Players dropping out of the Matchroom/Predator CLP

jasonlaus

Rep for Smorg
Gold Member
Silver Member
All valid points, but I would imagine Matchroom's stance would be simply:

We're not stopping you wearing your sponsor's logo, you just have to wear the event sponsor's logo as well, take it or leave it.
This^^^^^

It's not Predator, it's the players sponsor's. it's not that hard to comprehend.
 

jviss

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I think Predator should have followed snooker's lead on this, and had a dress code that included rules on sponsorship on their clothing. I don't see anything wrong with limiting it, but it should restrict who the sponsors can be. And I would expect Predator's "label" to be the most prominently displayed, and that's fine, too.
 

KAP1976

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Does anyone feel that a title sponsor -- the sponsor that provides the majority of the added money -- should not be able to control the advertising images of related products appearing at the event? I'm trying to imagine what would have happened if Tiger Woods had worn a "Built Ford Tough" hat at the Buick Open.

It seems to me that some don't want pool to have sponsors because sponsors might be looking out for their own interests.
Except that Tiger Woods was sponsored by Buick. Now, Phil Mickelson played in the Buick Invitational while endorsing Ford. In fact, Phil Mickelson tied for fourth at the Buick invitational in 2003 with a big Ol Ford patch on his shirt.
 

Jimmorrison

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Except that Tiger Woods was sponsored by Buick. Now, Phil Mickelson played in the Buick Invitational while endorsing Ford. In fact, Phil Mickelson tied for fourth at the Buick invitational in 2003 with a big Ol Ford patch on his shirt.
Thanks, for saving me the trouble.
 

Quesports

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I believe the players are caught in the middle awaiting their individual sponsors making some arrangements with Predator and Matchroom. While they all negotiate their business angles the players are both unable and unwilling to say or do something that is negative to their careers. In the end it will all be worked out and we will see all or most of the big name players. That is my hope anyway...
 

DieselPete

Active member
Except that Tiger Woods was sponsored by Buick. Now, Phil Mickelson played in the Buick Invitational while endorsing Ford. In fact, Phil Mickelson tied for fourth at the Buick invitational in 2003 with a big Ol Ford patch on his shirt.

So, let's imagine that to play in the Buick Open, Phil is told "You must wear a logo that says Buick Open" right under the logos that you are paid to wear, that say Ford. Oh, and we aren't going to pay you to do so. In fact, you are going to pay us an entry fee.

You pay us.
Then you WEAR a logo that competes with someone who pays you.
But it isn't a Buick logo! It's a Buick OPEN logo. (See how clever we are!)

I'm sure we don't have to strain to imagine how hard Phil would laugh at that freaking nonsense.
 
Last edited:

sjm

Sweating it at Derby City
Silver Member
The grim reality here is that in pro pool, it's Matchroom and Predator that negotiate from a position of strength. The players, as a group, wield little power, and this has been the case for a couple of decades now.

The case history of late is that when players play hardball with event producers, sponsors and promoters, they usually fail to get the results they seek. Three examples in American pool in recent years are a) the CSI 10-ball event at the BCAPL Championships, eliminated in 2013, after some players harassed Mark Griffin over the entry fees and the payment deadline, b) the Ultimate 10-ball, eliminated in about 2015 after many players boycotted, and c) the Super Billiards Expo 10-ball, where the prize money was reduced after players demanded an increase in added money. These were events with high purses once upon a time, but the players just wouldn't leave well enough alone.

If the sport of pool grows, the players will wield more power and may prove well positioned to dictate terms in many situations, but until then, they need to get out of the way when event producers increase their investment in pro pool by creating new events. Obstructing the efforts of the few who are inclined to invest significant money in the pro pool product is not well advised at this time. The players (and their sponsors) need to swallow a little pride so that the sport can grow. Is that fair? Some will say yes and others will say no. Is it necessary? Yes, it is!

Comparisons to pro golf are comical. Golfers, who long ago established themselves as superstars who are capable spokespersons for products inside and outside of golf, negotiate from a position of power. That's why pro golfers bargain from a position of great strength.
 
Last edited:

Jaden

"no buds chill"
Silver Member
The grim reality here is that in pro pool, it's Matchroom and Predator that negotiate from a position of strength. The players, as a group, wield little power, and this has been the case for a couple of decades now.

