Why is snooker profitable?
- Thread starter Lou Loulacy
- Start date
Not only to watch but also to bet on. A guy from here in Tulsa went over in the mid 90's and played in a few events. He said they had betting windows and that you could get a bet down anytime during the match. Also, it being or not being a "better game" really had nothing to do with its rise. "Better" than what, pool? The only pool in U.K. back then was the little bar-boxes in some pubs. The reason it took off can be laid at Barry Hearn's door-step. His marketing and p.r. machine took Steve Davis(and others to follow) to places no other promoter could dream of. Combined with color tv and BBC's "Pot Black" series of matches snooker took off like a rocket.
Last edited:
I'm a growing fan of snooker
Would rather watch it than most anything played on any size Pool Table, but especially over the 7fters and any game that you cam break and run out in less than a few minutes
It draws my attention with the massive tables
And of course the gentleman aspect of it, just as in carom
Dress, conduct, etc
Would rather watch it than most anything played on any size Pool Table, but especially over the 7fters and any game that you cam break and run out in less than a few minutes
It draws my attention with the massive tables
And of course the gentleman aspect of it, just as in carom
Dress, conduct, etc
BINGO. Johnnyt
You mean being able to gamble on a match without fear of players dumping or making savors dont you ?
It is also a "club game", snooker clubs exist all over the UK. Here is a list for those interested in understanding the breadth of popularity :
http://johnvirgo.com/john-virgos-club-directory/
Also, a little image, related to the "talking" and popularity etc.
Dave <-- wonders what club Andy played at
Attachments
I agree that even if pool did manage to shed its reputation, it still has to address its games, which are quite honestly horrible at best.
Eight ball is an utter train wreck of a game I think. Nine ball is a little better but not by much. Snooker is very interesting. It's got everything... shotmaking, strategy, moving around a pack.
If some miracle happened and we could somehow clean up pool's image, and we all started playing a new game with a consistent set of rules, I think then we could start talking about pool having a chance.
Eight ball is an utter train wreck of a game I think. Nine ball is a little better but not by much. Snooker is very interesting. It's got everything... shotmaking, strategy, moving around a pack.
If some miracle happened and we could somehow clean up pool's image, and we all started playing a new game with a consistent set of rules, I think then we could start talking about pool having a chance.
I have a question relating to this point. What is the pro sports saturation like in europe? Having never been there, I assume soccer matches are heavily hyped, but what other pro sports are shown on primetime? Cricket maybe?
It just seems like in the US, the NFL, NBA, MLB are on every cable channel. I am so sick of seeing "mock drafts" on ESPN! It is still MONTHS away from football season and the NFL still gets tons of air time. Throw in NASCAR, Tennis, Golf, boxing, MMA, poker, and college sports, and it is a very saturated market for athletics/sports coverage in the US.
Just curious if it was the same with so many sports in Europe?
As for Snooker, meh, you can have it. Played it a few times, been watching it for years, and it just ain't my thing. Give me a good multi- game venue like derby city over it any day.
I'm sure gambling has a lot to do with it.
Afterwards, I'd imagine them having an actual board that governs the sport and the players helps a ton with keeping the bad eggs around. It may be hard for some people to believe, but sponsors aren't exactly running to lookout for seedy individuals because it will make their brand look bad.
and like someone already said and I can attest to this as I have a really good friend who lives over there, but it is shown on over the air tv there. That actually helps get the product out to more people and I'm surprised no one in the pool world has figured that out yet, especially as it is being proven that more people are cutting cords in this country.
Afterwards, I'd imagine them having an actual board that governs the sport and the players helps a ton with keeping the bad eggs around. It may be hard for some people to believe, but sponsors aren't exactly running to lookout for seedy individuals because it will make their brand look bad.
and like someone already said and I can attest to this as I have a really good friend who lives over there, but it is shown on over the air tv there. That actually helps get the product out to more people and I'm surprised no one in the pool world has figured that out yet, especially as it is being proven that more people are cutting cords in this country.
:rotflmao1: :winknudge: :woot: :tongue:
In Europe Cricket is most probably limited to Great Britain or maybe even only England.
You will definately not find it in Germany or any of the "old Europe" states.
Football (Soccer) still is the biggest sport, unfortunately.
France does Rugby a lot, even in every day life.
Darts is heavily coming along, was just in Great Britain years ago.
Boxing, yes. But not a mass thingy.
In Germany:
We sure do Basketball and Icehockey (by ourown in the winter on frozen lakes).
And Wintersports such as Slalom (Ski), Bobsled, ...
Motorsports, all sorts of - except boring crappy Nascar or somesuch.
Tennis was huge with Boris Becker and Steffi Graf, but has quite declined.
And yes, Snooker, Carom and Pool are rising again, with a lot of young people trying it.
I'm not proud that when I first saw Snooker and was very very young I wasn't unsure why the guys always picked a (difficult to reach) color ball when there just was another red available. That took a match or two... :grin:
For your research:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport_in_France
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport_in_Germany
Cheers,
M
Last edited:
1. The ability to wager on it.
2. Organization and PR for said organization
3. History of being a reasonably popular televised game with continuity. People in the UK know the players, know past players, know The Crucible, etc.
2. Organization and PR for said organization
3. History of being a reasonably popular televised game with continuity. People in the UK know the players, know past players, know The Crucible, etc.
Its pretty saturated over here too, but it does differ from country to country (probably not dissimilar to the US actually, i.e. some states are massively into NASCAR, some NHL and many others don't care about either).
Football (soccer) is the main focus in pretty much every European country, but the likes of cricket and rugby are only really big in the UK and too an extent Ireland (rugby is big, cricket isn't...but is growing)....sorry just noticed another poster who pointed out rugby is big in France too, which I'd completely overlooked!
I think the key difference is here, is that you have the NFL, NBA and MLB all with fairly similar airtime, whereas we have a LOT of football (soccer) and then smaller bits of other sports (Alpine skiing and ski jumping are relatively popular in central European countries during the season for example, but not massively in the UK).
So I guess in short, we are sort of saturated too, but in a different way. We don't have as much live sport as you guys due to weird licencing laws and unlike the US its largely dominated by one sport, with the rest a long way behind. A lot of what most people get to see are highlights because only one cable operator has the licence for any given live game (generally, sometimes its more than one).
All that aside, given the massive popularity of just the one sport...football (soccer) it does mean sports like snooker have a place, all fighting it out for the remaining airtime, with the likes of Eurosport (available in most if not all European countries and probably the US too I'd imagine) having the rights to virtually all the tournaments (albeit a lot of their live coverage is online rather than on tv).
Does that answer the question, or have I just made things even more confusing (re-reading what I've written I appreciate it may not be that clear)!
Last edited:
Hey thanks for the reply. Of the sports you listed, How is the live television coverage?
I guess what I am getting at is how can snooker (or any billiard game) be able to compete in the US for valuable prime time slots against multiple NBA, NFL, MLB, and college broadcasts that are aired every night on multiple channels?
What kind of ratings could Ronnie O vs. Mark Selby pull if they were going up against a marquee NBA game? (In the US)
I think to get on tv in the States you have to have a couple of variables:
1. A polarizing, charismatic persona.
The most popular US men's Tennis players in the last few decades have been John Mcenroe and Andre Agassi. Look at what Connor Mcgregor is doing for MMA ticket sales and PPV buys...
http://fortune.com/2015/09/09/williams-sisters-tennis-ratings/
2. A DOMINANT American.
Michael Jordan, Lebron James, Mike Tyson, Tiger Woods, Serena Williams...Even without the long hair and piercings of an Agassi, these athletes are rating MONSTERS. Why? Because Americans love to see someone compete at a level that transcends their competition. I love what Rory, Spieth, Jason Day, etc. are doing in golf, but all of them combined can't pull ratings like Tiger.
//https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiMtunq0p_TAhVFNSYKHeEcDPoQFggiMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.marketwatch.com%2Fstory%2Fwithout-tiger-woods-golf-is-fading-to-gray-2015-04-17&usg=AFQjCNH-A20A36eiYeC5ctOATJvXb6Q31Q&sig2=FRcOWidcEP1J_VZwAKewtQ&bvm=bv.152180690,d.eWE
3. A great rivalry: Jordan-Bird, Yankees-Redsox, Agassi-Sampras, Balboa-Creed, etc.
4. Good looking, marketable to other industries. Anna Kournikova was never the most talented, but she pulled ratings. Same for Beckham, Danica Patrick, etc.
I believe that in order to get pool, or any cue sport, consistent exposure, athletes that check 2 or 3 of these boxes must come along. Golf was fledgling with Mickelson, Norman, John Daly, etc. until Tiger came along and ratings exploded.
Maybe if we get someone as dominant as Tiger, looks like Beckham, as charismatic as Agassi, with a rival to equal jordan-bird, then we will see a cue sport get airtime in the US. JMO, YMMV:thumbup:
I think the ability to wager is a non issue, since it is country specific. Technically you can't bet legally on the NFL in the USA, but.
I think your next two points are dead nutz, though I would argue that the popularity of Snooker is because of point 3 rather than the result of it.
