UPA or NOT?
- Thread starter Zims Rack
- Start date
Hi Zim,
Wow...that is a tough question to answer...simply because I don't have enough information to form a well-educated opinion. That being said, I will tell you what I think
In my opinion, the UPA has just as a good a chance at success as the WPBA....as long as both sides (players and admin) can come to the table and make concessions...and as long as they stick together, no matter what. For example, the decision that the UPA admin made to boycott the US Open was a little harsh....but I can completely understand the reasoning behind it. In 2001, players were not paid upon completion of the tournament, and the UPA wanted to ensure that this would not happen again. I do not know what happened during negotations between Behrman and the UPA, but I feel that something should have been worked out. Instead, the UPA did not get the concessions they wanted, and players were told that the US Open would not be sanctioned by the UPA. Eventually, enough players complained and the UPA relented and allowed players to participate...even without UPA sanctioning. In this case, the UPA as a whole lost because the players didn't show any solidarity. If all the players had stuck together and agreed to boycott the event, the promoters of the US Open would have had to come to the table to negotiate if they wanted a truly successful tournament. I am not advising that players should hold promoters and tournaments hostage...but I believe that the UPA's heart was in the right place for that specific situation, and the players should have stood behind their organization. Instead, the players gave promoters all the power...because now the promoters know that the players will come no matter what. To be fair, the UPA should have listened to the players a little more and lightened up with all the restrictions. What good is having an association when that association won't sanction any tournaments for you to play in?
Anyhow, to make a long story longer, I really believe that having an association to represent the men is a necessity. But in order for it to work, every party involved has to truly understand and be willing to support each other, even if compromise is needed. The players need to stand behind their organization even if it means that they will have a few less tournaments to play in, and the admin need to listen to the players and understand that the players need tournaments in order to make money...so they can't boycott every event just because they don't get every concession they ask for.
But....that's only my opinion....
Melissa
Wow...that is a tough question to answer...simply because I don't have enough information to form a well-educated opinion. That being said, I will tell you what I think
In my opinion, the UPA has just as a good a chance at success as the WPBA....as long as both sides (players and admin) can come to the table and make concessions...and as long as they stick together, no matter what. For example, the decision that the UPA admin made to boycott the US Open was a little harsh....but I can completely understand the reasoning behind it. In 2001, players were not paid upon completion of the tournament, and the UPA wanted to ensure that this would not happen again. I do not know what happened during negotations between Behrman and the UPA, but I feel that something should have been worked out. Instead, the UPA did not get the concessions they wanted, and players were told that the US Open would not be sanctioned by the UPA. Eventually, enough players complained and the UPA relented and allowed players to participate...even without UPA sanctioning. In this case, the UPA as a whole lost because the players didn't show any solidarity. If all the players had stuck together and agreed to boycott the event, the promoters of the US Open would have had to come to the table to negotiate if they wanted a truly successful tournament. I am not advising that players should hold promoters and tournaments hostage...but I believe that the UPA's heart was in the right place for that specific situation, and the players should have stood behind their organization. Instead, the players gave promoters all the power...because now the promoters know that the players will come no matter what. To be fair, the UPA should have listened to the players a little more and lightened up with all the restrictions. What good is having an association when that association won't sanction any tournaments for you to play in?
Anyhow, to make a long story longer, I really believe that having an association to represent the men is a necessity. But in order for it to work, every party involved has to truly understand and be willing to support each other, even if compromise is needed. The players need to stand behind their organization even if it means that they will have a few less tournaments to play in, and the admin need to listen to the players and understand that the players need tournaments in order to make money...so they can't boycott every event just because they don't get every concession they ask for.
But....that's only my opinion....
Melissa
Again, I do not know a lot about the inner workings of the WPBA and the many aspects involved. But I believe that a big part of our success comes from working together as a team to strengthen the association AND to provide more for the players. Those in charge know that sometimes they must sacrifice players' wants/needs in order to make the organization stronger and more profitable. And vice versa - they also recognize that without the players...there is no organization. So, compromise is the name of the game.
Regards,
Melissa H.
Regards,
Melissa H.