Aaron Hill followed up his career-best Wuhan Open run by earning a place in the final stages of the BetVictor Northern Ireland Open with a 4-1 defeat of David Lilley. …
Last week in China, Hill reached the quarter-finals of a ranking event for the first time before a narrow 5-4 defeat against Wu Yize. And the 21-year-old Irishman can look forward to another trip to the televised stages as he’ll be at the Waterfront Hall in Belfast for the second event in the BetVictor Home Nations series. The tournament runs from October 22-29.
Breaks of 92 and 53 helped Hill to sink Lilley and he’ll now meet Fan Zhengyi in the last 64.
Marco Fu compiled breaks of 133 and 104 in a 4-2 defeat of Jamie Jones, while BetVictor English Open quarter-finalist Matthew Selt saw off Andy Lee 4-1.
Former World Champion Graeme Dott top scored with 98 in a 4-0 win over Oliver Lines, while Joe Perry wrapped up a 4-2 win over Ishpreet Singh Chadha with a run of 102.
There were no major upsets yesterday. Marco Fu beating Jamie Jones by 4-2 was maybe unexpected, but then Marco used to be a top player and I’m glad to see him regain some form after all the health issues he suffered. Other than that Ian Burns beating Pang Junxu was a minor surprise.
Ronnie O’Sullivan has pulled out of the BetVictor Northern Ireland Open for medical reasons.
O’Sullivan was due to meet Ahmed Aly Elsayed during the evening session of the opening day of the tournament in Belfast, Sunday October 22nd.
He has been replaced by the highest available player from the Q School ranking list, Rory McLeod.
This injury is obviously a major concern. It’s not going away. Ronnie will almost certainly favour the biggest and most lucrative tournaments, knowing that playing in everything will be extremely difficult, if not physically impossible. It’s not looking good …
Meanwhile the top players are far from happy with the way WST enforces their contract
Ronnie O’Sullivan is unhappy with the promotion of snooker in the UK (Picture: Getty Images)
Ronnie O’Sullivan says he could skip the World Championship this season, while Mark Allen has suggested top players boycott an event as the dispute between World Snooker Tour and some of the sport’s biggest stars rumbles on.
Conflict has arisen between players and the powers that be over big-money exhibitions in China that are being staged while ranking events are running elsewhere.
This week some top players are playing in Shanghai while the Northern Ireland Open qualifiers are staged in Sheffield, while there was due to be an exhibition in Macau next week while the main stages of the Northern Ireland Open are played in Belfast.
Five players – John Higgins, Mark Selby, Luca Brecel, Ali Carter and Thepchaiya Un-Nooh – were due to play in Macau and withdrew their entries from Northern Ireland, but were warned by WST that playing in the exhibition during the ranking event was in breach of their players contracts and they would face sanctions if they did so.
The exhibition has since been moved to December, but the five players in question had already withdrawn from Belfast, so they will not be playing in anything next week.
O’Sullivan will be in Belfast and is playing in Shanghai this week, but is unhappy with players not being able to act freely, with reports that even during this week’s event a social media blackout has been imposed on those involved.
‘It was almost blackmail to those playing in the Shanghai exhibition – to say you have to do this and do that,’ said O’Sullivan. ‘It would make most players just not want to play there so much. Most players would take these letters as a threat. These days I’d just say, “I’m not playing – what are you going to do about it?” And I will always pay attention to my tennis elbow and my mental health.
‘Get a decent promoter on board in the UK and stop treating the players like a piece of s**t. Do it properly. Or don’t get upset when players complain. WST will try and change the player’s contract and clamp down. But the more they do, the worse they might make it for themselves. They’ll say, “You can’t play in anything, you can’t have a cue in your hand, anywhere, whether it’s streamed or not, if it’s not a tour event.”
‘But I’m doing my own thing, I’ve a lot going on in China – don’t be surprised if I miss the World Championships. What has happened with these exhibitions in Shanghai and Macau and the fallout – it’s going to happen again. The model is f****d up – they’ve got it wrong. It doesn’t support 128 players.’
World Snooker Tour responded to the Rocket, saying they are working with players and promoters of exhibitions to try and make sure all needs are catered for.
A statement read: ‘Last month, Ronnie won £220,000 at the invitational Shanghai Masters we brought back to the calendar. To some extent we’re victims of our own success as we’ve developed a thriving market now creating extra opportunities for players.
‘We understand certain players may want to compete in exhibition events and will continue to discuss this with them in a respectful and constructive manner, as we have done this month in agreeing dates for the Macau event.’
