Pool Player Podcast............... WPA
- Thread starter garczar
- Start date
i think that’s all he really can do at this point. I haven’t watched it yet but I’d be surprised if he wasn’t more careful after the WPA had to walk back his comments immediately after the last podcast he was on. The ended doing exactly what he said they would, but I’m sure there weren’t pleased he let the cat out of the bag.
I live in a state with a long history of corrupt county commissioners. He reminds of one of them. Power trippin' little political appointees.
Atorontopoolplayer
Active member
The thing they never really got to was why it's necessary for these events to be sanctioned.
2023 things were working fine still, there was not really a need for this power trip
2023 things were working fine still, there was not really a need for this power trip
I just watched it in its entirety. I think he made a lot of good points. He has to watch out for the entirety of pocket billiard disciplines worldwide. He's so right, in that if MR simply sanctioned, everything would be fine.
I've gone back and forth several times if I'm on the side of MR or WPA. This latest interview sways me closer to the WPA side, but I'm not strongly on either.
I've gone back and forth several times if I'm on the side of MR or WPA. This latest interview sways me closer to the WPA side, but I'm not strongly on either.
I am kind of on the WPA side as well, but the only thing keeping that organization going is their affiliations with the federations. WPA's problem is there is really no benefit for a promoter to sanction their events. The only so called benefit is that you will guaranteed to have players from national federations playing your tournament.
My initial reactions are,
1. Kudos to Ishaun for coming on and opening himself to scrutiny
2. It’s time for Emily to speak openly on the issue, they can’t let the WPA own the narrative, no matter how well or poorly they do it.
3. This concept of “owning” sounds too squishy and a bit of an emotional reaction. If there is no downside to folding the remaining 9 ball events under matchroom, then do it! Don’t fight to keep pool fractured. Matchroom doesn’t own anything other than the premier professional tour, so do what you have to do support it and the byproduct is that you don’t get cut out.
Clearly the main issue for matchroom is the WPA doesn’t want to change the way they are doing things at all. It sounds like they expect success by the doing what they’ve been doing for the last 40 years, but you have to recognize that much of the current interest is being driven by Matchroom/predator promotion and interest in China that has bubbled up during lockdown.
4. Split the 10 ball and Heyball rankings up. This mixed ranking system is just goofy. The World 8 ball doesn’t need to be on the rankings because it’s a world championships and that makes it worthwhile in of itself. Grandfather 14.1 and reduce the requirements for the American 14.1 to be called a World Championship. There solved.
5. Just because you can ban everyone doesn’t mean you should. If you can’t entice players away from matchroom based on the value you provide then perhaps that should generate some introspection.
1. Kudos to Ishaun for coming on and opening himself to scrutiny
2. It’s time for Emily to speak openly on the issue, they can’t let the WPA own the narrative, no matter how well or poorly they do it.
3. This concept of “owning” sounds too squishy and a bit of an emotional reaction. If there is no downside to folding the remaining 9 ball events under matchroom, then do it! Don’t fight to keep pool fractured. Matchroom doesn’t own anything other than the premier professional tour, so do what you have to do support it and the byproduct is that you don’t get cut out.
Clearly the main issue for matchroom is the WPA doesn’t want to change the way they are doing things at all. It sounds like they expect success by the doing what they’ve been doing for the last 40 years, but you have to recognize that much of the current interest is being driven by Matchroom/predator promotion and interest in China that has bubbled up during lockdown.
4. Split the 10 ball and Heyball rankings up. This mixed ranking system is just goofy. The World 8 ball doesn’t need to be on the rankings because it’s a world championships and that makes it worthwhile in of itself. Grandfather 14.1 and reduce the requirements for the American 14.1 to be called a World Championship. There solved.
5. Just because you can ban everyone doesn’t mean you should. If you can’t entice players away from matchroom based on the value you provide then perhaps that should generate some introspection.
Last edited:
I think a great question was asked with a bad answer. Honestly. Why does Matchroom feel they don’t need to sanction with WPA?
Money? I feel like that’s too simple an answer. The sanction fees aren’t that much compared to the overall production costs of these events.
Rankings? They are invested in their structure and it does work for turning the Mosconi Cup into a 12 month cycle. But they could do that whether WPA acknowledges it or not.
Rankings (part 2)? They want their rankings to drive invitations and seeding for the world championship and WPA won’t let them?
Ownership? I struggle with the idea that anyone can own the sport. You can monopolize the industry with the best show in town, but that doesn’t sound too unappealing to me. But even then you only own your events and your structure. This sounds nebulous.
WPA Shackles? Having to honor player bans they don’t believe in? Needing to execute whatever inefficient implementation of drug WADA drug testing that WPA brings to the table? Having to listen to whining about calendar protection against subpar federation darling events?
Contractual Exploitation? Do they want to freely lock the players into their contacts and their terms without a guard dog? Are they truly trying to milk riches from the industry and not trickle it down because they can get away with something?
Principle? Do they feel Olympic Authority, as embraced by various federations and governments, is not actual universal authority over the sport and they’d just rather not have the bureaucrats involved in any capacity?
I’m growing more and more anti-WPA through this whole process. Some of the reasons are enough for me. But I wonder what Matchroom’s true core motivation is. Thoughts?
Money? I feel like that’s too simple an answer. The sanction fees aren’t that much compared to the overall production costs of these events.
Rankings? They are invested in their structure and it does work for turning the Mosconi Cup into a 12 month cycle. But they could do that whether WPA acknowledges it or not.
