SJM – My Thoughts on WPA’s Actions

[garczar]

I can understand this point and agree with it in principle, but WPA apparently has no other way to enforce their authority over the management/oversight of the game except to use player eligibility to participate in events and receive other benefits as leverage.

How WPA put's teeth in its bite is entirely their problem to solve, and using the players as leverage is probably the worst thing possible they could have gone with IMO. It does very little to stem Matchroom's market and screws over the players while actually weakening WPA's standing. Few people see this as a legitimate, serious decision made in furtherance of the integrity of pool, and more of a desperate grab that screws over the players and overall bad for the game.

It's just a bad decision and I hope it results in a sea change and turnover at WPA. The better course, to me, would have been to simply accept the WNT rankings or cut some other deal with MR. Instead, we get this result which is totally unsustainable in the long run, and I have some doubts that anyone at WPA expects this to result in a long term state of affairs with WPA players and "the rest."

Well stated.

 

[sjm]

I am still skeptical of Matchrooms success going forward. They have made some questionable decisions. Are they the savior? Maybe, honestly I'm not sure anyone can save the pro game. The pro game is just not enjoyable to the average person. Are there enough die hard pool fans to make an investor money? Look at the stream numbers, they are a joke. A kid playing a video game gets a thousand times the views.
In my opinion, the 2 biggest mistakes they refuse to address. The 4/5 ball and DAZN. You want to grow the game, the very few new viewers you get are not going to ever see that ball set in the wild. So they learn the game on line watching then go out and wonder why the balls are different. 2. DAZN, you just screwed the home and potentially your biggest market for the game. It's not the cost. even though it factors, it's that you put it on an obscure channel no pool player had ever heard of unless you were a fan of Euro sports or boxing. To me this is the biggest mistake they are making. You want to grow the game? The only way to grow it and make it profitable is to eyes on it. Only then will the sponsors follow. How is DAZN helping to achieve that?
I always say, that pool is a participation game not a spectator sport. And I love to watch pool.

You've made a lot of good points, but regardless of how much or how little growth will take place in our sport in the near future, WPA's actions have limited player access to some of that growth, which, to me, is deplorable.

 

[VVP]

The better course, to me, would have been to simply accept the WNT rankings or cut some other deal with MR.

I was going to raise this ranking issue, but looked at the current rankings of Matchroom and the WPA and decided not to bother. I totally agree that at the time Matchroom approached the WPA to adopt it's (Matchroom) ranking the WPA rankings were unrealistic and MP made more sense. Now Matchroom has SVB as No. 2 in it's ranking ... I mean who are you kidding

SVB seems to get favorable bracket selection that brings him to the money then he loses as soon as he meets strong 800 plus Fargo players. Wish I had the time to research this more to tabulate exactly who he played, but going from memory it seems to me that SVB has been getting very lucky in who he plays.

 

[sjm]

I was going to raise this ranking issue, but looked at the current rankings of Matchroom and the WPA and decided not to bother. I totally agree that at the time Matchroom approached the WPA to adopt it's (Matchroom) ranking the WPA rankings were unrealistic and MP made more sense. Now Matchroom has SVB as No. 2 in it's ranking ... I mean who are you kidding

SVB seems to get favorable bracket selection that brings him to the money then he loses as soon as he meets strong 800 plus Fargo players. Wish I had the time to research this more to tabulate exactly who he played, but going from memory it seems to me that SVB has been getting very lucky in who he plays.

Like you, I haven't done the research, but Shane surely has a winning record in 2023 against players at Fargo 800 or better. That's why he's still World #5 based on Fargo.

Filler and Gorst are the two best players in pro pool right now.

 

[Badpenguin]

I thing BCA is partially responsible for the lack of professional-caliber players in USA today. If we had a federation like Europe supporting professional pool, things might be quite different here on American soil. I can count on one hand how many professional-caliber players live here today. It was quite different 30, 40 years ago. Is the BCA to blame? Well, in a way, yes.

There is a big problem with comparing anything that happens in the US vs the various pool federations in other parts of the world. Those federations are taxpayer funded. The US does not fund sports of any kind with taxpayer dollars, including all Olympic sports.

The difference is that every other part of the world funds their athletes from a young age and treats pool as a sport, which has clearly produced superior results. US players can no longer meaningfully compete on the international stage. We treat pool more like a gambling event/party, and there is no formal structure to develop young players and fund them to compete on an international stage. We rely on sponsorship in very limited cases.

