How have you been, Jay? Good to hear from you. I'm pretty busy with administration duties these days; I haven't served on the WPA board for 10 years; and I'm not familiar with the events to which you refer - only the two during my 16-year tenure [in each case, the players were eventually paid]. To answer your question, I'm going to stick with my original comments re: the constructive function of the WPA and the limited control it can have over the international pool sport. - John Lewis
WPA Failure: International Olympic Committee
- Thread starter justnum
- Start date
Thank you for taking my comment constructively about paragraphs.
You make some interesting points.
Why do you think the World Games pool event gets so little attention, given that it is affiliated with the IOC and is the closest thing to the Olympics?
While the IOC gives the World Games primarily technical assistance and cooperative support, the World Games themselves is administered by the International World Games Assn (IWGA) - recognized by the IOC. In the newspaper and on ESPN (I don't look online nor search aggressively for World Games news) I seldom if ever see news on ANY of the World Games sports - not just cue sports. It's just not the Olympics I guess! I spoke with Pedro Piedrabuena last week who represented USA in 3-C billiards at the 2017 World Games a few weeks ago, and he was impressed with the overall color and organization, although he was only present between the Opening Ceremony and the Closing Ceremony, so he did not get to experience either of those events. Prior to the World Games, I was asked to inquire by Pedro if there was a USA uniform for the Opening Ceremonies - like you see in the Olympics for most national teams. I called our NOC here in the USA - the USOC - and they could not give me guidance. They did call me back however and informed me that they were not aware of a uniform for the Team. I'm pretty sure Pedro had no contact with IOC or USOC officials while he was there. It's probable that the World Games sports might be better covered in some countries in Europe and Asia.
The organization with which I am involved is affiliated with the Panamerican Billiard Confederation (CPB). While no organization in the USA is even close to fulfilling the requirements to affiliating with our NOC - the USOC, many cue sport federations in South American ARE affiliated to their NOCs, and one of the CPB's long-term goals is to gain inclusion for cue sports into the Panamerican Games.
I do have a practical vision - with the support of other leaders in our USA sport - of gaining affiliation for one organization to the USOC (not what some people may think, and I'll keep the plan under wraps for now), but I am not in a position to get the plan off the ground for another 3-4 years. Gaining USOC affiliation for our sport in the USA could have some very positive benefits. Again this has nothing to do with getting into the Olympics (that is the international responsibility of the WCBS); it's merely a movement to gain affiliation to one NOC - OURS; and we cannot keep ignoring that the movement should be made. Ahh.....patience. Cheers. - John Lewis
The organization with which I am involved is affiliated with the Panamerican Billiard Confederation (CPB). While no organization in the USA is even close to fulfilling the requirements to affiliating with our NOC - the USOC, many cue sport federations in South American ARE affiliated to their NOCs, and one of the CPB's long-term goals is to gain inclusion for cue sports into the Panamerican Games.
I do have a practical vision - with the support of other leaders in our USA sport - of gaining affiliation for one organization to the USOC (not what some people may think, and I'll keep the plan under wraps for now), but I am not in a position to get the plan off the ground for another 3-4 years. Gaining USOC affiliation for our sport in the USA could have some very positive benefits. Again this has nothing to do with getting into the Olympics (that is the international responsibility of the WCBS); it's merely a movement to gain affiliation to one NOC - OURS; and we cannot keep ignoring that the movement should be made. Ahh.....patience. Cheers. - John Lewis
Thanks for your response. I wasn't really asking about the organizational aspects of the WG so much as the utter lack of interest shown in the US. And not by the general public, but by the most committed part of the pool world.
As I see it the organizations might govern and administer things but they have had almost no success in promoting the game.
The only problem I have with the WPA is that it still recognizes the Billiard Congress of America (BCA) as its North American affiliate. I realize my comments may be viewed as those from a disgruntled ex-employee, but I have some experience on all these matters. I am the longest-tenured employee (1991-2004) in the history of the BCA, and I represented the BCA on the WPA board from 1991-2007. In 2004, the BCA had 13 full-time employees. The BCA had its own league system and involvement with player issues until 2004 when it sold its league to a company now known as BCAPL (a totally separate entity from BCA). At that point the BCA became strictly a trade association.
It now runs the trade show (1/3 the size of what is was in 2004, mainly due to the economy) and publishes a commercial rulebook with the WPA's world-standardized rules (a good thing!) every couple years. That's all it really does these days. It has 1 and 1/2 employees. After 2004, I voiced my opposition to the BCA still being the N. American affiliate to my fellow WPA board members ["It's now ONLY a trade association!"], but I was in a conflict of interest, as I was still representing the BCA on the WPA board. The BCA wanted me removed, but the WPA felt I was doing a good job as Secretary/Treasurer, so they supported me for three years. My board position became untenable by 2007, and the WPA stubbornly still holds on to the recognition of BCA in N. America here in 2017.
I know how the BCA works. It is our best bet for a trade association representing the needs of the industry in the USA and beyond. I certainly want the BCA to succeed as a trade association. Its board of directors is completely reflective of the industry.
But the BCA really has no impact on the sport in the USA other than being an obstacle to any progress. As long as the WPA recognizes the BCA, players will think the BCA has some involvement in promoting the sport. It is no longer in a position to do so. A lot of folks in the sport don't realize this. They assume the BCA has some real influence, but they do not realize that BCA is completely inactive these days in promoting the sport. Sure, BCA can award ranking points to various USA-based events (thanks to its WPA-affiliation) to determine some positions for USA players for the WCs, but anyone can do that. You don't need a BCA to make a few phone calls and send out a press release with ranking events. BCA has no involvement in producing ANY pool events in the USA. Even the BEF Junior programs that BCA established back in 1992 separated itself from the BCA in 2005 - recognizing that the BCA trade association staff would display little passion for structuring junior programs. The BEF is now a separate entity from the BCA, and it has only produced its BEF Junior Natls at the BCA Trade Expo the last couple years out of pressure from the BCA, because the BCA counts on the perception that more people are in attendance at the show. .And THAT is my issue with WPA! It continues to recognize a continental affiliate that has no involvement (and little interest) in sport. As long as BCA takes up this space, and insists on holding on to its position within WPA, you won't see a credible non-profit organization being established that can govern and oversee the well-being of our sport in the USA.
Going back to my previous posts in this thread re: the USOC, there is a viable plan that exists, and when introduced, it will be important for BCA to be included in any new formation (along with the support of many organizations). After all, despite it being solely a trade association now, BCA's position within the WPA deserves that respect. Changes should not be made w/o the BCA’s involvement. You cannot replace the BCA within the WPA structure until you have a viable proper organization to do so (and that is the plan). But please don't entirely blame the WPA – a world body - for the doldrums of some levels of pool and vision within the USA. The USA is “governed” by the BCA, and a trade association has little passion to be the vision-bearer for a sport. I am optimistic that within a few years, structures will change and the current landscape of "INDUSTRY GOVERNING THE SPORT" in the USA will disappear and be replaced with a non-profit organization spurred by the vision of sport. – John Lewis
.
It now runs the trade show (1/3 the size of what is was in 2004, mainly due to the economy) and publishes a commercial rulebook with the WPA's world-standardized rules (a good thing!) every couple years. That's all it really does these days. It has 1 and 1/2 employees. After 2004, I voiced my opposition to the BCA still being the N. American affiliate to my fellow WPA board members ["It's now ONLY a trade association!"], but I was in a conflict of interest, as I was still representing the BCA on the WPA board. The BCA wanted me removed, but the WPA felt I was doing a good job as Secretary/Treasurer, so they supported me for three years. My board position became untenable by 2007, and the WPA stubbornly still holds on to the recognition of BCA in N. America here in 2017.
I know how the BCA works. It is our best bet for a trade association representing the needs of the industry in the USA and beyond. I certainly want the BCA to succeed as a trade association. Its board of directors is completely reflective of the industry.
But the BCA really has no impact on the sport in the USA other than being an obstacle to any progress. As long as the WPA recognizes the BCA, players will think the BCA has some involvement in promoting the sport. It is no longer in a position to do so. A lot of folks in the sport don't realize this. They assume the BCA has some real influence, but they do not realize that BCA is completely inactive these days in promoting the sport. Sure, BCA can award ranking points to various USA-based events (thanks to its WPA-affiliation) to determine some positions for USA players for the WCs, but anyone can do that. You don't need a BCA to make a few phone calls and send out a press release with ranking events. BCA has no involvement in producing ANY pool events in the USA. Even the BEF Junior programs that BCA established back in 1992 separated itself from the BCA in 2005 - recognizing that the BCA trade association staff would display little passion for structuring junior programs. The BEF is now a separate entity from the BCA, and it has only produced its BEF Junior Natls at the BCA Trade Expo the last couple years out of pressure from the BCA, because the BCA counts on the perception that more people are in attendance at the show. .And THAT is my issue with WPA! It continues to recognize a continental affiliate that has no involvement (and little interest) in sport. As long as BCA takes up this space, and insists on holding on to its position within WPA, you won't see a credible non-profit organization being established that can govern and oversee the well-being of our sport in the USA.
Going back to my previous posts in this thread re: the USOC, there is a viable plan that exists, and when introduced, it will be important for BCA to be included in any new formation (along with the support of many organizations). After all, despite it being solely a trade association now, BCA's position within the WPA deserves that respect. Changes should not be made w/o the BCA’s involvement. You cannot replace the BCA within the WPA structure until you have a viable proper organization to do so (and that is the plan). But please don't entirely blame the WPA – a world body - for the doldrums of some levels of pool and vision within the USA. The USA is “governed” by the BCA, and a trade association has little passion to be the vision-bearer for a sport. I am optimistic that within a few years, structures will change and the current landscape of "INDUSTRY GOVERNING THE SPORT" in the USA will disappear and be replaced with a non-profit organization spurred by the vision of sport. – John Lewis
.
If freaking ribbon twirling can be an Olympic sport why not billiards?
Thank you for this reply to my post #24. Your insights and participation here are valued.
I would like to point out however that I asked two questions, and stressed how the WPA and all its representatives and affiliates have always refused to answer them and have steadfastly avoided them like the plague all through the years and that it would be nice to finally get a frank answer to them from you or somebody from the WPA, and yet you still essentially ignored one of the two questions even after all that was stressed. I would again like to ask for your thoughts or statement on it. The question was:
"Why doesn't the WPA have processes in place that guarantee that in WPA sanctioned events the promoters will pay out what was advertised, that the players will get paid in full, and that the players will be paid on time? Many people feel that this should be the WPA's highest priority, and in fact some feel that it is of such importance that it should be the only priority until such time that it can be accomplished after which you can then worry about trying to provide other services."
You mentioned how the WPA tries to use good judgement picking promoters (we see how well their "good" judgement has been working out all these years), and how they had one time paid the shortage of the prize fund out of their own coffers (but has not done so in any of the other many cases), but you never did address the question which is why there isn't an official policy in place that guarantees that all prizes will be paid as promised on site (and the WPA guaranteeing to pay any shortfalls out of their own coffers every time would be one of several ways of accomplishing this).
Ok, well here is my constructive criticism. An organization such as the WPA is near worthless and will never be taken seriously if it cannot first and foremost protect the integrity of the sport. Part of protecting the integrity of the sport involves ensuring that sanctioned tournament prizes are paid as promised when promised.
My suggestion is that the WPA should require all prize monies advertised as being guaranteed to be escrowed in full with the WPA in advance by a date that gives players and fans and vendors sufficient time to be able to make plans to attend the event if interested, say 60 days in advance or so. Aside from the prize fund payment problems to players, this also cures the cancelled events problem where promoters flake out and can't come through such as the one that just recently occurred where players have already incurred travel and hotel expenses etc that they won't be able to recuperate. I am assuming your response is going to be something along the lines that many promoters won't be able or willing to do this and so it would reduce the number of events that could be sanctioned.
I have a couple of responses back to this. First, any promoter that is incapable of putting the guaranteed monies in escrow at least 60 days in advance probably has no business being a promoter because they obviously don't have the money to pay out as promised if everything doesn't fall together perfectly as hoped, and so they are just a disaster waiting to happen which is precisely what you should be preventing from being able to happen. Second, it will be worth it in the long run. It would be better to have fewer sanctioned events that you have the utmost confidence in, than to have a few more sanctioned events but where people have little confidence in them. Third, any push back and refusal from the promoters would likely only be temporary anyway and after a year or two the ones the previously refused would "magically" become both willing and able to do it and so the drop in sanctioned events would likely only be temporary if it occurs.
The other alternative is that the WPA just guarantees to back the prize funds from their own coffers as an official policy. If the promoter of a sanctioned event is unable to pay the any part of the prize fund at the event the WPA steps in and immediately cuts the players checks right from their own account during the event.
I suggest the former option but whichever the WPA chooses it is clear to me that until they can completely and permanently cure the late payment or not payment problem from promoters they will never be taken seriously or receive wide support from the pool community. If we are honest all the Olympic stuff is probably a pipe dream and is just wasted time and resources. It certainly isn't on the near horizon for happening anyway. Put your current effort into places where it is more important and more needed and where you can actually get a result like in protecting the integrity of the sport, to include ensuring players get paid as promised, and that events don't fall through at the last minute, and worry about all the fluff and pipe dream stuff only after you can accomplish those most important and most basic things first.
Last edited: