Following the decision by a number of top players to opt for lucrative exhibitions in Asia over competing in WST ranking events, WST has published this statement:
World Snooker Tour (“WST”) Statement
The WST is disappointed to hear that a number of players under contract with the WST have elected not to play in a WST event, preferring instead to play in a non-sanctioned event in Macau thereby being in breach of the terms of their player contract.
Following recent speculation and the publication of an article containing many inaccuracies, the WST would like to make its position clear regarding non-sanctioned exhibition events.
It is important to stress that WST players do not have to enter all WST events, they have the freedom to choose, which has always been the case. This level of freedom is unlike any other sport where players have voluntarily opted to enter contracts with their club/organisation. However, with this level of freedom we do make clear in our player contracts that a player must not do anything that is detrimental to the WST or a WST event. It is without doubt that playing in a non-sanctioned event instead of playing in a WST event is detrimental to that WST event.
Given the exhibition event in Macau directly clashes with the final stages of the Northern Ireland Open, a player’s participation in it would constitute a breach of their player contract given that to compete in Macau, the player would not be available to compete in the Northern Ireland Open thereby devaluing the Northern Ireland Open.
Unfortunately, despite engaging in email correspondence and phone calls intended to best explain our position and enable the players to make informed decisions, five players (four of whom are ranked within the top 16) have decided not to compete in the Northern Ireland Open and have withdrawn their entry in order to play in Macau. These players are Mark Selby, John Higgins, Luca Brecel, Thepchaiya Un-Nooh and Ali Carter, none of whom will therefore appear in Belfast.
As a result, if these players decide to participate in the exhibition in Macau, the WST will have no alternative but to refer them to the WPBSA Disciplinary Committee for breach of their player contract, and this has been clearly communicated to the players.
Taking necessary action in these circumstances protects WST events on behalf of the fans who attend and follow our events through television and social media, our sponsors/commercial partners, broadcasters/streaming partners and most importantly, the other 125 members of the WST.
WST has always been and will continue to be supportive of a player’s earning opportunities outside of the WST provided that these do not distract, devalue, or conflict with the WST or a WST event. Players and promoters have ample opportunity to play in and host non-sanctioned events during gaps in the WST calendar. The WST does not therefore support any clash with a WST event and would consider a player’s decision to prioritise a non-sanctioned event clashing with a WST event to be a breach of their player contract, as this would undoubtedly result in sizeable financial implications to the WST including loss of broadcast income, and sponsorship and ticket sales revenue let alone losses due to any reputational damage.
We reiterate that we are running the sport for all 130 players on the WST, and this will always be our guiding principle.
I’m not sure where to start with this statement.
Despite being now guaranteed a minimal 20000 pounds in earnings, the players are essentially self-employed. For the ones possibly nearing the end of their career, with no guaranteed retirement money, it is a logical, rational, decision to try to maximise their incomes whilst they still can. Three of the players involved are over 40, therefore, clearly in that situation. Surely WST can see that.
In the paragraph I have put on a green background, WST argues that the players opting for Macau devaluate the 2023 Northern Ireland Open. It is true that if the top players are not at an event, it is harder to promote it, however, I don’t see how, by playing in Macau, they would directly harm the event more than by just not entering it, which would be their right. The fans intending to attend the NI Open are unlikely to book a plane to Macau to watch that exhibition instead. The players in question do indeed send a signal that the WST events are not attractive enough to them but … I think that WST should have a very good look at themselves and the way they run the sport here, in particular there should be more focus on the quality of the venues, the facilities they provide to players and fans: hospitality, resting rooms, practice rooms, general comfort and cleanness, quality of the food on offer, etc… They also need to have a good look at their calendar. Other than the money on offer here, there is the fact that the NI Open is sandwiched between two important, lucrative ranking events in China. Going back and forth through continents and time zones is tiring and costly. Those players, who will not need to qualify for the Scottish Open, and will play held-over matches at the International Championship may find it more efficient, and less demanding on their bodies and mind to just stay in China. I can’t blame them, as a lot of upsets this week are clearly fatigue related. If they are offered some earning opportunities on top of that, why should they not take them?