Rankings (part 2)? They want their rankings to drive invitations and seeding for the world championship and WPA won’t let them?
Ownership? I struggle with the idea that anyone can own the sport. You can monopolize the industry with the best show in town, but that doesn’t sound too unappealing to me. But even then you only own your events and your structure. This sounds nebulous.
WPA Shackles? Having to honor player bans they don’t believe in? Needing to execute whatever inefficient implementation of drug WADA drug testing that WPA brings to the table? Having to listen to whining about calendar protection against subpar federation darling events?
Contractual Exploitation? Do they want to freely lock the players into their contacts and their terms without a guard dog? Are they truly trying to milk riches from the industry and not trickle it down because they can get away with something?
Principle? Do they feel Olympic Authority, as embraced by various federations and governments, is not actual universal authority over the sport and they’d just rather not have the bureaucrats involved in any capacity?
I’m growing more and more anti-WPA through this whole process. Some of the reasons are enough for me. But I wonder what Matchroom’s true core motivation is. Thoughts?
This is where I’d like to see matchroom finally get on a podcast and chat about this issue.
I’m fairly certain though that they don’t want to get boxed into the WPAs structure and strategy. They want to do what they think they need to do to grow this tour without convincing someone else to make changes to accommodate them. I know this in part is where the whole “ownership” things comes from, but it’s really about recognizing the world nineball tour as the professional 9ball tour and not a professional 9ball tour.
The rankings issue was sort of brushed off as being a nitpicky thing, but it’s really not. If I google world nineball tour rankings, I get three separate sources. The WNT, the WPA and BCA rankings. Each of which include WNT events, similar players but in different orders. It’s confusing for anyone who is not well versed in the pool world. It shouldn’t take a several paragraphs to explain to a newcomer how to follow pool, but that’s where we are.
What i take from this whole deal is that the WPA is scared shitless that someone with more brains, balls and business savvy is daring to walk in their yard. Professional pool players simply want to play and get paid. This nitty political shit does no one any good. I do agree that a direct response from MR would be worth hearing. IMO WPA should handle national level amateur pool and let pros take care of pros.
Last edited:
I think Matchroom’s position is they spend more money and effort on the sport than others and therefore shouldn’t have their business dictated by part time
WPA volunteers with no business background. Same reason the NFL, NBA, and others have no relationship with their Olympic counterpart federations.
I think player bans are bad regardless of who is enforcing them.
It makes sense. Ban the players and force Matchroom to concede.
Matchroom concedes then ACBS can flood their fields.
ACBS conquers Matchroom.
This is a battle of legal will for generations.
The players just roll over and play dead. Its a clear exercise in discipline, not a round table discussion.
Matchroom concedes then ACBS can flood their fields.
ACBS conquers Matchroom.
This is a battle of legal will for generations.
The players just roll over and play dead. Its a clear exercise in discipline, not a round table discussion.
I think so too. MR has experience operating in a sport with no Olympic authority over top of them ever, or at least where they eventually severed that relationship. I think they know that’s a simpler mode of operation. So when Ishaun, Panozzo or Molina talk about wanting to see this over or a compromise, I don’t think one is coming. Ever. Like ever, ever. The only compromise might be “we sanction on paper but no WADA, no ban enforcements, we invite whoever we want, we seed however we want, we market however we want, we schedule however we want, we operate with full autonomy as if you weren’t there.
FargoRate is a rating system -- measures a player's skill. Ranking systems show how well a player has done in a particular organization's recent events. I think it's unfortunate that neither the WPA nor Matchroom seem to recognize the existence of FargoRate. I wonder if either submits data on their events.
Both have events with very public brackets. I assume FargoRate is proactive in scraping their results. No submission necessary.
I don’t think player ratings are compelling for promoters because they are too slow to change. It is a big deal when the leaderboard shifts but that’s not a scoreboard you can sweat event to event. It lacks drama, storylines, and significance to a season.
Now FargoRate performance ratings could get very interesting. They should do a lot more with event and season performance ratings. That can be an extra factor for Mosconi Cup selection on wildcards. It can show how someone can be hot for a great stretch of an event and then have it turned in a single match. Without putting the same energy into tabulating a TPA, you can at least get an equivalent experience for audiences to pundit about.
Bravo! Well said.
This is generally well reasoned, but ....
... Matchroom doesn't owe anybody a statement unless it's their choice to offer one. If Matchroom continues to grow the sport in the way they've already proven themselves capable, that will be statement enough. If the result of such growth is that WPA finds a way to further grow the segment of pool over which they still preside, the future might possibly be bright.
The business masterminds at Matchroom may well feel that a public pissing contest with the far less accomplished people who run WPA is far beneath their dignity.
Another take which I don’t admire is that those sports are national tours which leaves room internationally for an other countries to try to get something going if their local market appreciates the product. But pool is already international. So is it different to have a corporation dominate an entire sport internationally? Does that put them in a position to control the sport? And really control it down to exploitational player contracts and zero room for checks and balances? Could a players union stand up to that? Would a government have any jurisdiction to add protections and regulations?
But that was also conveyed by some Europeans that I think might have had some anti-corporation sentiments in their core values. Because they started from a place that what Matchroom was doing with the WST was a problem where I think when you have prize funds at those sizes (compared to pool) you have good problems. They mentioned Snooker prize funds have not increased since the 90s which I couldn’t argue. But that lands in deaf ears in a pool discussion. But in a snooker discussion that might be a concern.
i'm not surprised by the inquisitive nature of this thread given that this is not eashy for americans to undershtand