So, these players that have taken taxpayer funds from their federations to get to their level of play, should they then just be allowed to say "thanks for all that, I think I'll just go my own way now"? I am not surprised that the federations, and by extension the WPA, have reacted the way they have. They produced Matchroom's product and want their cut.

Until the US can come up with a structured and funded way for young players to develop, we are screwed. Is it the BCA's job to do that? Who should do that?

 

[garczar]

There is a big problem with comparing anything that happens in the US vs the various pool federations in other parts of the world. Those federations are taxpayer funded. The US does not fund sports of any kind with taxpayer dollars, including all Olympic sports.

The difference is that every other part of the world funds their athletes from a young age and treats pool as a sport, which has clearly produced superior results. US players can no longer meaningfully compete on the international stage. We treat pool more like a gambling event/party, and there is no formal structure to develop young players and fund them to compete on an international stage. We rely on sponsorship in very limited cases.

So, these players that have taken taxpayer funds from their federations to get to their level of play, should they then just be allowed to say "thanks for all that, I think I'll just go my own way now"? I am not surprised that the federations, and by extension the WPA, have reacted the way they have. They produced Matchroom's product and want their cut.

Until the US can come up with a structured and funded way for young players to develop, we are screwed. Is it the BCA's job to do that? Who should do that?

Agree with most here but have you seen how NFL stadiums get funded? By massive outlays of taxpayer funds, usually at the state level. NY state citizens are paying about a billion for the Bills new joint. Almost every new stadium/arena built in the last 20yrs was built with tax dollars/tax breaks. The teams threaten to move til govt folds and taxpayers take it in the keester.

 

[VVP]

Like you, I haven't done the research, but Shane surely has a winning record in 2023 against players at Fargo 800 or better. That's why he's still World #5 based on Fargo.

Filler and Gorst are the two best players in pro pool right now.

I don't believe Fargo moves much since it's based on a multi-year (5 years?) history. I would really like to see a list of the 800 plus Fargo that he has beaten vs lost to this year. Wish if there was a quick way to pull up this data.

 

[sjm]

I don't believe Fargo moves much since it's based on a multi-year (5 years?) history. I would really like to see a list of the 800 plus Fargo that he has beaten this year. Wish if there was a quick way to pull up this data.

Don't know of a way to compile this data. Even At Large stats are restricted to streamed matches.

 

[garczar]

I don't believe Fargo moves much since it's based on a multi-year (5 years?) history. I would really like to see a list of the 800 plus Fargo that he has beaten vs lost to this year. Wish if there was a quick way to pull up this data.

Fargo means nothing to the top echelon of players. They never play events that are FR handicapped. Anyone from about 740ish on up is strong medicine player.

 

[VVP]

Fargo means nothing to the top echelon of players. They never play events that are FR handicapped. Anyone from about 740ish on up is strong medicine player.

Understood, it not the best way of ranking top players. However, it's a good measure for accessing a strong match. E.g, 840 vs 740 is not a strong match.

 

[Kid Dynomite]

Let me preface my remarks by saying that I may not have all the facts, but I have enough of them to assess the current situation. Let me add that I know another thread on this subject exists already, but I feel I am taking analysis of the subject matter in a very different direction and that is why I have begun this thread.

It is a sad day for free enterprise in pro pool.

WPA has flexed its muscle and has basically said to the players “while you are doing business with our biggest competitor, you’ll be barred from doing business with us.” It is as if Pepsi said “You can’t buy Coca Cola and if you do, you can’t buy Pepsi any longer.” Most of us believe in free enterprise, but it seems pro pool has been forced by the WPA to go in a different direction.

Most us feel that there is room on pool’s landscape for both Matchroom and the WPA, but this turf war will have some consequences. Will there be a winner in this scuffle? It is tough to say.

I think it would be foolish to presume that Matchroom Pool has the entire financial weight of Matchroom Multi-sport behind it. Nor, for that matter, would it be wise to assume that the profits from long established brands like the World Cup of Pool, the World Pool Masters and the Mosconi Cup are available for reinvestment into major new tournament productions. It is entirely up to Matchroom.

Let history be our guide. I was among very few on this forum that understood that the IPT was not backed by all the assets of Kevin Trudeau and was not surprised in the least when the IPT business venture folded in its first year, collapsing under its own weight. Good business people know when to pull the plug on any business venture, large or small and, while many were repulsed by his character, Trudeau was a good businessman. The “too big to fail” concept does not apply to professional pool.