I’m not saying that WST task is easy, it isn’t, but this whole situation is not all black and white. They have a responsibility in this situation. That’s a fact, whether they want to accept it or not. Yes, they do run the sport for all players, but those top players are the ones bringing the dosh on board, alienating them will NOT help in the long term at all.
Snooker is clearly in a crisis and I’m not sure that a heavy handed approach is the way to resolve it. More flexibility is needed, and departing from the rigid money based ranking system would definitely make it easier. One size doesn’t fit all. The needs of the young up and coming players are not the same as the needs of those with 25 years + in the professional job, and family responsibilities.
The tour needs to change, before it snaps…
Ronnie O'Sullivan 
Seems the Macau-event had been postponed, though those who did not enter the NI Open, cannot enter now. Murphy also gave his two cent worth, which is they he agrees the “Macau five” as they are apparently called now (Cambridge five lol) because the money and treatment are so royal, but they will be penalised, because such is the contract.
Yes, I saw Murphy’s comments. He’s very much of the opinion that players should be allowed to play into whatever they want because – as I mentioned – they are actually self-employed. On the other hand, they have signed the contract, so they should abide by its terms. But importantly, Murphy also said that WST should have a good look at the reasons why players want to shun their events in favour of such exhibitions, and it’s not just about the money. The heavy hand approach won’t solve the fundamental underlying issues.
Did Ryan Day pull out of the Macau exhibition? He was on the initial poster but not mentioned in WST statement
These are the guys about whose old age-destitution we are being invited to care:
Ali Carter 311,500
Ryan Day 246,500
Thepchaiya Un-Nooh 120,000
John Higgins 429,500
Luca Brecel 885,500
Mark Selby 612,000
I’d surmise, there are players way worthier of our empathy and care. And the above is just price money, not advertising, coaching, commentary, exhibitions or whatever else these guys do to draw an income.
Of course, the NI-Open – in fact all WST tournaments – are being damaged if sponsors think twice about renewing their sponsorship because they have to account not just for declining attention because of celebrities going missing, but also drawing attention elsewhere.
There really is no love lost between myself and the WST, but this time they have a point, and that remains true even while greed and the quest to stay relevant and in charge sure play a role in how latest brouhaha has been handled.
It’s not yet a major crisis, but it would become one if players are suspended, or sanctioned severely enough that they may decided their future is not to be ‘contracted’ to WST.
The WST leadership, probably Steve Dawson, should really make themself available to media for questioning, and they need to be much more open about the reasons behind their tone. It is indeed true that if half of the top-16 are missing from the Northern Ireland Open, then the tournament would be ‘devalued’ in that ticket sales and viewing figures would be impacted.
But rather than go down the pointless route of litigation, what I’d like to see from WST and the players is how to find a way to accommodate everyone. If there are promoters in Macau and Shanghai who are willing to put up large sums for snooker, WST should be trying to engage with those promoters, so that events like the Macau Masters could actually become official. That way WST get a slice of the cake as well.
Actually, I have some sympathy for WST on this, in that part of the problem was caused by the extreme complications of reintroducing China to the schedule after covid, with a lot of uncertainty. It really isn’t easy to organise a tournement. Where WST have fallen down a bit is by trying to stick to an inadequate model, and failing to understand the full implications of globalisation and demographics (the ages of the current elite players). Actually, covid was an ideal time to look into that, but they didn’t.
I should add a disclaimer: I will be in Macau in December!
Yes, no doubt. In an ideal world, something like that would happen. And they lived happily… and so forth.
On the other hand, in this ideal world, wouldn’t those promoters call the WST and ask for their cooperation? For all we know, they didn’t. Rather, they deliberately scheduled their highly lucrative event so that it conflicted with the NI Open. And for that they had to know cooperation by the WST was not to be had, right? But they did it anyway. That should tell everybody, they were not, and are not, interested in cooperating with the snooker authorities.
