We do take this into account, we know about this, it doesn’t change the fact that the WPA means nothing here. What have you done for me lately? What have you done for anyone lately, other than yourself?
WPA Bans 245 Players
- Thread starter Bob Jewett
- Start date
Come on man, you never told that super model not to call you
tomatoshooter
Well-known member
Who's gonna tell him?
Seriously, pool needs major sanctioning bodies less than most sports. A room with a couple dozen tables is all you need, in the strictest sense. Clip a camera to the light and you can broadcast it. I know raising prix money and promoting are part of it, but that's true of any sport. If I wanted to start a baseball league I'd need several ballparks to start. I don't want to trivialize what Matchroom is doing, but thinking about the logistics of most sports is mind blowing, and those sports couldn't exist without a significant level of logistical support.
Exactly
One last blast...
So their tournaments will be the Josh Filler Open now.
F the WPA and Josh Filler
Except Filler....who is dogshit
this is a good point, no matter what one thinks of the game. i don't think brazilian sinuca is part of WPA, although they also have pool balls, six pockets, etc. it's all about that heyball $$$.
He's the kind of cheap miserable pool fan who won't buy a DAZN subscription to watch all these awesome WNT events.
i agree with you but i don't think that's ever going to happen, even if pool gets where snooker is. actually even if the WC prize fund surpasses that of snooker, players ranked ~50 are still often high level journeymen. and as such they are still going to have to do the teaching, exhibition scene, open a pool room or any of the other "side gigs" to make ends meet. the exposure alone, if the tour gains traction, will of course help in these pursuits.
i hope i'm wrong, of course, but that's another matter.
Badpenguin
Well-known member
Agreed. Forever, pool hasn't had any sort of consistency or really solid uniform structure. Matchroom is injecting money, providing a consistent platform and building what appears to be solid infrastructure. The IPT was supposed to be that and it failed miserably. History and checkbook size dictates that Matchroom may be able to actually sustain this. So far, so good to the best of my knowledge.
Cueman's post really brings it full circle....until the players have a platform for a "career" in pool, how can any organization "ban" them. I mean, I guess that can execute that so called ban, but what are they actually banned from? Sure there are events out there that they may miss. But, in my opinion, for whatever that's worth, the players would be crazy to not participate in Matchroom events....whether the WPA approves or not is almost irrelevant.
Case in point would be this....Johnny Archer....one of the most decorated players in history. A lifetime of success on the pool table....and now, where is he and what does he have. Even his word isn't worth anything anymore given his situation with Oscar. And that probably stemmed from some sort of desperation potentially created by finances and/or other vices.
And I am not judging at all. To each their own. My point is simply that what if Matchroom and their platform existed when he is 21 years old and arguably the best player in the world. Maybe he ends up in the same spot in life, which would be unfortunate. And maybe some of his situation is his own fault. BUT, if he had 20 years of payouts like Matchroom is providing, he might be in an SVB situation....which my perception is a pretty good spot.
Bottom line is that players would be crazy to not be all in with Matchroom, even if it means a "ban" by someone else. This is likely the best opportunity that professional pool has ever had here in the US. Speaking specifically about American players, I don't see any who owe a "career" to the WPA, because most American players have never had a career of playing pool. They have had a lifetime of playing pool. But a career provides stability and a platform for a potential financially comfortable life. Matchroom seems to be on their way to providing that for the players.
But aren't they allowed to make a profit? Matchroom owes no one. If they make a profit, fine. If they don't, fine.
Lets say Matchroom had a million dollar event and somehow (whether tv production, marketing, sponsors, whatever), they successfully paid out that million dollars but also profited a million dollars, does that make them wrong because they made money? In my opinion, definitely not.
They still paid out a million dollars.
Promoters making money has always been taboo and I don't understand why. They don't owe players anything. If players don't like the platform and situation, simply don't play. Everyone goes on about their day.
The WPA has had little incentive, for years, to organize pro pool and turn it into something special. I wish it were not true, but it is.
That's certainly a fair question, but it's hard to lump such players into a single group. I see them as consisting of a few, though not necessarily distinct or exhaustive groups. It is hard to imagine anyone in these five categories boycotting:
a) those who receive federation money who would risk losing it if they took a stand against WPA
b) those who wish to continue playing Euro-tour, a WPA sanctioned tour, and might lose the chance if they took a stand against WPA
c) those to whom participation in the 2026 World Games is important, who might forfeit the opportunity if they took a stand against WPA
d) those who wish to play in WPA sanctioned Heyball events that might not want to chance losing that opportunity.
e) those wishing to play in Asian WPA sanctioned play (such as the Southeast Asia games)
Lest we forget, some of the Predator players who skipped the Hanoi Open to avoid the ban they foresaw were publicly lambasted on social media by fellow WNT pros and one of them was even disqualified by Matchroom from an event offering guaranteed prize money., despite having met predefined participation criteria.
I suspect there will need to be some healing before the elite non-banned players would consider mobilizing as a group to take action on behalf of those who have been banned, and for that reason, it is hard to imagine the boycott you are considering happening anytime soon.
In a way, the Reyes Cup is serving to remind us that the Gorst/Filler rivalry is the greatest rivalry in our sport since Varner and Sigel were dominating pro pool in the 1980s. I am sure the marketing gurus at Matchroom understand this in full. With this rivalry, which probably has at least another decade of steam in it, they have caught lightning in a bottle, and this rivalry has greatly improved the pro pool product. Any event not offering the chance of seeing these two generational talents, one of whom already has a hall-of-fame worthy resume, is not quite delivering the goods to the fan.
My guess is that WPA will secure a concession or two within the next six months and will lift the ban of the 245 players, but I'm darned if I really know. Like every other fan, I do not have all the facts and can only guess at what the future holds.
Last edited:
Lot of good points in this overlong thread. And lots of drivel , too. Let's face it, none of us have all the facts.
In disputes like this, rarely is any side 100% right or 100% wrong. I don't know if Matt Poland is right, but I assume MR is also at fault.
Still, the WPA is the only entity doing the banning, That makes me more jaundiced toward the WPA. Very jaundiced.
Nothing left to say, though. MR and the WPA will have to work it out. Or not.
In disputes like this, rarely is any side 100% right or 100% wrong. I don't know if Matt Poland is right, but I assume MR is also at fault.
Still, the WPA is the only entity doing the banning, That makes me more jaundiced toward the WPA. Very jaundiced.
Nothing left to say, though. MR and the WPA will have to work it out. Or not.