That is how business ventures work, and Matchroom's venture into major tournament pool is a venture begun in the fairly recent past. Like any other venture, it has its own set of financial books and records, and those records will, to a great extent, dictate its business strategies.

Matchroom Pool is growing our sport in ways we have not seen in decades, and most of the fans love their new events. Matchroom has delivered fields having a quality that is unsurpassed in the game’s history. They are offering the best professional pool product we have ever seen. They are globalizing our sport in ways not previously seen, creating pro tours in new corners of the world. We hope they are here to stay.

The real question of pertinence here is “will WPA’s actions impact Matchroom Pool’s ability to turn a profit going forward?” That is to be determined. Certainly, WPA is going to reduce Matchroom’s access to some of the world’s most elite players. How that translates to the bottom line is far from clear, and if Matchroom retains a sufficient nucleus of superstar players to keep their product elite, maybe the impact will be minimal.

The worst-case scenario, it would seem, is that reduced access to the most elite players will make it harder for Matchroom to make the best TV and sponsorship deals, which could possibly make their events less profitable, or even unprofitable. In that scenario, it is at least possible that Matchroom would exit the world of major tournament production and restrict its pool business to the World Pool Masters, the World Cup of Pool and the Mosconi. We would all like to think this unlikely because of Matchroom’s superb management team, but that would be to live in denial.

This is not a battle between good and evil, just a business turf war between competitors. Pool needs both WPA and Matchroom, and players need full access to all events.

For those of us who believe in free enterprise and that competition in the marketplace tends to result in a better product, however, it seems that WPA is playing what many of us call “dirty pool.”

The result might possibly be more money in pro pool. Maybe the long game is that the players make more money, but maybe WPA one day regains the monopoly it once enjoyed and returns to those times in which it had a lesser sense of urgency in growing the pro game. Time will tell.

Most of my sympathies lie with the players, who are, as a group, being abused here, but I feel sad for Matchroom, too, for they have invested heavily to bring the professional pool product to a level I haven’t seen in my 47 years as a pool fan and they must now overcome obstacles unnecessarily placed in their way.

Finally, I’d like to make a request of my AZB brethren. Let’s not ever view any players as defectors or traitors, for whatever choices they make, they remain victims denied a chance to maximize earnings in their chosen profession.

Matchroom should contact the federations directly! Only need one or two? Germany and China!

No reason not to take the war to the WPA shores....

Kd

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

 

[buckshotshoey]

You've made a lot of good points, but regardless of how much or how little growth will take place in our sport in the near future, WPA's actions have limited player access to some of that growth, which, to me, is deplorable.

It's clear that the WPA had no intention of trying to hash out a deal, or try to negotiate on the players behalf at all. Maybe if the WPA would have said they would cut the 5 percent player fees in half, and somehow recognize Matchroom points, we might not have this mess

 

[Tennesseejoe]

Pool politics! In such a fractioned industry, it's uncanny how something of this magnitude is happening. We railbirds can all have opinions, but it's the pool players on the international professional tournament trail who are the ones whose opinions matter most.

Most who have been reading my posts since 2003 are aware of my disdain for the BCA, the so-called "governing body of North American professional pool." Today it is an industry-member organization, though they are supposed to be governing professional pool.

For many years, I have also expressed how useless the WPA is, only to be told by a few that the WPA is needed for the Olympic Games, and we need them in professional pool.

Europe has good governing bodies called "federations" in professional pool. USA is nothing. For the European pros, this political quagmire of WPA v. Matchroom is major.

While the majority seem to think F the WPA and bend the knee to Matchroom, my thought is why isn't anybody hold the BCA's feet to the fire and step up to the plate and defend American professional pool? If their only interest is industry members' sales, then quit calling themselves the "Billiard Congress of America" and call themselves the "Billiard Industry Member Association of America," BIMAA fo short.

I thing BCA is partially responsible for the lack of professional-caliber players in USA today. If we had a federation like Europe supporting professional pool, things might be quite different here on American soil. I can count on one hand how many professional-caliber players live here today. It was quite different 30, 40 years ago. Is the BCA to blame? Well, in a way, yes.

So while everyone is debating how useless the WPA and/or how much it is needed, my American view is look to the BCA to stand up and do the right thing for American professional pool like their name implies.

JAM...and an organization supporting youth billiards/pool in the USA.

 

[Badpenguin]

Agree with most here but have you seen how NFL stadiums get funded? By massive outlays of taxpayer funds, usually at the state level. NY state citizens are paying about a billion for the Bills new joint. Almost every new stadium/arena built in the last 20yrs was built with tax dollars/tax breaks. The teams threaten to move til govt folds and taxpayers take it in the keester.