The case history of late is that when players play hardball with event producers, sponsors and promoters, they usually fail to get the results they seek. Three examples in American pool in recent years are a) the CSI 10-ball event at the BCAPL Championships, eliminated in 2013, after some players harassed Mark Griffin over the entry fees and the payment deadline, b) the Ultimate 10-ball, eliminated in about 2015 after many players boycotted, and c) the Super Billiards Expo 10-ball, where the prize money was reduced after players demanded an increase in added money. These were events with high purses once upon a time, but the players just wouldn't leave well enough alone.

If the sport of pool grows, the players will wield more power and may prove well positioned to dictate terms in many situations, but until then, they need to get out of the way when event producers increase their investment in pro pool by creating new events. Obstructing the efforts of the few who are inclined to invest significant money in the pro pool product is not well advised at this time. The players (and their sponsors) need to swallow a little pride so that the sport can grow. Is that fair? Some will say yes and others will say no. Is it necessary? Yes, it is!

Comparisons to pro golf are comical. Golfers, who long ago established themselves as superstars who are capable spokespersons for products inside and outside of golf, negotiate from a position of power. That's why pro golfers bargain from a position of great strength.
LOL, your argument here is for the opposite of what you're trying to portray it as...lol.

These events you cited ENDED... I would say that's more against the promoters than the players. If the promoters want to keep their events going, they need to make sure that they get the best players to attend. Doing bullshit like this is what destroys the events they're trying to promote.

Jaden
 

upindaklub

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Except that Tiger Woods was sponsored by Buick. Now, Phil Mickelson played in the Buick Invitational while endorsing Ford. In fact, Phil Mickelson tied for fourth at the Buick invitational in 2003 with a big Ol Ford patch on his shirt.
I remember Michael Jordan wore the US Flag draped over another shoe MFG'S logo at the Olympic medal ceremony due to his relationship with Nike. Not a fair comparison but he did cover up the competitor's brand logo at the ceremony
 
Last edited:

sjm

Sweating it at Derby City
Silver Member
LOL, your argument here is for the opposite of what you're trying to portray it as...lol.

These events you cited ENDED... I would say that's more against the promoters than the players. If the promoters want to keep their events going, they need to make sure that they get the best players to attend. Doing bullshit like this is what destroys the events they're trying to promote.

Jaden
Sorry, but that's revisionist history.

The first two events ended because the players pressured the event producers to the point that they walked away from their respective projects. That's on the players, not on the event producers, and you obviously don't remember how it went down at the time. If you are so inclined, you can read the truly sad story of the Ultimate 10-ball on this very forum using the search features. The event producer put up a very big purse (if memory serves, first place paid $24,000), but abandoned the project after many top players boycotted it in his first year as the event producer. Super Billiards Expo 10-ball is still around but has lost some of its luster and the prize money has dropped.
 

DieselPete

Active member
Sorry, but that's revisionist history.

The first two events ended because the players pressured the event producers to the point that they walked away from their respective projects. That's on the players, not on the event producers, and you obviously don't remember how it went down at the time. If you are so inclined, you can read the truly sad story of the Ultimate 10-ball on this very forum using the search features. The event producer put up a very big purse (if memory serves, first place paid $24,000), but abandoned the project after many top players boycotted it in his first year as the event producer. Super Billiards Expo 10-ball is still around but has lost some of its luster and the prize money has dropped.

So let's agree that having sponsors walk away is bad, and having events shut down is bad, and the lost opportunities for the players to make money, showcase their skills, and grow the sport is all bad.

But to what end can the players be expected to capitulate to the sponsors' needs? Specifically, I am curious if you think that requiring the players to wear logos (any logos, frankly) for which they are not being compensated and that compete with their endorsements deals is appropriate?

For the thousand other ways the sponsor can activate their sponsorship, why create such controversy and headaches and rejections from top players by trying to be on their bodies with a little logo?

Signage, repeating the name over and over on air, put the name on the felt (perhaps virtually so the players don't even see it), give-aways for fans (to collect a huge email list), in-game sponsored contests for fans, you name it. The non-controversial options are boundless.
 

crazy8legs

Registered
Haven't read through all of the responses but this reminds me of auto racing. Mercedes may sponsor the race and have their advertising up everywhere, but all the other manufacturers still have their brands and logos visible. Honestly it's a bad look for Predator if it's true...and I shoot with Predator shaft, which I think is great.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

gerryf

Well-known member
...

But to what end can the players be expected to capitulate to the sponsors' needs? Specifically, I am curious if you think that requiring the players to wear logos (any logos, frankly) for which they are not being compensated and that compete with their endorsements deals is appropriate?

...

