I think any entity has the right to have rules of participation. The Mosconi is a prestigious event, for instance. MR has every right to base qualification on playing in many of its events.
Similarly, qualification for the WPA/Predator 10-ball title was predicated on being high in WPA rankings. Some players like FSR lost a lot of points by not obeying WPA rules on participation in certain non-WPA events last year. Was that extortion too?
What is important here is that WNT and WPA clearly state their rules upfront and let the players and fans know (WNT hasn't totally done this).
The big complication to me, at least in Matchroom's case, is that its points system can result in some players winning just one or two MR events and qualifying for Mosconi. In theory these players could then shun most other WNT events the rest of the year and still get on Mosconi.
To my mind, the player still deserves to be on the Mosconi if they racked up the points.
If MR doesn't want that situation to occur, it can structure its rankings in such a way that only players who played in most of its events would gain enough points to qualify. Then drop the rule about mandatory attendance of all/most big Matchroom events.
This would mean a player would not get as many points as they do now for winning, say, the WPC or US Open. They would have to finish high in other events too.
***
The ferment and budding competition in the pro pool world means a lot of hard thinking for both the WNT and Predator. It's going to take time for both sides to get their approaches "right."
