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

[EWillers]

At the Wednesday poker club meeting today a nice fella (whose name I don't remember but who just published a 7 stud book) made a pitch for the need of some sort of organization of poker players.

I had heard rumours of such ideas before but this was my first exposure to it from the horse's mouth.

The basic argument is that with the exploding popularity of televised poker tournaments SOMEBODY is making a lot of money. This TV money would not be available if there were no poker players. Therefore, poker players deserve a cut of this TV revenue.

***********************
SKIP THIS PART IF YOU'RE NOT REALLY INTERESTED

An additional argument was made that under these circumstances, poker players are being "exploited" by whomever it is that is making money off of TV revenue.

What is "exploitation"? I maintain that as long as participants are at an age of comprehension (prolly around 5 or so) and are acting freely and voluntarily, NO exploitation is possible.

Is it "exploitation" for a man to work a fork lift all day for $20/hr when the man paying him would be willing to pay $30/hr?

Is it "exploitation" for a man to pay $30/hr for a forklift driver who would be willing to do the same work for $20/hr?

The same logic could be applied to doctors, gardeners, salesmen, athletes, and dare I say, poker players.

Sorry, but this whole exploitation language really upsets me.

*******************
WELCOME BACK

There are a couple of obvious reasons why organising tournament poker players is a bad idea.

1) Entry into a tournament is voluntary. The rules of the tournament are spelled out from the begining.
Which game will be played
What the limits are
What the times for each limit are
What a player may wear
What a player may say
What a player may eat
When a player may go to the bathroom
How many times a player may blink his eyes

A player's decision to play a particular tournament should be based on whatever that player's standards are. Does he want to win money? Does he want to have fun? Does he want to brag? Whatever a player's goal is, this will determine if a player chooses to enter a tournament.

2) Star players are NOT the reason TV poker generates a lotta revenue.

In the PGA, when Tiger Woods is in or near the lead on the weekend, ratings for the network covering the event are significantly higher. Likewise event attendence when Tiger is player is significantly higher. Therefore, event promoters are eager to get Tiger in the field. He makes many times the top prize money for that Dubai Dessert Classic every year from his appearance fee alone.

Examples in a similar vein can be made for nearly all the major sports (some being better examples than others).

Televised poker is radically different. People ARE getting to know some of the repeat players. Likewise for players with flair. This is NOT the reason, however, that people are tunning in. It doesn't matter to the typical WPT or WSOP viewer if Brunson, Nugyen, Ivey, Lederer, Nugyen, and Ferguson make it to a televised table any more than if Smith, Smith, Smith, Smith, Smith, and Moneymaker make it to a televised table.

People watch because of the drama. People watch because of the conflict of man against man. People watch because poker at that level can be a window into the very essence of a man's soul. I mean lets face it. . .it's just freakin' great TV.

All that said, the TV revenue being created is NOT due to any superstars. It is not due to any dead money. It is created by the very event itself. It is created by those with the "vision" to let people peek at what's inside a man's soul that moment he decides to say those two words that make any viewer's spine tingle.

Tournament players are merely voluntary paying particpants in a great pagent. For decades that pagent was kept secrete to the outside world--private only for those who chose to play.

Now the world is getting a peek. And the world likes what it sees. Don't blow it by buying into the idea that a tournament player is owed anything more than his winnings.

[Howard Burroughs]

Hi E Willers,

It was nice meeting you today.

The "nice fella" was Ashley Adams.



Interesting post. Hope to see a lot more of you on 2+2 (and on Wednesdays while you are here).


Best

Howard

[Zetack]

Well, a couple of things.

First, my understanding is that the WPT itself is not a money making venture yet. Whether the travel channel is rolling in money now, I couldn't say. So I think its premature to say that the players are getting shafted at this point.

Secondly, it apparently is an objective of the WPT to get major sponsorship money involved to increase prize pools beyond simply what the players put in.

Aside from that I would disagree that because a person might be willing to accept a wage lower than the employer would be "willing" to pay there is no exploitation involved. There are inequities in negotiating power between a large employer and any individual employee that in some cases can only be tempered by collective action.

Having said that, its another question altogether whether the tournament poker players need to engage in collective action. At this point, my own view would be no, they do not...but that is subject to change.

--Zetack

[rbenuck4]

"Televised poker is radically different. People ARE getting to know some of the repeat players. Likewise for players with flair. This is NOT the reason, however, that people are tunning in. It doesn't matter to the typical WPT or WSOP viewer if Brunson, Nugyen, Ivey, Lederer, Nugyen, and Ferguson make it to a televised table any more than if Smith, Smith, Smith, Smith, Smith, and Moneymaker make it to a televised table."

I have to disagree with this statement. New watchers of golf who don't know Tiger Woods from Joe Smith won't care that it's Tiger Woods on TV until he hears the commentators, reads the articles, studies the sport, etc... The same can be said for poker. I know that the average viewer probably doesn't know a ton about poker (Just the rules most likely and a little how to play), but that is all changing today. More and more people are getting into poker and knowing who the big names and dynamic personalitites are. I know that I'm already excited that Scotty Nguyen is at the final table of the Party Poker Million III, and that if the media is able to create these personalities, that this would increase interest amongst the fans who know the game. I know that for instance, there were certain Late Night Poker shows that were extremely boring to me because I only knew one player at the table, and none of them were very exciting to watch. On the other hand, every time Gus Hansen is playing, I am tuning in cause his crazy style of play is so much fun to watch. If creating these personalities increases the viewership and the loyalty of poker players around the world, then I think it would be a good idea to get some sort of sponsorship for those guys.

[limon]

...is the wpt telling players thay cant wear their sponsors logos on the telecast. if i played in one of these tourneys i dont care if the wpt kicks anything into the prize pool but if i make the final table im gonna look like a nascar driver (minus the mullet) with logos glued to every inch of my fila sweatsuit. if they denied me this i would be a terror at the final table blurting out sponsor names, forgetting to show my hole cards, berating the wpt, etc...they gotta give a guy a chance to earn...final tables are few and far between.

[Acesover8s]

[ QUOTE ]
...is the wpt telling players thay cant wear their sponsors logos on the telecast. if i played in one of these tourneys i dont care if the wpt kicks anything into the prize pool but if i make the final table im gonna look like a nascar driver (minus the mullet) with logos glued to every inch of my fila sweatsuit. if they denied me this i would be a terror at the final table blurting out sponsor names, forgetting to show my hole cards, berating the wpt, etc...they gotta give a guy a chance to earn...final tables are few and far between.

[/ QUOTE ]

I bet you're sweet to hang out with.

[andyfox]

If poker is being televised, why shouldn't the poker players get a piece of the TV money? Because of their unions, baseball players, football players, etc., get a piece of the TV money.

While star players may not be the reason people are watching poker now, without the development of stars, TV poker will die. All entertainments need stars to thrive. Golf would have died without Arnold Palmer. Hollywood would have died without Chaplin and Pickford and Fairbanks. TV became what it became not because of the Hallmark Hall of Fame with great dramatic actors, but because Milton Berle and Sid Caesar and Lucille Ball were stars.

[limon]

i'd be sweet on you cutiepie.

[BradleyT]

Why shouldn't I get a piece of the money for watching? Afterall without ME (the audience) no one (LACO, WPT, The Travel Channel) would be making money.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
If poker is being televised, why shouldn't the poker players get a piece of the TV money? Because of their unions, baseball players, football players, etc., get a piece of the TV money.

While star players may not be the reason people are watching poker now, without the development of stars, TV poker will die. All entertainments need stars to thrive. Golf would have died without Arnold Palmer. Hollywood would have died without Chaplin and Pickford and Fairbanks. TV became what it became not because of the Hallmark Hall of Fame with great dramatic actors, but because Milton Berle and Sid Caesar and Lucille Ball were stars.

[/ QUOTE ]

Andy I do believe you have been brainwashed from living in Beverly Hills. In the rest of the world we watch a movie or TV show for entertainment no matter who is in the show. What do you think, that some people were born stars? Nope, they developed and may have a following but replace them with some other unknown with a smidgeon of talent and guess what? We are still watching the same show with new "stars". Put 9 monkeys and a cardboard figure of Mike Sexton at the poker table and people will watch.