Double standards ?

Monique Disciplinary matter, Professional snooker,

The Shoot Out in underway in Swansea. I will report on that after the event concludes.

Meanwhile something appeared on twitter that got me wondering. This:

The Shoot Out is a ranking event. It is underway. Yet, Neil Robertson and Luca Brecel were supposed to play an exhibition in Finland today, and Mark Selby will now replace Brecel?

Did they get permission for this? If not, are they not in breach of their contract? If permission was given, how come when a ranking event they could have entered is underway ?

I know that this is by no means a big event, with big money like Macau was but still … If the players contract says that they can’t play in anything that clashes with a WST event, this is technically a breach of contract, no matter how you look at it. Worse still, I will argue that the Macau event was scheduled during the NI Open, and that the players involved opted not to enter the event that was sandwiched between two more lucrative ones in China. Macau or not, they were not scheduled/expected to play that week in a WST event. It made actually no difference. This time, the three mentioned opted not to play in the Shoot Out. They might have opted out anyway of course, exhibition or not. They probably would have actually. But that’s not the point.

The point is that, unless WST was unaware of this exhibition, or authorised it, this is double standards. They choose to enforce the contract when it suits them, notably when they feel challenged, be it by players or promoters, and close their eyes when not. That indefensible in law.

I haven’t changed my mind about the whole situation. To me players being self-employed should be free to play in whatever they want and it’s up to WST to make their events good enough to keep them on board. That’s how economic competition and capitalism – that Hearn so likes and applies – work. Their contract should not restrict them. But if it does – as is currently the case – then it has to be enforced in a consistent way and it may backfire because actually exhibitions are important to promote the sport. Hearn knows that because that exactly how he promoted it in the days …

Having said all that, I do hope that the exhibition in Finland does happened and is a huge success.

11 thoughts on “Double standards ?”

  1. So… Do we even know this thing actually happened? This is aX-Twitter, after all, and, having found nothing on the web about this alleged exhibition, I tend to suspect this is just some random bloke having an episode, or something.

    Anyway, even if it happened, maybe the organizers / participants had the good sense to clear it with WST beforehand, promised that no one (of any significant profile) would promote the event (which would account for the dearth of news), and so the WST did give their okay, grudgingly or otherwise, unwilling to start another row over next to nothing in this case. If no one knows about the event, the detraction from the Shoot-Out would be minuscule – like a bicycle falling over in China.

    So, why not reserve judgment until we have some real information on what really happened, if anything?

    • Grump we agree, but my point is something else. Hearn went all “big mouth” with the press even talking of throwing the Macau players off the Tour because of a breach of contract. I think that we all know that the breach of the contract wasn’t the big issue. Players get fined all the time for breaches of contract. No, the big deal was how much money the promoters were able and willing the throw into these exhibitions sending a signal to the top players that they may well be able to make a good living outside the main tour. WST needs its top players for its promotion so they can’t allow that. It’s not that such exhibitions “detract” from WST events, it’s that they are a direct threat to WST economical viability. It’s absolutely normal that WST reacts. I just wish that they would be more honest: the problem isn’t the breach of contract, and players being self-employed shouldn’t be blamed for taking such opportunities, especially the older ones. WST needs to do two things: bring their own events to a higher level, not so much about money, but notably about players “hospitality” and comfort. Players must feel more valued. The other thing is to actually work with these promoters to find the best way for both sides. Such high profile exhibitions showcase the sport and WST benefits from the improved image and publicity.

      • It’s not that such exhibitions “detract” from WST events, it’s that they are a direct threat to WST economical viability. It’s absolutely normal that WST reacts. I just wish that they would be more honest:

        From the WST statement on the Macau Five:

        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.

        It would appear to me the WST are being remarkably honest.

        I find much more mendacity in those who, by every reasonable account, have earned more and have more money on the bank than they would ever need, and still whine how they would spend their old age hungry, homeless and destitute unless they play fancy exhibitions destroying the viability of the WST – to the detriment of those who never earned enough, don’t get invitations to those fancy exhibitions, and are left with nothing in case the WST collapses because of the greed of snooker celebrities.

      • The Macau exhibition wasn’t broadcast, it was held thousand of kilometers from the UK where the “conflicting” event was held, the players in question hadn’t entered it and that was known for many weeks.Players are not compelled to enter any event. So how was this impacting their broadcast revenues or their ticket sales? It wasn’t. Of course, if such events were organised on a regular basis, it would become a problem.But then I have no sympathy for Hearn because he would certainly not hesitate to do what those players did if he was in their shoes. The way he built his own fortune shows that and to his own admission he voted against the 20000 guarantied pounds although, with hindsight, he admitted that it was a good idea. And yes, what some have earned looks huge. What will it be worth in 30/40 years time though? We have enough examples of sportspersons from the past who seemingly earned fortunes, yet struggled badly when growing old.

  2. I’m not sure of the actual wording of the contract, but I don’t think it says they can’t play in anything that clashes with a WST event. Rather I think it says they can’t take part in anything that would detract from a WST event.
    They will likely say an exhibition involving 2 players wouldn’t detract from the shootout, but a bigger event involving top players in a tournament style event, would do.

  3. I don’t think Macau was supposed to be during the NI qualifiers. Macau was scheduled during the NI Open proper, and therefore top players didn’t enter the NI Open, but were supposed to play elsewhere. Ronnie played an exhibition during the qualifiers, WST was unhappy about that too, but not to the extent it was unhappy about Macau.

    As to this exo in Finland, my guess would be they didn’t know about it, or would find it ridiculous to start another row because of the Shootout. 😏

    • You’re right. It was actually the Scottish Open quals happening during that “gap” between Wuhan and Tianjin. All the same, for the top players, it made sense to skip a “minor” event, avoid the tiredness of traveling twice between time zones and make some money if the opportunity presented itself. My guess is that they were worried about Macau because this was big money, possibly opening the door for other promoters to do big events. The exhibition in Finland is no “danger” to them.But IF they are serious about enforcing their contract, they have to be consistent.

      • Ronnie just arranged the date so perfectly exhibitions are days before the ranking events……
        So he was “possible” to return UK but he did not. (A very viable strategy vs WST up to this day.)

        Consistent…

        Oh. Weeping for Europe fans. (Why it is allowed in German Masters.
        Even it can be avoided moving players to 18/19 in draws, it is just not nice – not fair.)

        Forward to see if WST adds additional clauses/procedures in the future ……

        Or WST will simply pack the calendar with more flat draws and then remove held over plans?

      • Just feel something is still wrong even it seems “resolved”

        Only Selby and Luca have their qualifiers held over, and rest 3 (Barry was not Macau 5) of have to withdraw.

        So, the final “agreement” punish the players twice.

        (It would also give a bad image: Why WST is so angry when not playing Scottish Open but it is OK in German Masters.)

        Sorry for last harsh/sarcasm comment.

Comments are closed.