True enough. But supposedly those stadiums bring in enough revenue to make up for it.

 

[Cameron Smith]

I have been trying to avoid social media because it has been taking up too much of my time, but I would like to offer an opinion here, which might have errors, so I apologize in advance and welcome any corrections.

As I see it, and as SJM correctly pointed out, this is a turf war and the players will be the losers. To be frank, I see the WPA as an incompetent organization as it stands right now. However, there needs to be an oversight organization that seeks to keep pool at a professional level as opposed to a water-downed entertainment sport as profit-oriented Matchroom Pool might make it without any oversight.

Matchroom trying to brand 9 ball as the best billiard sport is an insult to me as a pool player. How many other Professional sports allow for slops (not lucky rolls) to count to the extent it does in pool? I unquestionably prefer to watch 10 ball. Picking Earl last year for the Masconi Cup as opposed to many other in-form players that spent thousands of dollars trying to make the team is an insult to the sport and to those players all in the attempt to up the “entertainment” value of the Masconi Cup. Anyone trying to sell the MC as a real pool competition between Europe and USA must be out of their mind. If it’s acknowledged that it is entertainment like wrestling then I can buy that so there will be no need to keep count on how many times Europe thrashed the USA LOL.

That said, Matchroom has done wonders for the pool industry. Their TV and YouTube production qualities are unsurpassed. I absolutely like their “Table 2” with the fixed view and ball rack (helps to easier identify the next ball up), which allows me to try to predict next shots by being able to see the table all the time. It’s a great training tool for amateur pool players, in my opinion. Matchroom has also improved the quality of 9 ball by introducing its break box (which makes the table more unpredictable after the break) and tightening the pockets. As JJ mentioned the casual viewer gets the impression that the game is too easy if there is consistently multiple-pack runs.

From what I have gathered lately, I believe the current issue is more about Matchroom vs the local/country federations rather than specifically Matchroom vs the WPA. The WPA speaks for the federations and the latest ban threat was approved by the federations. I believe people, mostly “free enterprise” Americans (LOL) need to step back and try to understand the importance of federations. WPA President –Ishaun Singh did an excellent job explaining the role of federations on the “Pool Player Podcast.” Unlike in America, federations play a very important role in developing pool players in many countries. I believe Germany, Poland, Taiwan, Vietnam and possibly many more countries that I don’t know about have strong federations. Therefore, it is unfair for Matchroom to profit off the work of federations without no compensation to them. There can be much more to this issue that we don’t know about as casual observers.

I support WPA banning players that play in a Matchroom or non-sanctioned events that clash with major WPA events that were already on the calendar. I cannot see the WPA banning players for playing in non-sanctioned events that DOES NOT clash with major WPA events. If that happens, I’ll change my opinion about the WPA ban threat.

I think the benefit to the federations is that the WNT provides broader exposure which, generates increased interest in the game and filters back to the federations in the form of more players, exposure and eventually probably more money. Professional sport is as much an advertisement for the sport itself as it is entertainment.

I agree that in theory, we need something like the WPA to oversee the game and maintain its integrity. But I don’t see any history that suggests that the WPA would do anything to influence the direction of the WNT at all. They are supposed to be a regulatory body, but yet we have more formats and variations than bar room 8 ball at this point.

We have no clear classification of professional/amateur. We’ve seen that the WPA doesn’t have a good track record about going to bat for players when they aren’t being paid. I honestly don’t see a scenario where they influence anything about matchrooms strategy.

With respect to banning players, the language they are using is that any player that plays in a non-sanctioned tournament that qualifies for sanctioning, will be banned for up to 6 months and receive a $500 fine. We have to assume they will follow through because not doing so would undermine their credibility. And I believe enforcement is left up to the regional reps and we know that a few are very committed to such punitive actions.

I agree with other people that the best solution is that the WPA and it’s affiliates focus their energies on grass roots pool, including the development of the other games, and partner with WNT for them to handle the commercial interests of the game.

 

[Bob Jewett]

True enough. But supposedly those stadiums bring in enough revenue to make up for it.

"Supposedly" is a good choice of words. The city of Oakland may feel differently about the benefits of their contributions to the Raiders. But the Davis family got rich, so some good came of it.