I've said for years that our major pool events MUST be publicised and played OUTSIDE of bars, or even the nicest poolrooms, The future of sports is always in the youth, and parents just are not taking their 6 or 8 year olds to watch Alex or Shane play in the local poolroom. It ain't happening.Brunswick and Diamond should have at least one pool table in every high school in the country and schools should have Billiards teams,,,,,, Colleges should do the same. Hell even the local churches could have a pool table in their rec hall. The possibilities are endless, but the fact that youth have to get exposed and interested are mandatory.
That's a good post but even if that perfect player came along, nothing would happen and we all know it. It's too bad.
Cultural. Why is soccer is popular in England? Perhaps their culture isn't as short on attention span as the in the U S. Different folks different folks.
That's an excellent way of putting it. In the US you sure have a problem with attention spans and that things take time. I can't suffer through your "news" even one minute.
As O'Sullivan (in the hustle series) also noted the suspence in Carom is just so much more fulfilling, because it simply takes 5 seconds until you know if you've been successful with the hit.
Snooker also is very good at building the suspence, there are no "break and run out, winner breaks". We usually see the guys a couple of times at the table trying and then finally succeeding. Or safety battling. Or even a re-rack or the black ball game!
It's different all the time.
That's how the human soul works - easy, quick fulfillment is not satisfactory and will actually ruin you.
Cheers,
M
Snooker has a number of advantages over pool when it comes to value as a spectator sport.
1. The vast majority of games are actual contests, that is to say both players will have a turn or multiple turns at the table, and the outcome will be contested. In pool, most games go one of two ways: either the breaker will sink a ball and run out, or the breaker will not sink a ball and watch the other player run out. Not very interesting from a spectator point of view.
2. In snooker, decision making plays a bigger role, particularly on whether to take on a shot or not. This invites the spectator to also have varying opinions on those decisions, which makes the game more interesting. In pool, pretty much all available shots are taken.
3. In snooker, there are more difficult shots, particularly long ones, where whether or not they will be potted is in doubt, and thus more exciting when they are made. In pool, all shots are pretty much expected to be made, and only misses cause excitement, as in, "How the heck did he miss that one?" But excitement over failure is counterproductive for spectating.
4. In snooker, long runs like a Century or a Maximum are considered achievements, something a spectator can be proud to witness, whereas in pool, running the table is run of the mill. And as for 3-packs or 5-packs or what have you, keeping count is too much work for the average spectator.
5. In snooker, luck plays a relatively small role. It is a sporting competition in which the better player is expected to win by better play. In pool, 9-ball in particular, the break plays such an outsized role in some matches that the game sometimes seems more like coin-flipping than a sporting event.
6. In snooker, the long matches are punctuated by frequent player turns and the seated player is generally very much engaged and ready for his return to the table. In pool, there are frequent stretches where one player is seated for what seems an eternity.
7. Snooker players seem to have a swashbuckling flair, while pool players present more like Revenge of the Nerds.
8. Gambling.
9. Snooker remains a significant part of it's primary market's culture. Pool, not so much.
10. High production values.
1. The vast majority of games are actual contests, that is to say both players will have a turn or multiple turns at the table, and the outcome will be contested. In pool, most games go one of two ways: either the breaker will sink a ball and run out, or the breaker will not sink a ball and watch the other player run out. Not very interesting from a spectator point of view.
2. In snooker, decision making plays a bigger role, particularly on whether to take on a shot or not. This invites the spectator to also have varying opinions on those decisions, which makes the game more interesting. In pool, pretty much all available shots are taken.
3. In snooker, there are more difficult shots, particularly long ones, where whether or not they will be potted is in doubt, and thus more exciting when they are made. In pool, all shots are pretty much expected to be made, and only misses cause excitement, as in, "How the heck did he miss that one?" But excitement over failure is counterproductive for spectating.
4. In snooker, long runs like a Century or a Maximum are considered achievements, something a spectator can be proud to witness, whereas in pool, running the table is run of the mill. And as for 3-packs or 5-packs or what have you, keeping count is too much work for the average spectator.
5. In snooker, luck plays a relatively small role. It is a sporting competition in which the better player is expected to win by better play. In pool, 9-ball in particular, the break plays such an outsized role in some matches that the game sometimes seems more like coin-flipping than a sporting event.
6. In snooker, the long matches are punctuated by frequent player turns and the seated player is generally very much engaged and ready for his return to the table. In pool, there are frequent stretches where one player is seated for what seems an eternity.
7. Snooker players seem to have a swashbuckling flair, while pool players present more like Revenge of the Nerds.
8. Gambling.
9. Snooker remains a significant part of it's primary market's culture. Pool, not so much.
10. High production values.
Last edited: