I'll take the 6 :)
I would like to read more info on this. If X Pan and crew frow outside the US that should be owened lock stock and barrel too by the WPBA are allowed to be on TV and overseas streams then if an American pro on the WPBA tour played in another country it would be alright to be on tv and stream W/O any permission? I would hope so. The WPBA is going to put themselfs under with their high prices, rules, and media contracts. Johnnyt
I am not by any means talking on behalf of the WPBA so I may be misquoting something here. But I did speak to a board member about this particular Mezz event.
At the beginning of every year, all players sign off their media rights at the first WPBA event (American and foreign players). This applies to ALL WPBA players, exempt and non-exempt--anyone who has played in even ONE WPBA event that year.
In order for anyone to stream a WPBA player in competition, the tournament or tour must first me sanctioned by the WPBA and it could be charged a fee each time a WPBA player is streamed. The santioning fee is usually a very nominal fee like $125 or something like that for the entire year. The reason the WPBA's regional qualifying tours are allowed to stream exempt players is that they have already paid that santioning fee.
There is a committee on the WPBA board that determines streaming fees and fees for TV exposure by other entities. My understanding is that this is done on a case by case basis and differs with the size and scope of the tournament.
This board committee seems to be fairly reasonable about these determinations though. Technically, regional tours like the Fast Eddies (which is NOT a WPBA sanctioned tour) should not be allowed to stream WPBA players but the sanctioning committee didn't seem to think that this type of exposure was in competition with their "branding" so they don't police things like that very much. I would imagine the same is true about the over seas exposure, if it does not seem to be in competition with WPBA events or the WPBA brand.
The Mezz Classic specifially turned down the opportunity to sanction their event and to stream their players for the fees that were offered by the WPBA so techincally, none of the WPBA players should have been playing in the event without receiving exemptions for it (which I don't think they did). But again, no one really policed it.
I do on camera work for several production companies so I wanted to make sure that my media rights that they own do not interfere with my contracts with these other companies. I was assured that the media rights are ONLY for competition. So WPBA players can be on camera in interviews, TV shows, etc. anytime without WPBA approval as long as they are not competiting. The only own the competition rights.
I know many people think these rules are unreasonable and more exposure is better for the WPBA, etc....but I see it from both sides. They seem to be reasonable about letting the women get exposure thru events that aren't competing events without penalty and the WPBA spends a pretty large amount of money on branding their players and providing exposure for their players. So, there really are many reasons (some of which I would imagine have to do with legally being able to film the TV rounds at WPBA events) that the WPBA needs to own the competition rights their players.
I love the women players and thoroughly enjoy attending their events. The level of competition is very high, with many great players battling it out day after day.
That being said, in reality there is no "tour". Only a scattered handful of events held during the course of a year. A tour by its very definition would constitute multiple events held at regular intervals over a specified period of time. Check out the various golf and tennis tours for a reference. These are real tours. What the WPBA currently has is a few scattered events, sometimes held months apart.
Perhaps one way to build the WPBA and create a real tour would be to allow their players to get all the exposure they possibly can. This is how a brand is created, not by hiding or secreting their players from public view. When more people recognize the WPBA players and a demand is created to see them in action, this might help to establish enough events to have a real tour. They should be taking advantage of these opportunities to build their brand, not seeking ways to regulate the players who desire to play in them.
The absolute best thing for the WPBA is to have their players appearing everywhere they possibly can and making sure they represent the WPBA wherever they go. They would wear WPBA logos and hand out flyers (and other information) letting people know about the WPBA and upcoming WPBA events. Their best publicists are the players themselves. Charging sanctioning fees to the players, streamers or locations is very short sighted in my opinion. They should be encouraging this type of participation and welcoming it.
But what do I know. I'm just a guy in a diner.
Now I am even more confused because Melissa Herndon said that there was no charge to stream the JL-VV event by the WPBA.