 

[JusticeNJ]

It's clear that the WPA had no intention of trying to hash out a deal, or try to negotiate on the players behalf at all. Maybe if the WPA would have said they would cut the 5 percent player fees in half, and somehow recognize Matchroom points, we might not have this mess

That’s kinda how I see it too. WPA seemed to have seen itself as having some kind of legitimacy crisis and rather than adopt a “big tent” approach they went nuclear.

WPA put out two statements. The other statement touted a ~$5MM prize fund, a huge portion of which came from a single Heyball event (1.5mm), and no breakdown of the source of funds, and a large portion coming from Predator events. Big yikes for WPA if Predator doesn’t go along with this.

Maybe I’m too far removed from pool politics, but I do not understand what WPA is going for here. Are they trying to convince people they are necessary to safeguard against cheats and thieves? They could have not picked a worse fight than against Matchroom, an established sports promoter with Barry being in the BCA HoF of all things.

It’s also hard to square what they’ve done as being in the best interests of the players since the bans are aimed squarely at the players and will be felt most sorely by the players. If the argument is that the WPA is necessary for players continuing financial support and livelihoods, they sure picked one interesting way to get that point across.

 

[garczar]

True enough. But supposedly those stadiums bring in enough revenue to make up for it.

Key word is 'supposedly'. The owners/players get well but local/state gov't's and businesses often get left out in the cold.

 

[sjm]

So, these players that have taken taxpayer funds from their federations to get to their level of play, should they then just be allowed to say "thanks for all that, I think I'll just go my own way now"? I am not surprised that the federations, and by extension the WPA, have reacted the way they have. They produced Matchroom's product and want their cut.

This is misleading. The funds that finance pool in European countries receiving IOC money is not really taxpayer money. Here's an excerpt from a previous post of mine on this subject:

... the IOC, for the four-year period of 2021-24 has what's called a "solidarity budget" of $590 million, meaning about $150 million per annum. With the distribution of this money, the IOC offers supports to athletes, National Olympic Committees (NOCs) and Continental Associations of NOCs. Yes, America gets a big piece of that $150 million each year, but I have no idea exactly how much, and that money enables the American National Olympic committee to support its athletes as it sees fit in both established and potential Olympic sports.

Were pool an Olympic sport, some of that money would go to pool every single year and one way in which that would manifest itself is through the funding/reimbursement of the participation costs of American players in internationally sanctioned pool events. It is, of course, the option of the National Olympic Committee to offer such funding to potential Olympic sports, but in America it seems this hasn't happened to any great extent when it comes to pool. Of course, the BCA, working with WPA, tried to position American pool so that it would be assured of its piece of this enormous pie, but at least so far, it hasn't worked. Contrastingly, many other countries, such as Poland, have taken a different view and have used some of the money received from the IOC "solidarity fund" and other lesser sources to help pool itself and pool players in their countries ...

IOC funding of the various National Olympic committees is at the heart of the financing of the federations, not taxpayer money. National Olympic federations decide which sports get funding. In some countries, some of that Olympic money is used to finance pool, but not in others.

 

[JusticeNJ]

I was going to raise this ranking issue, but looked at the current rankings of Matchroom and the WPA and decided not to bother. I totally agree that at the time Matchroom approached the WPA to adopt it's (Matchroom) ranking the WPA rankings were unrealistic and MP made more sense. Now Matchroom has SVB as No. 2 in it's ranking ... I mean who are you kidding

SVB seems to get favorable bracket selection that brings him to the money then he loses as soon as he meets strong 800 plus Fargo players. Wish I had the time to research this more to tabulate exactly who he played, but going from memory it seems to me that SVB has been getting very lucky in who he plays.

I also haven't looked into it beyond the contents of this post, but I think there's an easier case to be made for SVB sitting at #2 in what appears to be a 2-year aggregate period, which would include his World Title (WNT Ranking), rather than at 37th, sitting behind the likes of Jan van Lierop (?), Mateusz Snigocki (?), Souquet, Mika, and Tyler Styer, among others (WPA Rankings).

Shane often finishes quite deep and ahead of a swath of 800+ FR players, as a general matter. The 800's, at the time of this post, now start at 44 in the FR Top Players list. If you're claiming or suggesting that Shane's draws are manufactured to let him run deep, I think you'd need to have some pretty compelling evidence beyond a mere observation of the brackets.

But I think this discussion also sort of highlights the point: if the dispute was really over the rankings, banning players seems grossly disproportionate to an issue over two lists that could use some, let's say, better methodology for the sake of argument. But that's not what the dispute is over, and the WPA has all but said so.