unions and exploitation in the poker tournament world(long and winded)

[EWillers]

At the Wednesday poker club meeting today a nice fella (whose name I don't remember but who just published a 7 stud book) made a pitch for the need of some sort of organization of poker players.

I had heard rumours of such ideas before but this was my first exposure to it from the horse's mouth.

The basic argument is that with the exploding popularity of televised poker tournaments SOMEBODY is making a lot of money. This TV money would not be available if there were no poker players. Therefore, poker players deserve a cut of this TV revenue.

***********************
SKIP THIS PART IF YOU'RE NOT REALLY INTERESTED

An additional argument was made that under these circumstances, poker players are being "exploited" by whomever it is that is making money off of TV revenue.

What is "exploitation"? I maintain that as long as participants are at an age of comprehension (prolly around 5 or so) and are acting freely and voluntarily, NO exploitation is possible.

Is it "exploitation" for a man to work a fork lift all day for $20/hr when the man paying him would be willing to pay $30/hr?

Is it "exploitation" for a man to pay $30/hr for a forklift driver who would be willing to do the same work for $20/hr?

The same logic could be applied to doctors, gardeners, salesmen, athletes, and dare I say, poker players.

Sorry, but this whole exploitation language really upsets me.

*******************
WELCOME BACK

There are a couple of obvious reasons why organising tournament poker players is a bad idea.

1) Entry into a tournament is voluntary. The rules of the tournament are spelled out from the begining.
Which game will be played
What the limits are
What the times for each limit are
What a player may wear
What a player may say
What a player may eat
When a player may go to the bathroom
How many times a player may blink his eyes

A player's decision to play a particular tournament should be based on whatever that player's standards are. Does he want to win money? Does he want to have fun? Does he want to brag? Whatever a player's goal is, this will determine if a player chooses to enter a tournament.

2) Star players are NOT the reason TV poker generates a lotta revenue.

In the PGA, when Tiger Woods is in or near the lead on the weekend, ratings for the network covering the event are significantly higher. Likewise event attendence when Tiger is player is significantly higher. Therefore, event promoters are eager to get Tiger in the field. He makes many times the top prize money for that Dubai Dessert Classic every year from his appearance fee alone.

Examples in a similar vein can be made for nearly all the major sports (some being better examples than others).

Televised poker is radically different. People ARE getting to know some of the repeat players. Likewise for players with flair. This is NOT the reason, however, that people are tunning in. It doesn't matter to the typical WPT or WSOP viewer if Brunson, Nugyen, Ivey, Lederer, Nugyen, and Ferguson make it to a televised table any more than if Smith, Smith, Smith, Smith, Smith, and Moneymaker make it to a televised table.

People watch because of the drama. People watch because of the conflict of man against man. People watch because poker at that level can be a window into the very essence of a man's soul. I mean lets face it. . .it's just freakin' great TV.

All that said, the TV revenue being created is NOT due to any superstars. It is not due to any dead money. It is created by the very event itself. It is created by those with the "vision" to let people peek at what's inside a man's soul that moment he decides to say those two words that make any viewer's spine tingle.

Tournament players are merely voluntary paying particpants in a great pagent. For decades that pagent was kept secrete to the outside world--private only for those who chose to play.

Now the world is getting a peek. And the world likes what it sees. Don't blow it by buying into the idea that a tournament player is owed anything more than his winnings.

[Howard Burroughs]

Hi E Willers,

It was nice meeting you today.

The "nice fella" was Ashley Adams.



Interesting post. Hope to see a lot more of you on 2+2 (and on Wednesdays while you are here).


Best

Howard

[Zetack]

Well, a couple of things.

First, my understanding is that the WPT itself is not a money making venture yet. Whether the travel channel is rolling in money now, I couldn't say. So I think its premature to say that the players are getting shafted at this point.

Secondly, it apparently is an objective of the WPT to get major sponsorship money involved to increase prize pools beyond simply what the players put in.