What’s in store then? What might they be thinking? To me, it doesn’t look like the hostile take-over bid. Yet. Rather, it looks like a trial balloon, so as to figure out how Snooker Central in the UK is reacting. First came Shanghai, then they deployed a bigger caliber, Macau. And now, look what they got: “Social” media erupting, mutual recriminations, WST sending threatening, and then even more threatening letters, players reacting angrily, talks about punishments and bans emerging, about a “split” even, and a horde of lawyers set in march.
If the WST were a fortress, I’d say it looks like easy pickings, mostly due to easily exploitable divisions between greed on the one, and authoritarian leanings on the other side, nobody talking to, but everybody talking, in public, about each other.
I lost count how often I read words to the effect that the Chinese play the long game, think at least a generation ahead, while the West has just its quarterly income reports in sight. That may just be a silly stereotype, and those promoters just realized they had a bunch of high-profile snooker players in the country and came up with the idea to have a nice event with them. Or I’ve just watched too much Game of Thrones. Or it may be true, and WST, and snooker in general, might just experience how this difference plays out for real.
…
BTW, did any of you see any of the Australia Women’s Open? I didn’t, but was fascinated by one Ms. Kamani appearing at the final, with just one frame dropped during the previous rounds, having whitewashed Mink, and then losing to Ng On Yee. It saddens me to see that event pass unmentioned, with Monique having her hands full.
I’m not sure there was any “political” “long game” plan behind those exhibitions, rather promoters seeing a big opportunity to make profit after the long period of inactivity caused by covid, having seen the success of the Wynn event earlier this year, and players seeing the opportunity to make some big money, whilst sparing themselves the burden and fatigue to go back and forth through 2 continents and several time zones in the space of three weeks. WST also spoke about suing Victoria Shi. I wonder on what ground as surely she isn’t contracted with them.
As for Amee Kamani, she isn’t some “unknown quantity”. See here her wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amee_Kamani . There was a time, pre-covid, when the Indian ladies were regulars in the ladies events. Amee is a very good player, quite “old school” in her style. She is methodical and never knows when she is beaten. She’s an extremely difficult opponent at the table, and totally charming off it…
I am not at all sure either there is some long game involved, as I am obviously not privy to the Chinese planning. But, if you will, answer me this:
Assume you have some big-ticket sponsors at hand, and access to a convenient venue, would you invite major players to an event that conflicts with a proper WST tournament? (I assume you would not, ever, under any circumstances do that.)
Now, what would your mindset be, what would compel you to do exactly that, despite the very foreseeable clash to come?
As background to all this I would invoke your long-standing complaints about the egregious advantages enjoyed by players from the UK. It is, I believe, easy enough to see that the Chinese sentiments regarding that matter would be even more cutting, particularly in the face of WST’s refusal to change anything about that situation. So, is it all that implausible the Chinese resolved to turn to … well, other means? In addition to that, let’s not forget the Chinese just recently lost ten of their own to the match-fixing scandal, which must have been a face-losing experience for snooker officials as well, which was in part caused by the need for the Chinese players to live largely isolated lives abroad due to the UK-centrism in snooker, as organized by the WST. I am just thinking aloud, trying to make sense of the goings-on.
I honestly think that you are looking too far. It’s extremely demanding physically and mentally to play in completely different time zones on three consecutive weeks, even more so for the older players. The International Championship is extremely lucrative, the NI Open isn’t really. It is probably worth considering for players to stay in China and get ready and in good shape for the International Championship. If on top of that, a promoter offers them a possibility to earn good money and play a bit while staying there, that becomes a very attractive proposition. That’s all there is IMO. I’m not even sure they understood that it would be a breach of their contract unless the event is streamed or televised. WST has contracts with their broadcasters that give them some kind of “exclusivity” on the snooker events involving professionals. That is something the players definitively know.
