Ghato is absolutely correct. There is not, nor has there ever been, any contractual obligation on the part of Harrah's or ESPN requiring them to hold to a certain number of participants. In fact, if Harrah's decided to scrap the entire tournament, they could have done so (giving the players zero equity). If I were a player, would I be annoyed that the additional players were added? Absolutely. But I would also have to look at the big picture. Pepsi, an entity that is very conscious of image and has an enormous advertising and promotional budget, is throwing their support to the tune of $2 million behind a poker tournament, and will use additional resources to publicize and promote it. That is, in and of itself, an impressive step forward for a game that for years existed on the fringe of the sports and gaming world. It is no surpise that Pepsi would have some conditions before signing on, in this case to include three players who Pepsi has previous signed to do promotional work. If this had happened soon enough that the published rules could have incorporated the sponsors' exemption, nobody would be complaining. It was the timing that was bad. I think on a going forward basis Harrah's and ESPN will be more careful (they have already announced there will be 6 sponsor's exemption spots next year) not to irritate the players, but in this case the money came in late and they had to sacrifice some ruffled feathers to do something that has a long-term +EV effect on poker as a whole.