See the players who are bottom of the rankings at the end of the season (and entered all ranking events) do you think that they still make an earning albeit a low one? or are they running at a loss?
Member
Making Money?
See the players who are bottom of the rankings at the end of the season (and entered all ranking events) do you think that they still make an earning albeit a low one? or are they running at a loss?
Black
Definitely running at a loss. 1st round losers get no prize money at all so by the time you take entry fees, travelling and associated expenses etc. in to account they will definitely be running at a loss.
Not sure how far up the rankings you would need to go before you would hit the minimum wage line, probably quite a bit higher than many people think.
Member
That's what I was thinking. I don't know why Barry Hearn is adding more players to the tour, as I see it he is diluting the prize money whilst adding more at the same time. I think it used to be when you made it as a pro and earned your professional card you were guaranteed about £17,000 a year and this would have just about covered your tournament costs and expenses.Originally Posted by Gerry Armstrong
Member
That's what I was thinking. I don't know why Barry Hearn is adding more players to the tour, as I see it he is diluting the prize money whilst adding more at the same time. I think it used to be when you made it as a pro and earned your professional card you were guaranteed about £17,000 a year and this would have just about covered your tournament costs and expenses.
Red
I guess a lot of the players get sponsorship as well.
Member
I doubt that there are enough sponsors for players as it is without adding more players. Maybe I'm wrong.
Blue
BH withdrew overseas travel and accomodation for Brit players when he took over and he also whittled down prize money to only start at the last 48 in some events.
Most players outside the top 32 aren't sponsored.
Member
Seems bizarre that he is adding to the tour. It would be a different case if there was money to back it up. I suppose he just sees the £'s and it doesn't matter how they got there. The tour should be reduced to allow players to at worst break even after tournament costs are payed. Even if it was a 48 man tour then that's the 'equilibrium'. Amateur players would become part time players and should then work and play snooker. Then if they make it on tour they will be safe in the knowledge that they have at least there tournament costs and travel covered.
I'm only saying this as I know of players who have a good chance of getting their tour card and are not even playing for it as they just can't afford to take it even if they got on the tour.
What do you think?
Blue
Yup I thought all this last yr but have became a little apathetic to it. They've got to strike some sort of balance between Asia and Europe otherwise just playing qualifiers with the ranking points alone is enough for the Brit players. A flat 128 e.g 1 v 128 2 v 127 etc which they're slowly gravitating to is a start at least.
Black
I personally think all Tour Players should have enough to Cover there Costs for at least the first 2 seasons, But I agree why put more on the Tour when alot of them cannot afford to be on it.
I was Told by Close Friends of mine on the Tour that Unless your in Top 8 you dont earn alot, But outside Top 8-16 its a Struggle and thats why there are so Many Exhibitions with the Lower Ranked Players. You dont See Many of the Top Players doing Half as Many Exhibitions as the Lower Ranked Players do you Ronnie, Williams, Hendry, Selby, Robertson, Higgins, Trump etc dont do half as Many as the Rest.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote