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

[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.