Aside from that I would disagree that because a person might be willing to accept a wage lower than the employer would be "willing" to pay there is no exploitation involved. There are inequities in negotiating power between a large employer and any individual employee that in some cases can only be tempered by collective action.

Having said that, its another question altogether whether the tournament poker players need to engage in collective action. At this point, my own view would be no, they do not...but that is subject to change.

--Zetack

[rbenuck4]

"Televised poker is radically different. People ARE getting to know some of the repeat players. Likewise for players with flair. This is NOT the reason, however, that people are tunning in. It doesn't matter to the typical WPT or WSOP viewer if Brunson, Nugyen, Ivey, Lederer, Nugyen, and Ferguson make it to a televised table any more than if Smith, Smith, Smith, Smith, Smith, and Moneymaker make it to a televised table."

I have to disagree with this statement. New watchers of golf who don't know Tiger Woods from Joe Smith won't care that it's Tiger Woods on TV until he hears the commentators, reads the articles, studies the sport, etc... The same can be said for poker. I know that the average viewer probably doesn't know a ton about poker (Just the rules most likely and a little how to play), but that is all changing today. More and more people are getting into poker and knowing who the big names and dynamic personalitites are. I know that I'm already excited that Scotty Nguyen is at the final table of the Party Poker Million III, and that if the media is able to create these personalities, that this would increase interest amongst the fans who know the game. I know that for instance, there were certain Late Night Poker shows that were extremely boring to me because I only knew one player at the table, and none of them were very exciting to watch. On the other hand, every time Gus Hansen is playing, I am tuning in cause his crazy style of play is so much fun to watch. If creating these personalities increases the viewership and the loyalty of poker players around the world, then I think it would be a good idea to get some sort of sponsorship for those guys.

[limon]

...is the wpt telling players thay cant wear their sponsors logos on the telecast. if i played in one of these tourneys i dont care if the wpt kicks anything into the prize pool but if i make the final table im gonna look like a nascar driver (minus the mullet) with logos glued to every inch of my fila sweatsuit. if they denied me this i would be a terror at the final table blurting out sponsor names, forgetting to show my hole cards, berating the wpt, etc...they gotta give a guy a chance to earn...final tables are few and far between.

[Acesover8s]

[ QUOTE ]
...is the wpt telling players thay cant wear their sponsors logos on the telecast. if i played in one of these tourneys i dont care if the wpt kicks anything into the prize pool but if i make the final table im gonna look like a nascar driver (minus the mullet) with logos glued to every inch of my fila sweatsuit. if they denied me this i would be a terror at the final table blurting out sponsor names, forgetting to show my hole cards, berating the wpt, etc...they gotta give a guy a chance to earn...final tables are few and far between.

[/ QUOTE ]

I bet you're sweet to hang out with.

[andyfox]

If poker is being televised, why shouldn't the poker players get a piece of the TV money? Because of their unions, baseball players, football players, etc., get a piece of the TV money.

While star players may not be the reason people are watching poker now, without the development of stars, TV poker will die. All entertainments need stars to thrive. Golf would have died without Arnold Palmer. Hollywood would have died without Chaplin and Pickford and Fairbanks. TV became what it became not because of the Hallmark Hall of Fame with great dramatic actors, but because Milton Berle and Sid Caesar and Lucille Ball were stars.

[limon]

i'd be sweet on you cutiepie.

[BradleyT]

Why shouldn't I get a piece of the money for watching? Afterall without ME (the audience) no one (LACO, WPT, The Travel Channel) would be making money.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
If poker is being televised, why shouldn't the poker players get a piece of the TV money? Because of their unions, baseball players, football players, etc., get a piece of the TV money.

While star players may not be the reason people are watching poker now, without the development of stars, TV poker will die. All entertainments need stars to thrive. Golf would have died without Arnold Palmer. Hollywood would have died without Chaplin and Pickford and Fairbanks. TV became what it became not because of the Hallmark Hall of Fame with great dramatic actors, but because Milton Berle and Sid Caesar and Lucille Ball were stars.

