Players pay money so TV broadcasts could make money??

franco · #1 01-06-2005, 02:20 PM

See if I got this right? A player pays $10,000, plus expenses to play in a professional poker tournament. Then the casino/event producer sells TV rights to that event to a network? Then Casino/producer keeps most of that money? Network sells commercial time and keeps most of that money? And none of this money goes back to the players?

I'm new to poker, but not new to broadcasting. What a sweat deal for everyone involved but the players. We pay those maniacs on Fear Factor. We pay the idiots on the screaming shows. We pay ballclubs to broadcast their games.

But we don't pay the professional poker players (they have to do additional work and win!)? I know they get some equity from the face time, but that money doesn't compare to what they could get if they charged for their participation. Sweat deal.

maryfield48 · #2 01-06-2005, 02:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Sweat deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm gonna assume that wasn't inadvertent, and go ahead and give you credit for a good 'un.

Wake up CALL · #3 01-06-2005, 03:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
know they get some equity from the face time, but that money doesn't compare to what they could get if they charged for their participation.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are implying that you would be willing to pay money just to see specific poker players play a tournament then you would be in a very small minority.

Who in their right mind cares that Phil Helmuth whines his way out of 1st place? Who cares that a brother and sister might actually have to beat one another to win two million bucks? Even if you care would you pay extra to watch because it was a specific player? Poker on TV would work fine without any name players, in fact the only reason there are any name players is because of the media.

franco · #4 01-06-2005, 03:35 PM

My posting implied that it was unfair to the players and stupid on their part to participate in an endeavor that makes money without them getting their share. I was a little confused as to why players would pay money to allow entities to make money off them.

Shajen · #5 01-06-2005, 03:42 PM

They are getting their share, indirectly.

Fish watch the shows, show up at the casinos and give them money.

So it's a circular thing. I see no reason why they should require appearance fees for tournaments.

Wake up CALL · #6 01-06-2005, 03:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
My posting implied that it was unfair to the players and stupid on their part to participate in an endeavor that makes money without them getting their share. I was a little confused as to why players would pay money to allow entities to make money off them.

[/ QUOTE ]

The answer to that question is simple. Go back 5 years, how many tournaments were available and how much dead money did each tournament have compared to today? You see they are being compensated by larger purses and more touurneys.

A sure way to kill the Golden Goose is for the players to start thinking their names adds some sort of value to a tournament.

DesertCat · #7 01-06-2005, 07:49 PM

The WPT is barely making money today, after burning, er investing, god knows how many millions to get up and running. Actually they lost money last quarter and made a little over a million over the first 9 months of the year. So if the WPT put all their profits into the prize pools, it would probably only add about 10% or so. Of course then the WPT would be getting nothing for spending their own money to create this wonderful opportunity to players, so that wouldn't be fair either.

To be honest, I'm not sure why the WPT isn't makeing more money. I think it's their deal with the travel channel, I'm not sure the audience is big enough on that channel to provide the WPT with enough revenues. I would think their revenues will continue to rise with new seasons, and sales of DVD's etc (as long as the boom doesn't burn out). Perhaps maybe then they'll start making so much money that you will actually have a valid complaint.

BarronVangorToth · #8 01-06-2005, 07:55 PM

As poker grows, I bet within a year or two, you'll see Invitational Events on Prime Time on a regular basis -- 10 man events where it's a freeroll and they give the winner $1,000,000. The networks will make the money off the commercials and limited production costs (outside of the prize) and the players will go gladly as, well, it's a freeroll.

It's already happening on cable TV to a lesser extent -- primetime will pick up on it soon enough. We're years away before the end of the bubble ... if it comes at all.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com

DesertCat · #9 01-06-2005, 09:18 PM

Based on the ratings ESPN is getting, I don't doubt you, Count. My understanding is that it's double hockey ratings. That's not a huge audience but should be more than enough to put millions of broadcasting fees into prize pools, even after paying expenses.

It'll be sad if the WPT get's passed by because they signed a bad deal with the wrong network...

sammysusar · #10 01-06-2005, 09:25 PM

WPT has started Pro Poker Tour 5 freeroll events total prize poll of 2.5 mil. have to have some wsop or wpt success to qualify. WSOP is going to have a 2 mil freeroll for 100 pt leaders. So the networks are starting to give something back.
if poker gets bigger these tours should expand. also with alot of overlapping schedules some incentives for the top players to participate may be more necessary.