Ronnie O’Sullivan beat Luca Brecel in the final of the Shanghai Masters last month (Picture: Getty Images)
Allen is not involved in Shanghai, nor was he due to play in Macau as Northern Ireland is his home event and he has won the last two editions of the Belfast tournament.
He agrees with O’Sullivan that restrictions on players are too onerous and has called on his fellow elite stars of the game to consider boycotting an event to bring about change.
‘I think the game is in disarray, it’s gone nowhere in recent years,’ Allen told the Irish Mirror. ‘I do not think that anything will change until the players revolt and in my view we need to boycott collectively as top players missing an event, that’s the only way things will ever change.
‘The statements WST have been putting out are amateurish. To say that they’ve treated the players with respect is laughable. There’s a lot of guaranteed money for these exhibitions. Whereas the prize money for the Home Nations in particular has really stagnated. Ultimately if prize money is bigger in events like Belfast then people wouldn’t even consider exhibitions.
Mark Allen feels a boycott of WST tournaments could be needed (Picture: Getty Images)
‘Ronnie’s hit the nail on the head with a lot of the things he’s said. He’s absolutely right. They’re able to hide behind the players’ contract. That doesn’t mean it’s right or it’s fair. I just know if I was one of the players involved then I would have taken a stand because the contract we have is far too restrictive.
‘If you don’t sign the contract you can’t play snooker, so ultimately you have to sign it because I want to play tournaments, compete and earn a living for my family but that doesn’t mean I’m happy with a lot of things in the contract.’
World Snooker Tour have hit back at Allen’s claims and say they will be taking action against him for ‘false and defamatory’ remarks.
A statement read: ‘We have offered Mark three meetings in the past three months, two of which face to face, and he has refused to engage. We had finally arranged to meet with him in the next week but he has clearly decided that he would not want to do so and has made these public comments instead. We strongly refute these allegations which are false and defamatory and will be taking necessary action.’
All this is bad for snooker.
I don’t take Ronnie’s statement about missing the World Championship too seriously. It’s not the first time he comes up with that, and he might mean it on the moment, but when the time for the World comes, he’s always changed his mind, even in 2013, when he sat the whole season out. BUT, there is clear discontent amongst the top players, especially the older ones. The players are essentially self-employed. Yes, there is the 20000 pounds guaranteed, but if they earn more than that, it doesn’t come in addition to their earnings, and of course it’s not counting towards their ranking. As self-employed persons, they should be free to choose where and when they want to play, taking the best offers. It’s up to WST to make their events attractive enough to keep the top players – the ones who actually put bums on seats – interested in their events. Over recent years their shareholders have seen their shares increase significantly, whilst the prize money has remained rather stagnant. So … I don’t see how Mark Allen’s remarks are defamatory and false.
Barry Hearn, and his family, have always been big fans of the free enterprise and the capitalist model.
Well then … they should live by his own principles and allow players to go for the best offer. This would force WST to increase the quality of their products to stay competitive, and it’s not all about the money, it’s about the quality of the venues, the fans’ and players’ global experience. By that I mean top quality snooker of course, but also quality catering, comfortable seating in the arena, “relaxing spaces” for fans at the venue, attention to accessibility, considering possible activities and attractions in the close area, comfortable players’ room, players changing facilities and showers … Make the snooker trip a global positive experience for the fans and the players. Players need to feel valued in order to deliver their best snooker.
15 thoughts on “The 2023 NI Open – Day 3 and Other News”
This was a good read.
This is what I love in your post
Great to see Aaron Hill continuing his success after his career-best Wuhan Open run! Exciting times ahead for him at the BetVictor Northern Ireland Open.
Thanks, Ely Shemer
There’s a difference between defamation and expressing an opinion! I wonder if WST is aware of this…
Many of us are old enough to remember when Barry Hearn organised tournaments that were said to clash with WPBSA tournaments; and when Steve Davis (presumably on Hearn’s instructions) withdrew from the Professional Players’ Tournament (then one of only 3 ranking tournaments) to concentrate on exhibitions; and when Hearn’s players were fined for not co-operating with the WPBSA. Is the moral high ground a natural habitat for WST?
So, the mutiny on behalf of the snooker aristocracy is still ongoing – the snooker aristocracy who demand they be treated like royalty, and even be deemed above the law, as royalty commands, that is, unbound by the terms of the contract they themselves signed. That contract with the WST, the institutional backbone of professional snooker, is the ladder they used to climb to the top – and good on them! It’s only that they now aim to weaken, or even destroy, that same ladder for anyone else, and particularly for those who have no other means, and must rely on that very ladder to get ahead, those who don’t command the five- or six-figure rent merely for showing up.
I’ve long held it’s the most British thing to do, to give to the haves, to empathize with their difficulties to get food on the table, whilst also sparing no thought on the have-nots, and to leave them to rot in their self-inflicted and well-deserved misery. It would be the height of irony if exactly that would be the reason why we’d get a two-dozen players snooker scene while the rest of the bunch went back to playing for pocket change in some backwater pubs during their after-work hours. Before soon, those who now happen to be famous (and mostly old) then one after the other die off, and with them take professional snooker to their graves, because there no longer is that ladder for new talent to climb from the bottom to fame and (some) fortune. All because the limitless greed of the few at the top is more of a concern than the fate of the many who are struggling to make their first steps.
The god of history would once again prove to be possessed of a very weird sense of humor.
Grump this contract is certainly NOT the ladder that helped them climb to the top, quite simply because it wasn’t there before the start of the 2012/13 season. By then Ronnie was already a 4x World champion and aged 37. That contract was the reason he sat out most of that season BTW. Barry Hearn only took over the game in 2010. The previous contract, if any, was certainly not as restrictive. I remember covering exhibitions and mini-events organised by Jason Francis and Brandon Parker, with streaming and even on occasions shown on Eurosport. That’s how Brandon “discovered” the Tempodrom BTW. There was the “World Series” organised by Pat Mooney with John Higgins as well. I remember team events in Hong Kong, China v Europe. All those events were mainly for top players and local wild-cards. Of course, the calendar had many gaps at the time but still… This contract is mainly there for Matchroom benefits. It helps them enforcing their control and monopoly over the professional sport. That’s what it is for, nothing else. I’m 100% convinced that if a top snooker player wanted to play in one of the big Matchroom Pool events, there would be no red light whatsoever, despite this being clearly detrimental to snooker … but it would be beneficial for the Matchroom empire and that’s all that matters to them.
Of course this contract, and its predecessor version(s), provided the institutional framework to develop snooker, and for players to rise to the top – or stay there, as the case may be. Without that stability, there is no TV audience, no streaming, no exposure, no sponsor interest, nothing but pubs and clubs doing their thing, uncoordinated. Is that contract ideal, or is Matchroom a benevolent organization without interests of its own? Of course not. And, as the business environment changes, so do contracts. I think folks are often underestimating the import and value of institutional stability, particularly in endeavors that require long-term stability for things, relationships, talents to develop over many years. That remains true even while these institutions then – in many a view – prioritize their own, or the wrong, interests, possibly to the detriment of the very thing they are supposed to safeguard and develop.
As to the question of a WST-affiliated player’s participation in a pool event, and actions taken against him (or not), that depends on the exact wording of the contract, doesn’t it? If that contract refers to activities in the realm of snooker, at the exclusion of everything else, no action is possible. O’Sullivan can still run, say, the London Marathon during a WST-sponsored event, without fine or other sanction, and Wakelin can participate in a widely watched dance marathon, with the same result. So, if there were no action at all, I wouldn’t be surprised. Anyway, Allen’s seeming contention that he is free to violate his contract because he didn’t dictate its every term, is too ridiculous to contend with. He should try that line with his bank, or his landlord, or something, and see what that gets him.
If these contracts face widespread misgivings, there is a way to renegotiate them, as a last resort under threat of collective cancellation. You would want not just the snooker royalty at the table to do that, for those in, say, the lower two thirds of the rankings might overwhelmingly choose that the royalty shall not be allowed to compete for the fans’ attention while they are laboring in proper tournaments, dependent as they are on every last dime they might be able to earn there. If TV channels and sponsors realize that proper tournaments no longer command attention because the snooker royalty have their sparkling festivities elsewhere, this income opportunity may very well be drying up. That’s in no one’s interest, and certainly not in the interest of those who would grouse about professional snooker turning into the equivalent of professional (fake) wrestling, where the game is choreographed, the outcome is preordained, and the actors are exactly that, but highly paid for the fake drama (or comedy) they are delivering.
I understand your arguments but I still stand by my opinion that this has nothing to do with the interests of the sport, never mind, the young upcoming players. It’s about controlling and and protecting Matchroom’s, the majority shareholder, financial interests. Why am I thinking that? There were revealing several “clues” appearing last week. First, Shaun Murphy, himself very close to the board, supported the top players, indeed saying that as self-employed they should be free to play in those. Shaun is the last player I expected to come out with this, given his past and present involvement with WPBSA and ingrained respect of the authorities. Then, it’s about the voices we’ve heard, and those we haven’t heard. Barry Hearn the former Matchroom boss – who is supposed to be retired but is still very involved in Matchroom – and Eddie Hearn, now the Matchroom boss, appearing on a snooker podcast. Eddie Hearn never gave a *** about snooker, he’s all about boxing. So why this sudden interest? On the other hand, I have heard nothing from Jason Ferguson. Jason is the WPBSA Chairman, he is a former player, a very good one, but never a really top one. He understands the challenges the players face because he was one and he has the best interests of the players at heart. He stayed away from the “debate”. His silence was deafening.
IMO, Matchroom are furious because they missed the trick, and they lost control. They could have engaged with those promoters themselves they could have get involved, control the situation – the “where when and who” – and they could have made money, Lewis pointed at that missed opportunity here. I am certain that there will be more high profile lucrative exhibitions in Asia, and the calendar will be accommodated for them. And they will feature the top players and, maybe a couple of young upcoming locals. And Matchroom will be involved … from the start. Barry Hearn, then an independent promoter, did exactly that in the 80th… he traveled everywhere with his top players stable, showcasing snooker. He made money, the players made money and snooker got great exposure outside the UK. It did the sport no harm. Quite the opposite. They will do it again.
This is my OPINION. I put the word in capitals because, I’m not claiming I detain the truth. Only those involved know what really is behind this. But, yes, this is my opinion, this is how I read the situation.
Grump, I really appreciate your argument as it is not only well-worded, but also has a lot of common sense to it. I also wish players stopped sprouting nonsense about not playing the Worlds, because if they don’t perform the threat it’s laughable, if they do, it’s detrimental for them. Finally I wonder if the notorious breakaway tour happened, how long would it take for it to institutionalize, create a contract with many stipulations.
I don’t see here the big difference. Just because Matchroom and all its owners are protecting their financial interest, rather than up and coming players, doesn’t mean that the top players’ (as Grump said, the “snooker aristocracy”‘s) efforts to do as they please and shun institutional requirements are not potentially harmful for the whole sport, given the risk of lucrative invitationals and exhibitions on the one hand for them, and the proper ranking events for the rest with diminishing sponsorship and exposure.
I don’t necessarily disagree with any statement of fact above, Monique, particularly not on Matchroom’s self-serving nature. Where we do disagree is the future result of the current trajectory. It wouldn’t surprise me in case what emerges is closer to your take of a possible future for snooker. Until then, I remain deeply worried.
………………
Thanks, Csilla.
I have at best the faintest idea as to what it would take to stand up a “breakaway tour”. I don’t expect that to happen anyway. The lucrative vanity exercise the snooker royalty and their sponsors seem to plan is not a “tour”.
If you actually mean a tour – that is, to edge out and replace the WST – that task would be herculean, and require a huge network of knowledgeable, well-connected people and enormous piles of money, and not least the personal connections necessary to convince, say, 100 players to change their affiliation. Where to find these people is a mystery, as all those thus qualified already are invested with the WST, I guess. Remember when Higgins and his pal tried to create an Eastern European leg of the tour? That effort went down in flames, and left them both with substantial debts, among other kinds of fallout.
The only way I see how that could happen is in case the Chinese (add the House of Saud, Qatar, the Emirates) put $500 million on the table and buy up the shop.
And you know what the irony would be? The new tour sat down, considered their business environment, and this environment’s impact on the players’ contracts, and it turned out these contracts would not be substantially different from the contracts with the WST, for the new tour to be viable.
On the other hand, I have heard nothing from Jason Ferguson. Jason is the WPBSA Chairman, he is a former player, a very good one, but never a really top one. He understands the challenges the players face because he was one and he has the best interests of the players at heart. He stayed away from the “debate”. His silence was deafening.
There is quite a bit of food for thought in the above, so let’s have a closer look.
Players are in quite a variety of situations contingent on the stage of their career, which (I would suggest) comes with a variety of different interests. The royalty, the foot soldiers, the very young and those nearing their career’s end, the more successful and those who are struggling, those who command attention wherever they show up and those who haven’t left much of a mark, they all might come to different conclusions as to which would be the best path forward. If Ferguson would want to be perceived as an honest broker in any upcoming debate involving the players about the future of snooker, and the future of the institutions that govern the sports, he cannot come out in favor of one set of interests, and against any other group’s, right? So, there is an incentive right there for him to keep his mouth shut.