[/ QUOTE ]

Andy I do believe you have been brainwashed from living in Beverly Hills. In the rest of the world we watch a movie or TV show for entertainment no matter who is in the show. What do you think, that some people were born stars? Nope, they developed and may have a following but replace them with some other unknown with a smidgeon of talent and guess what? We are still watching the same show with new "stars". Put 9 monkeys and a cardboard figure of Mike Sexton at the poker table and people will watch.

[J.R.]

Lakes Gaming took on some big risks in putting this up, so they deserve a fair return on their investment. Players receive an indirect benefit in that increased popularity means more dead money. The WPT does add 200K to the WPT invitational and I believe some of the member casinos add money to the prize pools as well. Either way, the WPT is still in its infancy and I would suspect the money isn't big yet so I would guess the time to boost the money the WPT kicks back into the tourneys has not come yet.

[jayadd]

[ QUOTE ]

I have to disagree with this statement. New watchers of golf who don't know Tiger Woods from Joe Smith won't care that it's Tiger Woods on TV until he hears the commentators, reads the articles, studies the sport, etc...

[/ QUOTE ]
The majority of new watchers of golf are coming because of tiger woods. Tiger has made more people pickup a golf club then any human being has done for a sport. People will come along cause of the WPT to take a shot against the likes of phil hellmuth and gus Hansen and they will become dead money which helps the likes of pro's.
You guys are forgetting one big thing about the WPT its still Gambling. Unionizing this would be near impossible. The only thing players of the tourneys can look foward to interms of endorsements has to go through the WPT and travel channel itself.

[WEASEL45]

the travel channel only charges $25 for a 30 second add during the wpt. there is not a lot of money left to give to the players

[BradleyT]

My mom and dad couldn't tell you Howard Lederer from Layne Flaak(sp?) but yet they religiously watched every WPT last year and all episodes this year. Often watching both broadcasts and repeats.

I think you're 100% wrong. It's all about the fantasy and illusion that is created. The average joe can make it in. Celebrity poker wasn't popular because 99% of us know we'd never be at that table because we're not celebrities. Yet with the WPT, we do have a chance to make it in and nearly every week there is a nobody at the final table. This person is someone we can relate with. The average guy (or gal) off the street who took his chance and got lucky.


Why do you think Roseanne was one of the highest rated shows of all time? Because it was about your average family and people could relate to it. And reality TV in the beginning was hugely popular simply because people could see themselves in the same position.

[Greg (FossilMan)]

$25? I find that really hard to believe.

If it's true, I think I'll borrow a camcorder, make a mini-movie of myself doing something stupid, and pay $25 to see it on TV next Wednesday night.

C'mon. It costs $25 to put in a small classified ad in the tiny local newspaper.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[WEASEL45]

my friend just got an add to sell poker chips and it was $25

[Wake up CALL]

Greg I can offer you a better deal than that. On Unity Broadcasting Network you may purchase prime time at $160 per hour and off hours at $70 per hour. Heck you can afford a both mini-documentary on fossils and poker at those rates. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

UBN (http://www.ubntv.org/programratetv53.html)

[Easy E]

That was Ash, but I'm still not sold on the feasibility of a union.

Are they going to represent the vast majority of players who won't be union members?

Will the union have enough power to accomplish anything?

Will poker gain or lose by this?

Personally, I don't know if it's a good idea for players to bite the hands of those that they'd like to feed them (via prize pool add-ons and sponsorships)

[Easy E]

someone I know said last year it was $15K-$30 for 6 30 seconds spots.

25 DOLLARS for an ad sounds like a local PBS station and THEY aren't even that low

[nothumb]

This reminds me of the 'union' proposed by Dan Akroyd in Grosse Pointe Blank... a union of hit men? Dude, you're killing the image! Good thing he got snuffed.

