A "boycott" of WPT events forming down the road?

[AlanBostick]

[ QUOTE ]
If by "directly," you mean they should be paid to be on TV, you fundamentally misunderstand the relationship between poker players and television.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is you who is completely missing the point. It isn't whether players should be paid for appearing on television at final tables; it's whether they should be paid for having their likenesses included in computer games, or as bobblehead dolls, or on trading cards, etc.

The WPT waiver, as it currently stands, lets Steve Lipscomb and Lyle Berman license such subsidiary rights, without any obligation to pay you or even check with you about whether you want such a thing to happen.

I haven't discussed this with anyone like Chris Ferguson; but I imagine that Chris's decision not to play in WPT events isn't so much a "boycott" as a rational business decision. Chris already makes substantial income from his likeness and his endorsement. To play in a WPT event would enable the WPT to use his likeness and endorsement for its benefit, not his, and in doing so the WPT would dilute the value of Chris's "brand." He doesn't need the WPT, and he certainly doesn't need to allow himself to be exploited by the WPT.

This is of course my line of reasoning, not Chris's. But if you ran it by him, I'd lay good odds that he would agree with it.

[Quicksilvre]

[ QUOTE ]
Erick Lindgren, Daniel Negreanu, Gus Hansen....those were established guys?

[/ QUOTE ]

Negreanu, yes. Lindgren, probably not. Hansen, no.

[KDawgCometh]

part of the problem is that there is no governing body or poker players union. But in of itself, those are very hard things to make. Its not like you can get every person who plays a signle WPT or WSOPC event to sign a Union card and pay dues. Because of this, the WPT can do whatever the hell they want. Us tuning out isn't gonna make enough of a dent in ratings and even if 100 pros stop playing, you will still have tons of internet pros who want the exposure and you will have tons of amateurs that want to be on TV

What really needs to happen is have someone like Larry Flynt or Jerry Buss put together a Poker tour and have it on a channel like NBC. You would also need to find enough major casinos that aren't already aligned with either the WPT or Harrahs(espn) that will host the events. Any MGM casino is off limits as they are aligned with WPT. How something like this would get worked out is far beyond me

I would love to play in a WPT event, but I'd have to sign a waiver giving away any visual rights for myself. While I am a nobody now, who knows what might happen if I get lucky. The same goes for many others. There are tons of Steve Dannenman's out there that will make forcing any change in the near future with the WPT a very hard thing

[Tenacious A]

[ QUOTE ]
Andy Bloch is planning on boycotting future WPT events, over their incredibly broad permission to use images and names.


[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder if his boycott will include changing the name of his website... www.wptfan.com

[RoyalLance]

[ QUOTE ]
If we become famous, it's not because we are good poker players, it's because the media and public made us famous.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's very hard to argue.

Last October I made a visit to Atlantic City to watch the United States Poker Championship which was held at - what was that place? - oh yeah, the Trump Taj Mahal. They filmed some movie over there. Anyway, the final table included Steve Brecher, John Juanda, and Men Ngyuen. The $800,000 first place prize was won by a young New Yorker who won his way to a seat. About 100 people or so witnessed James Caporuscio win the tourny that day, including Norman Chad, James's friens and relatives, and yours truly. Oh, ESPN cameras were there, too.

And I'd bet my ability to reproduce that 99% of the "enthusists" whose knowledge of the poker world stops at cable TV have never even heard the name James Caporuscio.

[freekobe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If by "directly," you mean they should be paid to be on TV, you fundamentally misunderstand the relationship between poker players and television.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is you who is completely missing the point. It isn't whether players should be paid for appearing on television at final tables; it's whether they should be paid for having their likenesses included in computer games, or as bobblehead dolls, or on trading cards, etc.

The WPT waiver, as it currently stands, lets Steve Lipscomb and Lyle Berman license such subsidiary rights, without any obligation to pay you or even check with you about whether you want such a thing to happen.

I haven't discussed this with anyone like Chris Ferguson; but I imagine that Chris's decision not to play in WPT events isn't so much a "boycott" as a rational business decision. Chris already makes substantial income from his likeness and his endorsement. To play in a WPT event would enable the WPT to use his likeness and endorsement for its benefit, not his, and in doing so the WPT would dilute the value of Chris's "brand." He doesn't need the WPT, and he certainly doesn't need to allow himself to be exploited by the WPT.

This is of course my line of reasoning, not Chris's. But if you ran it by him, I'd lay good odds that he would agree with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I'm saying is that the WPT won't change its waiver because they don't care who plays in their events, save for a few people.

That's my point. The players, for the most part, need TV. It is not the other way around.

People watch poker bc of the bluffing, the money, etc. People, to a lesser extent, watch for the stars. How else can you explain the high ratings for a final table that only included Mike the Mouth?

It's different than sports. people watch the cavs for lebron james, not bc basketball is some great sport.

The WPT doesnt care about the current superstars as they can easily create new ones. Players like Joe Cassidy and Michael Gracz have made names for themselves on TV poker in the last year, and there are plenty of young "internet players" capable of winning a WPT event.

Won't it be easier to win these events if the pros don't play?

Prior to reading this, I saw the WPT as being beneficial to everyone involved. The casinos got excellent exposure, the players were given a lot of publicity and usually presented in a positive light, and WPT and travel channel raked in huge ratings. Even players not making the final table had the opportunity to play in some of the largest prize pools of any tournaments in history. Boycotting these large events just seems unwise for players who make their living playing tournaments. As someone else mentioned, the players don't really make the broadcasts good. Mike and Vince can make almost anyone interesting to watch...even the internet player no one knows.

What I had not realized was the use of the players image, etc without their permission. I don't know if it's true that WPT included people in their video games and advertisements without compensation. If that's true, I would be weary about entering such an event. While Laak, Lindgren, Esfandiari are happy to be used by WPT in anyway, I can see why Ferguson, Lederer, or Ivey would be less interested.