On the other hand, if Ferguson thought the players’ contract with the WST too restrictive, imposing onerous and excessive limits on the players’ earning opportunities, we would have heard about that in the decade since these contracts came into force. I am not aware of any such statement from him. If, working for the players’ best interests, he had come to this conclusion, it would have been a dereliction of duty not to speak up. If in fact there was no such statement, the obvious conclusion would be, he’s fine with the terms of these contracts. I, for one, wouldn’t expect him to lead the charge for reduced restrictions, and not speaking out in this sense does, again, make sense.
Otherwise, some players, in the near future, might press ahead with another version of “Makau”, that is, an exhibition that conflicts with a WST-event. That would arguably result in these players being referred for disciplinary proceedings. In these proceedings, Ferguson would play a major role in investigating and sanctioning the players. In order to keep his public image of impartiality and to avoid being seen as prejudging any of the possibly upcoming cases, it is crucial, a wise choice actually, for Ferguson to remain quiet.
Moreover, WPBSA isn’t just a players’ organization, it’s also a part owner of the WST (26% last I checked). So, WPBSA is also invested, quite literally, in the commercial success of the Snooker tour, and would avoid damaging the earning opportunities of the WST. So, insofar as (some) players’ and the WST’s interests and demands diverge, where is Ferguson supposed to head, as coming out in favor of one side would inevitably antagonize the other? Again, caution suggests to keep out of the melee, at least as long as tempers run hot, in order to avoid damage to the public image of the WPBSA in either of its roles.
Are you with me so far? For to me it seems – while Ferguson’s silence initially looked ominous – his not blurting out whatever preference he might have was just the wise thing to do. Good on him, keeping his powder dry, and maybe working behind the scenes to calm the waves.
As to Matchroom, what if Eddie Hearn, having had a closer look at Matchroom’s revenues, resolved to take a bigger interest in snooker, and its stable development and growth? Wouldn’t that be a good thing? Of course, Matchroom is about making money first, second, and third. The best thing that could happen is Matchroom’s interest in money and snooker’s development and future growth would coincide, and Hearn seeing the light as to what would be required to get both aspects on a solid footing not just for the next months but for years or even decades to come. Obviously, I am not privy to the man’s deliberations, but his taking a “sudden interest” is not, by necessity, a bad sign, at least as far as I can see.
If we were to fear Matchroom’s nefarious doings, I would suggest we look for Hearn (either of them) trying to play off the snooker royalty and the foot soldiers against each other. That’s when they might be trying to weaken the players’ bargaining position, and maximize Matchroom’s revenues to the detriment of snooker as a whole. As of yet, I haven’t seen any sign of that.
Anyway, thanks for the food for thought, Monique!
While I do worry about Ronnie’s elbow problem in general, I’m not too inclined to believe that his withdrawal from the NI Open was elbow-related. I think he probably just made an understandable and reasonable decision to stay in China for the next event there, rather than make a round trip back to the UK for a tournament he wasn’t going to take very seriously anyway…
The elbow is worrisome, but if it were that bad, he wouldn’t have played the Shanghai exhibition, would he? Some people say exhibitions are not really playing, not taxing physically, just messing on the tables with balls, no pressure, no effort, but I’m not so sure.
While I do worry about Ronnie’s elbow problem in general, I’m not too inclined to believe that his withdrawal from the NI Open was elbow-related. I think he probably just made an understandable and reasonable decision to stay in China for the next event there, rather than making a round trip back to the UK for a tournament he wasn’t going to take very seriously anyway…
Mark Allen calling for a boycott of an event by some of the elite players? A sure fire way to antagonise the TV companies who are the mainstay of the game.
These same players already claim publicly that the game is in “disarray” and wonder why the sponsor of the UK Champs is a Mickey Mouse online betting brand.
Be careful what you wish for in threatening to boycott events, one day the world snooker final could be back in a working men’s club the way you are all behaving.
I don’t think the choice of the sponsor has anything to do with the current issues. WST events have been sponsored by bookies for years now … something that BTW is NOT helping its image in mainland Europe.
Ronnie O'Sullivan 
This was a good read.
This is what I love in your post
Great to see Aaron Hill continuing his success after his career-best Wuhan Open run! Exciting times ahead for him at the BetVictor Northern Ireland Open.
Thanks, Ely Shemer
There’s a difference between defamation and expressing an opinion! I wonder if WST is aware of this…
Many of us are old enough to remember when Barry Hearn organised tournaments that were said to clash with WPBSA tournaments; and when Steve Davis (presumably on Hearn’s instructions) withdrew from the Professional Players’ Tournament (then one of only 3 ranking tournaments) to concentrate on exhibitions; and when Hearn’s players were fined for not co-operating with the WPBSA. Is the moral high ground a natural habitat for WST?
So, the mutiny on behalf of the snooker aristocracy is still ongoing – the snooker aristocracy who demand they be treated like royalty, and even be deemed above the law, as royalty commands, that is, unbound by the terms of the contract they themselves signed. That contract with the WST, the institutional backbone of professional snooker, is the ladder they used to climb to the top – and good on them! It’s only that they now aim to weaken, or even destroy, that same ladder for anyone else, and particularly for those who have no other means, and must rely on that very ladder to get ahead, those who don’t command the five- or six-figure rent merely for showing up.
I’ve long held it’s the most British thing to do, to give to the haves, to empathize with their difficulties to get food on the table, whilst also sparing no thought on the have-nots, and to leave them to rot in their self-inflicted and well-deserved misery. It would be the height of irony if exactly that would be the reason why we’d get a two-dozen players snooker scene while the rest of the bunch went back to playing for pocket change in some backwater pubs during their after-work hours. Before soon, those who now happen to be famous (and mostly old) then one after the other die off, and with them take professional snooker to their graves, because there no longer is that ladder for new talent to climb from the bottom to fame and (some) fortune. All because the limitless greed of the few at the top is more of a concern than the fate of the many who are struggling to make their first steps.
The god of history would once again prove to be possessed of a very weird sense of humor.
Grump this contract is certainly NOT the ladder that helped them climb to the top, quite simply because it wasn’t there before the start of the 2012/13 season. By then Ronnie was already a 4x World champion and aged 37. That contract was the reason he sat out most of that season BTW. Barry Hearn only took over the game in 2010. The previous contract, if any, was certainly not as restrictive. I remember covering exhibitions and mini-events organised by Jason Francis and Brandon Parker, with streaming and even on occasions shown on Eurosport. That’s how Brandon “discovered” the Tempodrom BTW. There was the “World Series” organised by Pat Mooney with John Higgins as well. I remember team events in Hong Kong, China v Europe. All those events were mainly for top players and local wild-cards. Of course, the calendar had many gaps at the time but still… This contract is mainly there for Matchroom benefits. It helps them enforcing their control and monopoly over the professional sport. That’s what it is for, nothing else. I’m 100% convinced that if a top snooker player wanted to play in one of the big Matchroom Pool events, there would be no red light whatsoever, despite this being clearly detrimental to snooker … but it would be beneficial for the Matchroom empire and that’s all that matters to them.
Of course this contract, and its predecessor version(s), provided the institutional framework to develop snooker, and for players to rise to the top – or stay there, as the case may be. Without that stability, there is no TV audience, no streaming, no exposure, no sponsor interest, nothing but pubs and clubs doing their thing, uncoordinated. Is that contract ideal, or is Matchroom a benevolent organization without interests of its own? Of course not. And, as the business environment changes, so do contracts. I think folks are often underestimating the import and value of institutional stability, particularly in endeavors that require long-term stability for things, relationships, talents to develop over many years. That remains true even while these institutions then – in many a view – prioritize their own, or the wrong, interests, possibly to the detriment of the very thing they are supposed to safeguard and develop.
As to the question of a WST-affiliated player’s participation in a pool event, and actions taken against him (or not), that depends on the exact wording of the contract, doesn’t it? If that contract refers to activities in the realm of snooker, at the exclusion of everything else, no action is possible. O’Sullivan can still run, say, the London Marathon during a WST-sponsored event, without fine or other sanction, and Wakelin can participate in a widely watched dance marathon, with the same result. So, if there were no action at all, I wouldn’t be surprised. Anyway, Allen’s seeming contention that he is free to violate his contract because he didn’t dictate its every term, is too ridiculous to contend with. He should try that line with his bank, or his landlord, or something, and see what that gets him.
If these contracts face widespread misgivings, there is a way to renegotiate them, as a last resort under threat of collective cancellation. You would want not just the snooker royalty at the table to do that, for those in, say, the lower two thirds of the rankings might overwhelmingly choose that the royalty shall not be allowed to compete for the fans’ attention while they are laboring in proper tournaments, dependent as they are on every last dime they might be able to earn there. If TV channels and sponsors realize that proper tournaments no longer command attention because the snooker royalty have their sparkling festivities elsewhere, this income opportunity may very well be drying up. That’s in no one’s interest, and certainly not in the interest of those who would grouse about professional snooker turning into the equivalent of professional (fake) wrestling, where the game is choreographed, the outcome is preordained, and the actors are exactly that, but highly paid for the fake drama (or comedy) they are delivering.