Seriously. I think a lot of poker players will be really skeptical of a union, especially for lower-profile pros and guys who are not big earners. Also, what are the requirements for joining a poker union? If I cough up ten bucks a month as a 25/hrs a month player, do I get a cut of WPT profits? The logistics would be a nightmare. You'd have to start clocking time in casinos, which would hurt guys who make money in private clubs or home games, etc. To form a union it would be necessary to have a more well-defined 'workplace' and a better way to track earnings.

That said, I agree with Andy that, if the poker buzz currently flying around was ever going to become a long-term boom, the current watchers would need to become familiar with the top players. For people to become 'poker fans' they would need to develop some trackable, ongoing attachment to the game, such as recognizing regular players or enjoying some other features of the show. I think the particular nature of poker dictates that there could be other ways of attracting people to the show - more sophisticated hand analysis on air comes to mind, as your average watcher gets more sophisticated - but I think recognizable players are the best way to do this. If this is going to be more than a fad it needs to have a plot with recognizable characters. I'm not saying rig the game - I'm just saying that people will get more attached if they can follow events.

I think players could pursue advertising on air, but there will be logistical nightmares to this as well. It will be interesting to see how people proceed. I think most of the guys you'll see on TV are already stable enough earners that they won't be frothing at the mouth for any extra angles.

[Myrtle]

"Deep Throat" said..........."Follow the Money"

For a complete understanding about the issues being discussed here, it would be very interesting to do exactly that.

As far as a players "union" goes?

Let's not make the mistake that most make by confusing a "union" with a "players association"....Case in point: Major League Baseball.

The idea of a "players association" may have some intigueing possibilities, but I can't see how a true "union" could possibly work for poker players.

[baggins]

unions only work when they have power. they only have power when they control a significant portion of the population skilled enough to provide a service. poker doesn't work like that. nobody cares who plays. if they have to pay you or throw extra cash you way in form of kickbacks, etc. they'll surely pass and welcome all the other no-name players.

unless they seeded people, and had some elaborate system to rank players and subsidize their entry fees. that way, there's more 'stars' in the player pool, and more likely to be 'stars' at a final table. but, until the 'stars' stop playing tournaments with their own cash, the producers will have no incentive to take any notice of this. the thing is, there is no way to determine such a ranking. there are waaay too many players across the globe making money playing poker to categorize and rank them all. and there are tons of players making the money who wouldn't want the fame. their action would dry up. i think it's waaay too messy of a scenario for a 'union' or even a 'players association' to be organized. however, increases in prize pools by casinos, networks, advertisers, etc. would be the best, most economical, most democratic, most poker-like way to get more 'stars' in the game.

[dandy_don]

[ QUOTE ]
If poker is being televised, why shouldn't the poker players get a piece of the TV money?

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate the fact that people living in a free society that basis it's existance on the free enterprise system think this way. If the WPT would like to offer additional money do to their success, then that is their right, but to form a union to demand additional compensation is ridiculous.

As a business man, the employees I hire are not entitled to any of my profits beyond that that we agreed upon at the time of the hiring. When and if I give a bonus at the end of a successful year, it should be a gift for working diligently throughout the year, but should not be considered an expected income. Are they going to share in my losses during the bad years? I don't think so. But a union, and people with a union mentality, never look at the bad years of any business, only the times that it can rape and plunder the business based upon to good times.

I say this because, why do the players of a game deserve anything other than the announced prize pool of the tournament? Why do they deserve the profits from the TV rights, when they were not the ones that risked the up-front costs to see if a two-hour show about a poker tournament would succeed; something obviously none of the players took the time to consider or push.

Free enterprise is about rewarding those that risked something to gain something, not to reward those that happened to be in the general vacinity when someone else's great thought turns out to be a success. Those people are known as leeches.

[andyfox]

"I hate the fact that people living in a free society that basis it's existance on the free enterprise system think this way."

Think what way? That they're providing an entertainment product and not getting paid by the broadcasting company? It's the essence of the free enterprise system.

"to form a union to demand additional compensation is ridiculous."

Why is it ridiculous? If they're not getting compensation now, why not do what they can to ask for additional compensation.

"As a business man, the employees I hire are not entitled to any of my profits beyond that that we agreed upon at the time of the hiring."

Agreed. I too am a businessman.

"a union, and people with a union mentality, never look at the bad years of any business, only the times that it can rape and plunder the business based upon to good times."

Bull. Businesees aren't raped and plundered by unions. Unions came into existence because workers were raped and plundered by businesses.

"why do the players of a game deserve anything other than the announced prize pool of the tournament? Why do they deserve the profits from the TV rights, when they were not the ones that risked the up-front costs to see if a two-hour show about a poker tournament would succeed"

Because they're the stars of the show. No players, no TV. This is why actors get paid for acting and for residuals.

"those that happened to be in the general vicinity"

You have a strange definition of happening to be in the general vicinity. The poker game is what's happening. The TV cameras are put in the general vicinity.

"Those people are known as leeches."

The leeches are those who would use the efforts of others to make money without paying them.

[Analyst]

[ QUOTE ]
But a union, and people with a union mentality, never look at the bad years of any business, only the times that it can rape and plunder the business based upon to good times.


[/ QUOTE ]

Before you make sweeping statements like this, you might want to ask members of the various airlines unions (pilots, flight attendents, mechanics), members of the musicians union, etc. about the concessions that they've had to make during their employers' bad times.

[Analyst]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If poker is being televised, why shouldn't the poker players get a piece of the TV money?

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate the fact that people living in a free society that basis it's existance on the free enterprise system think this way. If the WPT would like to offer additional money do to their success, then that is their right, but to form a union to demand additional compensation is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether it's ridiculous or not is not objective, but subject to negotiations between the WPT and the players. The players (either individually or jointly) can request, or "demand" as you put it, greater compensation, the WPT can react as they wish. You hate the fact that the players might think this way? Interesting, to say the least.

Do you feel the same way about Tiger Woods getting appearence fees to play in certain tournaments? It's not just Tiger, and it's not just golf - track stars often get fees to compete.

[ QUOTE ]
Free enterprise is about rewarding those that risked something to gain something, not to reward those that happened to be in the general vacinity when someone else's great thought turns out to be a success. Those people are known as leeches.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your view of free enterprise is skewed, I'd say, only recognizing the enterprise of the employer and not that of the employee. The formation of a players union would be to protect, in their view, the value of their portion of the enterprise. What could be a purer expression of free enterprise than each party working to maximize the return for their efforts and investments?

By the way, it may surprise you to know that I am not, have never been, nor am ever likely to be a union member, nor do I have any desire to do so. I do, however, read a monthy union newsletter and was quite disappointed and surprised to discover the "us versus them" mentality that they posess. From the tone of your post, your viewpoint seems much the same.

[Big Country]

Lurker.. rare poster, but felt I would like to chirp in.

The Tiger Woods example is interesting. He gets paid to be in tournaments too boost both live attendance and TV viewership, which all relate to more money for the company funding the tournament.

IMO, poker players are getting well compensated wth the immense flood of new players to the tables, the increased endorsement/book deals they can get for making multiple televised appearances, and also with the increase of "dead money" at tournaments they play in, they are now "working" for much higher wages. Just look at all the new record setting players for any of the WPT events this year or the WSOP over the last couple of years.

Not saying unions are bad, I just don't see how it could work in the poker world.

[EWillers]

1) Poker on TV is not star driven (yet)

2) Even if poker on TV were star driven the big tournaments will not have enough assurance that a particular star will make it on TV.

Woods plays a golf tournament, there's a 40-50% chance he'll be in contention on Sunday. There's 100% chance he'll be playing on the weekend.

To pay [insert any "poker star"] a fee to enter a tournament doesn't really make sense. If there are, say 300 people in a tournament, said star is at best probably a 30 to 1 shot to make it to the final televised table. The bigger the tournament, the longer the shot.

Anybody (or bodies) is/are free to request/demand/beg/whatever the WPT or ESPN for anything. Great players won't bother with this because they know where the money is--it's with the dead money that TV attracts. Non great players shouldn't bother with this because the people who run these shows (rightfuly) won't give them the time of day.

[felson]

Well, now we know how Tom McEvoy can afford to go on there shilling his "showdown odds" card.

(Btw, no, I don't believe that $25 figure either.)

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
I say this because, why do the players of a game deserve anything other than the announced prize pool of the tournament? Why do they deserve the profits from the TV rights, when they were not the ones that risked the up-front costs to see if a two-hour show about a poker tournament would succeed; something obviously none of the players took the time to consider or push.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is an absurd statement. The players are playing for the money THEY put up PLUS a fee they paid to the casion to run the tournament. The WPT is using them in an attempt to make their show. Without the players there would be no WPT. The players are the talent and "stars" of the show. In practice, the players are putting up with this for a number of reasons. The first is the hope it will lead to significant added money in the future if televised poker becomes a big thing (as it is becoming). Another is the new players it brings into the game, especially public games. Still another is the opportunity of becoming somewhat of a TV celebrity (and the paid endorsements that go with that).

If this trend continues the WPT will have to add significant money to the prize pools or someone else will be willing to do so and the WPT will fade away. Why would the players continue to put up large sums of their own money if they don't have to?

The best business arangements are those where everyone does well. I suspect that the WPT understands this and will do what it has to for everyone's benefit. It they don't, someone else will. This assumes that there is indeed money to be made by televised poker. I, for one, suspect that this potential will diminish with time, although I hope I'm wrong.

[DeezNuts]

Two words. Reality television.

[pretender2k]

You are right in one aspect. Poker is one of the few purely capitalist activities left. I put up my own money and take the risk. I think this is one of the things I love most about it.

You are also basically right about pros being exploited and I only want to make one exception. I think almost every sports figure is over paid but I often use Michael Jordan as an example. Stadiums filled at everyone of the games he played in and he was a major reason for that. Now I am not even a basketball fan but I often found myself watching him. My point is that if their was a pro that everytime he or she was on WPT the viewership was up ten percent, I think if I were that pro I would demand a premium to be there. That also is pure capitalism. If they are gonna be able to make more money because I am there I am gonna get a cut.

Unfortunately this would most likely cause some Enron, Worldcom type decissions that would make sure the pro in question would make it to most final tables and thus cheapen the experience for real poker enthusiasts. But hey anything for ratings. Jerry Springer rules, it makes me want to shoot myself in the head to even think I belong to a society where that show is popular but he rules.

[pretender2k]

Get his contacts name and number. I want to advertise my website and even I can afford that.

[pretender2k]

While star players may not be the reason people are watching poker now, without the development of stars, TV poker will die.

Is that why wrestling became so popular "the development of stars?"

[pretender2k]

[pretender2k]

Without the players there would be no WPT.

And they have that option at anytime. They can decide not to play if they feel they are being taken advantage of just like I have the right to renegotiate the wage I work for. If the WPT wants to put up more money that is their option. If players start electing not to play it may be an option they choose to go with so they can continue to have a show.

[pretender2k]

Don't even get me started on that subject. That like Springer makes me want to shoot myself in the head for being a member of the society that created and made it popular.

[scalf]

/images/graemlins/blush.gif and what ; exactly; stupid thing would you be doing???

lol

gl /images/graemlins/laugh.gif /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[sleepyjoeyt]

get a grip.

It ain't $25.

$25K is a lot closer to the price than $25.

[andyfox]

Don't know anything about pro wrestling, but I would assume star power has at least something to do with its popularity.

[DeezNuts]

By "reality television", I mean that the characters do make the show, but they are replaceable and a dime a dozen. Do you really think if the big name players weren't in the WPT that no one would watch? They play because they want the prize, they don't need to be compensated for anything more than that, much like reality television.