.
There is obviously a new generation of snooker fans, which is good, that are looking for more than traditional professional snooker events and there are now a variety of formats which address that.
Maybe these new formats will attract more and more fans who also want to play the sport, in the same way 20/20 cricket has revitalised cricket in general.
The warning is that first class county cricket matches are attracting fewer fans which could have a long term effect on England’s International prospects and the future of test cricket.
This is only a problem for the purists and maybe pandering to the new audience is the best way forward. Time will tell for snooker and cricket.
PSB: It is no secret that life on tour can be tough financially for all but those at the top of the world rankings, do you think that more should be done to help support those who are struggling in this respect?
PM: Yes. It’s all about fairness in my mind, or lack of it, and World Snooker and the WPBSA investing in the future, as is done to some extent in China and Thailand where they are financing WPBSA academies.
I know there is a view not to pay losers but if a player has qualified for the tour, there are ways of introducing a “minimum wage” approach so that basic expenses are covered.
For instance the WPBSA has a bank balance that is increasing, year on year, by around £300,000 (currently standing at over £1.3m), which is not that dissimilar to the levy paid by the players on every amount of prize money they win.
As an association for the members, why not scrap the levy and give their members a fair share in the retained profits to give them breathing space? A large amount of “profit” in the game is going in dividends (£120,000 each) to directors, who are already on good salaries, probably in recognition of how they have helped grow the sport. What about the contributions that the players, at all levels, make to growing the sport. They should use some of the large profits to help the players.
Last edited: