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.