I can totally imagine that it was simply a case of taking advantage of players in China and they did not even think of the clash with the NI Open. They probably invited the players, they said yes and that was to it. Had the players said no because they wanted to play in NI, maybe they would have reconsidered their timing. I suspect the WST seems to be so heavy handed and plays such a hard game, because it wants to nip similar possibilities in the bud (knowing it won’t be able to compete financially).
incidentally it seems Ronnie entered the NI Open, so he will undergo this gruelling travelling/time adjustment schedule if he wants to play the International Championship too..
Hence I wouldn’t expect him to treat the NI Open too seriously.
So, I am seeing “things”? That may well be the case.
The involved players have all been informed that merely playing elsewhere – whether or not streamed or televised – while a WST-sponsored event is on, would be regarded as a breach of contract (in the view of the WST). So, they may disagree but cannot possibly claim ignorance.
On the other hand, I am concerned with what these promoters may be thinking – the players’ motives are easy enough to understand. That these promoters (or even their sponsors) somehow missed that their event is conflicting with the NI-Open is patently unthinkable. There are at least a few snooker enthusiasts among them, who also know how to read a calendar, and very likely everyone they tried to invite also informed them about this conflict.
Here’s an insightful article on the (very related, I think) shenanigans going on with the House of Saud and their sports-washing endeavor. Don’t think the Chinese aren’t watching closely:
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/messi-saudi-arabia-liv-pga-golf-sportswashing-b2353242.html
I am fairly disappointed with the six (now apparently five) players who are seemingly letting themselves be used as pawns in all this. They are increasing their income, quite possibly to the detriment of everybody else in case sponsors call it quits because WST can not guarantee the snooker fans’ undiluted attention to WST events. There is, I think, more there than meets the eye, and the temerity to schedule an event in conflict with a proper tournament is most in need of an explanation.
Have fun!
But most historical spots are in the Macau peninsula, visiting them needs some time scheduling… can search “Macao Government Tourism Office”.
P.S. Too much mainland tourists at Ruins of Saint Paul’s. 0_0.
It will be an interesting argument if it comes to lawyers to decide whether or not playing at an exhibition in Macau and not at the NI Open is to the detriment of the tournament, because indeed, they could have just not entered it. But it is certainly true that the whole idea of heldover matches from the fans’ perspective is that people can be guaranteed to see the top players on Day 1, maybe 2. Losing that can indeed be less appealing for potential visitors of the tournament. And no matter how understanding we are of the needs of the players to make money, it is in general a hard sell that they participate in some lucrative exhibition for a lot of money instead of a proper tournament. But instead of this heavy handed approach that gets people’s back up, it might be better to look for a compromise with future scheduling.
The calendar is really absurd if it requires back and forth travelling and if the Chinese tournaments are firmly back on the calendar, it might need adjustment, although one size indeed does not fit all: the top players might find earning opportunities between two tournaments, while they hang out in China, but the low ranked players might become just as cash-strapped staying on as travelling. I know, this is the same problem for the Chinese players at the British tournaments.
On a different, but related note: is the venue at this Wuhan open so much better than any of the Home Nations? What I see is many tables, not too many spectators and nothing remarkable about the place itself, rather like a container.
not too many spectators->
weekdays need to work… (I think they appears from Friday night to Sunday)
It is sooooooo much better, Csilla. Look at those comfy sofa chairs. And they provide them for other tournaments as well. I don’t know about you, but I do understand now why they are opting for China. I know everyone thinks it’s about money, but it isn’t…..
I have no particular preference: I’m not a fan of China as a country for obvious political reasons, but as many snooker players are from there, I can’t object to them organizing tournaments (unlike Saudi Arabia). The question was genuine, because Ronnie voiced a lot of bad opinions about UK venues and why I can obviously not compare the cleanliness of the toilets, just looking at the venue on the screen I was not so much more impressed than by the Scottish Open venue last year. But point takes about the sofas. 🙂
I really hope more players don’t enter or withdraw from the NI Open in support of the Macau 5.