Yeah, that's kind of how I look at it. If he had said something like , "while I stand in solidarity, I have contractual obligations that require I attend." Then it's more that he's standing by his original word via his contractual obligations.
Jaden
Sky weighs in on WPA...
- Thread starter jokrswylde
- Start date
Jaden
sudocrushms
Well-known member
its ultimately the people who watch that determine what the players get. as attendance goes up the players get power to negotiate and the sponsors and tournament owners make enough money to pay more.
it is a slow process. in pool, few at any stage make a lot of money for what they do.
if you cant make a 100 k be a full time longshoreman and make 200 k and go on stirke for more.
pool isnt a money making sport. simple as that and if you think it is a profession to get ahead you are going to be sorely disappointed.
it is a slow process. in pool, few at any stage make a lot of money for what they do.
if you cant make a 100 k be a full time longshoreman and make 200 k and go on stirke for more.
pool isnt a money making sport. simple as that and if you think it is a profession to get ahead you are going to be sorely disappointed.
jax_joe
Well-known member
Some real fish.I thought all you gamblers on here would love Josh's move here, act like you're not gonna play and then snap off a major title
Agree here.
I have already posted that "I'm not disagreeing with your suggestion that the political aftermath of these flip-flops in decision making could have been and should have been handled differently" so I see no reason to keep repeating it.
At no point did I suggest this was handled as it should have been. As you say, this is a learning moment for a young player from which he can grow.
Still, nobody will ever convince me that pro pool or its image has suffered in any way here.
I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it now seems that was a mistake. After this post, I guess I must take it personally. Your implication that you come from better breeding than me is deeply insulting. I'll add that it is also pretty unlikely, but I will not jump to that conclusion, because it would be unfair and I could be mistaken.
Everybody is in their foxhole and they are not coming out. Which is fine and per usual.
What saddens me is that this whole episode is only going to add unnecessary tension among the players and embolden those in the WPA or affiliated groups that are trying to bully the players.
The players won't be better off if they end up fighting among themselves. Ultimately Filler and Ouschan are not the problem. In any case, I will judge them by how they respond going forward.
What saddens me is that this whole episode is only going to add unnecessary tension among the players and embolden those in the WPA or affiliated groups that are trying to bully the players.
The players won't be better off if they end up fighting among themselves. Ultimately Filler and Ouschan are not the problem. In any case, I will judge them by how they respond going forward.
Hey Stu,
I think we can all agree that the players are caught in the middle of the conflict between WPA and Matchroom, and they definitely have tough choices to make. However, I want to clarify that no one pressured Filler into boycotting the WPA; he made that decision willingly. He could have chosen to stay quiet and participate in any events without facing any consequences, but he opted to take a stand in pool politics. Now he’s facing well-deserved criticism for going back on his boycott.
As one of the biggest names in pool, Filler’s actions carry weight and can inspire others. His choice to speak out likely influenced others to do the same. But when he publicly opposed the event and then played in it after the field was reduced, it gave him an unfair advantage. It’s similar to how some people manipulate stock prices—lobbying against a company until the stock drops, then buying in at a discount. That’s not right.
What Filler did comes across as unethical and self-serving. This isn’t about whether he could have managed the situation better; it’s about the commitment he made. Either you stick to your boycott or you don’t—there’s really no middle ground here.
These are gross winnings. If one year I would say fifty to seventy-five thousand is closer to break even on expenses before sponsorship. Two years, Shane probably wouldn't break even before sponsorship as much as he travels.
I used to travel some in another sport. There is an event I want to go to: Then I have to do the math. There are over a hundred more competitors. A top five finish would take a little luck, maybe a lot of luck. Top ten is more likely and break even is about seventh place. Unlike pool there is the risk of damaging a lot of equipment which is the final decider, I could find myself six or eight thousand out of pocket along with a lot of work for no real chance of winning.
Who are we going to make happy and who are we going to piss off is always a consideration. There were three way tire wars when I was working on another team. Sometimes we had to run four tires of one brand for extra cash, sometimes two, sometimes just the decals of a tire company. We had stacks of tires and stacks of decals inches thick. Leaves you feeling a bit like a whore but you do what you have to in order to survive.
Every player has slightly different loyalties and commitments. They never can pull together 100% and every player will have to do what is right for them. Their ultimate commitment is to themselves, their wives, and their children. Those that have never competed for a living don't know how hard choices are and what goes into them. Sometimes some appearance money or the memory of a few hundred under the table the venue owner has slipped to the player when they had a bad outing comes into play too.
Pro players need to stick together for ten years to build something. That is true today, it was true fifty years ago, and all the time in between too. Hard to talk in terms of years to people thinking in terms of days or weeks to pay bills.
Hu
Tough way to make a living being a professional player in a cult like sport.
As you probably guessed, I disagree, even though I'm on board with the spirit of your post. Let's not confuse this for a worker's strike. The boycott was a proposed political alliance consisting of a group of outside contractors who make a living from their various relationships with several pool alliances, not a group of employees under one roof exercising a walkout and offering a series of ultimatums to gain specific concessions.
In the real world, political alliances change every day of the week, and those who align themselves with a person, party or cause may walk away from that cause anytime they please for whatever reason they choose.
Pro pool has not suffered in any way from how this played out. If you wish to mentally devalue the accomplishments of those who top fields that are compromised by the politics of the game, you are welcome to do so. Did you devalue SVB's world 9-ball championship in 2022 when politics kept the world #1 out due to a ban of Russian players? I didn't, because I understand that winning titles only means beating those who show up, not those who do not.
Finally, I'd bet the house that Filler WAS pressured into participating in the boycott. If you can find anything in his past that suggests he ever takes political stands in pool on his own, let me know, but I don't think you will.
PS I doubt there is anyone anywhere that believes that Filler intentionally misrepresented his intent to participate in the boycott as a ruse to weaken the field and improve his earnings prospects at the World 8-ball. When you've produced more major titles in the sport than anyone else over the past five years, you hardly need do that. He changed his mind here, and while we all agree that he could have handled the aftermath more skillfully, in the end how players play the pool politics is up to them alone.
Picture this: you’re a leading construction contractor with a massive casino development project out for bid. The casino owner, who has a long history in the industry, has been causing significant issues for contractors recently. You decide to publicly support a boycott of the project and pledge not to bid, standing with your fellow contractors. However, behind the scenes, you secretly submit a bid and end up winning the contract because your competitors opted out.
How ethical do you think this situation is? Would you endorse these actions?
I see no similarity here. As much as you prefer to think otherwise, there is no basis of any kind for your bizarre presumption that all of this was a ruse by Filler to enrich himself. If you see these two situations as analogous, then it shows that you don't understand the many inherent conflicts of interests that players face today and the near impossibility of satisfying everyone.
No similarity...Isn’t that odd? Your post above referenced pool players as “outside contractors”, yet when I break it down in contractor terms, the reference no longer applies lol
As for Filler, I agree that it seems pretty far-fetched to think he was scheming like a cartoon villain from day one of the boycott. But what if he jumped in with all the best intentions and then had a lightbulb moment? “Wait a second! This could be my golden ticket to snag that 8-ball world championship against a field that’s softer than a marshmallow!”
Outside contractors competing for one contract don't have countless other conflicts of interests to juggle each time they bid on a project. They are accountable to themselves alone. Pool players must weigh allegiances to sponsors, event producers, national federations, Matchroom and WPA, with every participation decision. Unlike the big business contractor, the pool player's income is entirely dependent on the actions and support of these entities. For some players, sponsorship money exceeds prize money earned. For some, federation money exceeds prize money earned. Each player has a different formula for income earned, and each must play his hand as he sees fit. Some of them have sponsors allied with Matchroom, others have sponsors that are allied with WPA. In these painfully turbulent times in our sport, the players are hostages to the relationships on which their incomes depend.
That's a 0% chance. It's also not accurate to call the World 8-ball field soft, for there were many monster players in the field. Yes, it was softer than it would have been in the absence of the boycott, but Filler tends to be the betting favorite with the bookmakers in every event he enters and to suggest that he had a "now I can win" revelation is, in my view, a bit ridiculous,