Signage, repeating the name over and over on air, put the name on the felt (perhaps virtually so the players don't even see it), give-aways for fans (to collect a huge email list), in-game sponsored contests for fans, you name it. The non-controversial options are boundless.

... and yet, with all these idea, sports sponsorships routinely require some control over the advertising in the events they contribute to....

Here, some of the players chose not to wear the event logo perhaps out of concern that it looked too much like the brand logo. Most of the other players had no problem with it. Some of those other players may be quite happy than Jayson and Shane aren't attending.

Perhaps if more players withdraw, the promoter and sponsor will come up with another plan. Perhaps they will just cancel the event.
 
Last edited:

jviss

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Specifically, I am curious if you think that requiring the players to wear logos (any logos, frankly) for which they are not being compensated and that compete with their endorsements deals is appropriate?
It works for snooker, which is orders of magnitude bigger than pool, in prize money, sponsorship money, fan attendance, etc., etc.
 

sjm

Sweating it at Derby City
Silver Member
So let's agree that having sponsors walk away is bad, and having events shut down is bad, and the lost opportunities for the players to make money, showcase their skills, and grow the sport is all bad.

But to what end can the players be expected to capitulate to the sponsors' needs? Specifically, I am curious if you think that requiring the players to wear logos (any logos, frankly) for which they are not being compensated and that compete with their endorsements deals is appropriate?

For the thousand other ways the sponsor can activate their sponsorship, why create such controversy and headaches and rejections from top players by trying to be on their bodies with a little logo?

Signage, repeating the name over and over on air, put the name on the felt (perhaps virtually so the players don't even see it), give-aways for fans (to collect a huge email list), in-game sponsored contests for fans, you name it. The non-controversial options are boundless.
Excellent post here that skillfully points out one of the dilemmas of our times in our sport.

As I previously noted, it can easily argued that asking the players to go along with these demands of the event producers is unfair. That said, I do think it's OK to require logos for which players are not compensated. If Phil Mickelson, who is sponsored by Ford, plays in the Buick Open, he may not have to wear the Buick Open logo, but his caddy may well be required to wear a vest that says "Buick Open" as well as "Mickelson" on it that identifies him as a caddy, and that vest will often be visible when Phil is on screen. Buick is not compensating Phil for it, but it's the event producer's privilege to mandate the way that caddies must present themselves. I recall, similarly, that back in the day, my brother caddied for a pro in the Shell Houston Open and he and every other pro had to wear a vest that said "Shell" on it.

As you correctly note, the event producer can meet the players in the middle somewhere, but in our sport, in which the event producers hold all the cards, it tends not to work that way. That doesn't mean it shouldn't work that way, just that it doesn't. I agree that there are other ways that the sponsors can get there name out there in a pool production.

I think we want the same thing here, but we probably have different expectations. I think the reason sponsors do things the way they do is that they have gotten away with it for so many years and have come to view it as their privilege.
 

PoolPlayer4

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Does anyone feel that a title sponsor -- the sponsor that provides the majority of the added money -- should not be able to control the advertising images of related products appearing at the event? I'm trying to imagine what would have happened if Tiger Woods had worn a "Built Ford Tough" hat at the Buick Open.

It seems to me that some don't want pool to have sponsors because sponsors might be looking out for their own interests.
NASCAR has dozens of partners, some of whom are direct competitors of individual car sponsors. I don't think the individual cars and drivers are required to bear patches from those partners. This seems to be a better comparison. For that matter, I don't think golfers are required to wear clothing bearing the event sponsors logos and I believe Tiger has worn the Nike "swoosh" symbol during competition. I don't recall Tiger ever being forced to wear clothing with a brand that was a direct competitor to Nike. Please correct me if I'm wrong as I'm not an avid follower of these sports, but as a casual fan that's my understanding.

It just seems to be carrying it too far to make a player wear a patch of a direct competitor to the sponsor that provides their livelihood, meager as that may be in pool. Indeed, the small size of the added advertising value for Predator/Matchroom on this issue, compared to the outsized value of these sponsorships to the players, is all the more reason this seems an unreasonable demand by Predator.

Note: I saw SJM's post #78 after posting this, indicating the caddies may be required to wear an event jersey. One distinction is that this is not the player, although the point is taken as to the similarities. But there are no Phil Mickelson or Tiger Woods dollars in pool. I think what drives my sympathies to the players here is simply how essential these sponsorships are to them scraping by, contrasted with the countless other ways Predator could achieve its event advertising needs without imposing this kind of requirement on players trying to scrape by and preserve their key relationships.
 
Last edited:
Top