I understand your arguments but I still stand by my opinion that this has nothing to do with the interests of the sport, never mind, the young upcoming players. It’s about controlling and and protecting Matchroom’s, the majority shareholder, financial interests. Why am I thinking that? There were revealing several “clues” appearing last week. First, Shaun Murphy, himself very close to the board, supported the top players, indeed saying that as self-employed they should be free to play in those. Shaun is the last player I expected to come out with this, given his past and present involvement with WPBSA and ingrained respect of the authorities. Then, it’s about the voices we’ve heard, and those we haven’t heard. Barry Hearn the former Matchroom boss – who is supposed to be retired but is still very involved in Matchroom – and Eddie Hearn, now the Matchroom boss, appearing on a snooker podcast. Eddie Hearn never gave a *** about snooker, he’s all about boxing. So why this sudden interest? On the other hand, I have heard nothing from Jason Ferguson. Jason is the WPBSA Chairman, he is a former player, a very good one, but never a really top one. He understands the challenges the players face because he was one and he has the best interests of the players at heart. He stayed away from the “debate”. His silence was deafening.
IMO, Matchroom are furious because they missed the trick, and they lost control. They could have engaged with those promoters themselves they could have get involved, control the situation – the “where when and who” – and they could have made money, Lewis pointed at that missed opportunity here. I am certain that there will be more high profile lucrative exhibitions in Asia, and the calendar will be accommodated for them. And they will feature the top players and, maybe a couple of young upcoming locals. And Matchroom will be involved … from the start. Barry Hearn, then an independent promoter, did exactly that in the 80th… he traveled everywhere with his top players stable, showcasing snooker. He made money, the players made money and snooker got great exposure outside the UK. It did the sport no harm. Quite the opposite. They will do it again.
This is my OPINION. I put the word in capitals because, I’m not claiming I detain the truth. Only those involved know what really is behind this. But, yes, this is my opinion, this is how I read the situation.
Grump, I really appreciate your argument as it is not only well-worded, but also has a lot of common sense to it. I also wish players stopped sprouting nonsense about not playing the Worlds, because if they don’t perform the threat it’s laughable, if they do, it’s detrimental for them. Finally I wonder if the notorious breakaway tour happened, how long would it take for it to institutionalize, create a contract with many stipulations.
I don’t see here the big difference. Just because Matchroom and all its owners are protecting their financial interest, rather than up and coming players, doesn’t mean that the top players’ (as Grump said, the “snooker aristocracy”‘s) efforts to do as they please and shun institutional requirements are not potentially harmful for the whole sport, given the risk of lucrative invitationals and exhibitions on the one hand for them, and the proper ranking events for the rest with diminishing sponsorship and exposure.
I don’t necessarily disagree with any statement of fact above, Monique, particularly not on Matchroom’s self-serving nature. Where we do disagree is the future result of the current trajectory. It wouldn’t surprise me in case what emerges is closer to your take of a possible future for snooker. Until then, I remain deeply worried.
………………
Thanks, Csilla.
I have at best the faintest idea as to what it would take to stand up a “breakaway tour”. I don’t expect that to happen anyway. The lucrative vanity exercise the snooker royalty and their sponsors seem to plan is not a “tour”.
If you actually mean a tour – that is, to edge out and replace the WST – that task would be herculean, and require a huge network of knowledgeable, well-connected people and enormous piles of money, and not least the personal connections necessary to convince, say, 100 players to change their affiliation. Where to find these people is a mystery, as all those thus qualified already are invested with the WST, I guess. Remember when Higgins and his pal tried to create an Eastern European leg of the tour? That effort went down in flames, and left them both with substantial debts, among other kinds of fallout.
The only way I see how that could happen is in case the Chinese (add the House of Saud, Qatar, the Emirates) put $500 million on the table and buy up the shop.
And you know what the irony would be? The new tour sat down, considered their business environment, and this environment’s impact on the players’ contracts, and it turned out these contracts would not be substantially different from the contracts with the WST, for the new tour to be viable.
There is quite a bit of food for thought in the above, so let’s have a closer look.
Players are in quite a variety of situations contingent on the stage of their career, which (I would suggest) comes with a variety of different interests. The royalty, the foot soldiers, the very young and those nearing their career’s end, the more successful and those who are struggling, those who command attention wherever they show up and those who haven’t left much of a mark, they all might come to different conclusions as to which would be the best path forward. If Ferguson would want to be perceived as an honest broker in any upcoming debate involving the players about the future of snooker, and the future of the institutions that govern the sports, he cannot come out in favor of one set of interests, and against any other group’s, right? So, there is an incentive right there for him to keep his mouth shut.
On the other hand, if Ferguson thought the players’ contract with the WST too restrictive, imposing onerous and excessive limits on the players’ earning opportunities, we would have heard about that in the decade since these contracts came into force. I am not aware of any such statement from him. If, working for the players’ best interests, he had come to this conclusion, it would have been a dereliction of duty not to speak up. If in fact there was no such statement, the obvious conclusion would be, he’s fine with the terms of these contracts. I, for one, wouldn’t expect him to lead the charge for reduced restrictions, and not speaking out in this sense does, again, make sense.
Otherwise, some players, in the near future, might press ahead with another version of “Makau”, that is, an exhibition that conflicts with a WST-event. That would arguably result in these players being referred for disciplinary proceedings. In these proceedings, Ferguson would play a major role in investigating and sanctioning the players. In order to keep his public image of impartiality and to avoid being seen as prejudging any of the possibly upcoming cases, it is crucial, a wise choice actually, for Ferguson to remain quiet.
Moreover, WPBSA isn’t just a players’ organization, it’s also a part owner of the WST (26% last I checked). So, WPBSA is also invested, quite literally, in the commercial success of the Snooker tour, and would avoid damaging the earning opportunities of the WST. So, insofar as (some) players’ and the WST’s interests and demands diverge, where is Ferguson supposed to head, as coming out in favor of one side would inevitably antagonize the other? Again, caution suggests to keep out of the melee, at least as long as tempers run hot, in order to avoid damage to the public image of the WPBSA in either of its roles.
Are you with me so far? For to me it seems – while Ferguson’s silence initially looked ominous – his not blurting out whatever preference he might have was just the wise thing to do. Good on him, keeping his powder dry, and maybe working behind the scenes to calm the waves.
As to Matchroom, what if Eddie Hearn, having had a closer look at Matchroom’s revenues, resolved to take a bigger interest in snooker, and its stable development and growth? Wouldn’t that be a good thing? Of course, Matchroom is about making money first, second, and third. The best thing that could happen is Matchroom’s interest in money and snooker’s development and future growth would coincide, and Hearn seeing the light as to what would be required to get both aspects on a solid footing not just for the next months but for years or even decades to come. Obviously, I am not privy to the man’s deliberations, but his taking a “sudden interest” is not, by necessity, a bad sign, at least as far as I can see.
If we were to fear Matchroom’s nefarious doings, I would suggest we look for Hearn (either of them) trying to play off the snooker royalty and the foot soldiers against each other. That’s when they might be trying to weaken the players’ bargaining position, and maximize Matchroom’s revenues to the detriment of snooker as a whole. As of yet, I haven’t seen any sign of that.
Anyway, thanks for the food for thought, Monique!
While I do worry about Ronnie’s elbow problem in general, I’m not too inclined to believe that his withdrawal from the NI Open was elbow-related. I think he probably just made an understandable and reasonable decision to stay in China for the next event there, rather than make a round trip back to the UK for a tournament he wasn’t going to take very seriously anyway…
The elbow is worrisome, but if it were that bad, he wouldn’t have played the Shanghai exhibition, would he? Some people say exhibitions are not really playing, not taxing physically, just messing on the tables with balls, no pressure, no effort, but I’m not so sure.
While I do worry about Ronnie’s elbow problem in general, I’m not too inclined to believe that his withdrawal from the NI Open was elbow-related. I think he probably just made an understandable and reasonable decision to stay in China for the next event there, rather than making a round trip back to the UK for a tournament he wasn’t going to take very seriously anyway…
Mark Allen calling for a boycott of an event by some of the elite players? A sure fire way to antagonise the TV companies who are the mainstay of the game.
These same players already claim publicly that the game is in “disarray” and wonder why the sponsor of the UK Champs is a Mickey Mouse online betting brand.
Be careful what you wish for in threatening to boycott events, one day the world snooker final could be back in a working men’s club the way you are all behaving.
I don’t think the choice of the sponsor has anything to do with the current issues. WST events have been sponsored by bookies for years now … something that BTW is NOT helping its image in mainland Europe.