Players sue WPT for antitrust violations

[Wynton]

The link is here (Seven Top Poker Players File Antitrust Lawsuit Against The World Poker Tour)

[mattnxtc]

link doesnt work

[Wynton]

Try this: http://wptlawsuit.com/2006/07/18/players-file-suit-against-wpt.aspx

[TruePoker CEO]

When I read the original post, I was extemely skeptical. However, Dewey Ballantine is a major firm and the analogy to professional athletes presents an interesting tact.

Antitrust is a complex field, very difficult to simply glean thru. If anyone has a copy of the Complaint, that would be very interesting.

The WPT's motion for dismissal will be interesting as well.

(I am interested in seeing how the Plaintiffs address the seemingly basic issues of the WSOP and the Circuit's clear presence/dominance in the same market as the WPT and that almost each Plaintiff made his name in the WSOP.)

David

[Olof]

Barry Grrenstein disagrees:

[ QUOTE ]
Poker pro Barry Greenstein, who is not part of either suit, said the action amounted to a dog biting the hand that fed it, although he sympathized with both sides.

"All of us as poker players were degenerates until the World Poker Tour started the whole ball rolling," the 51-year-old said, adding he had parlayed fame on the tour into a sponsorship deal with a major online poker site and is selling a poker advice book.

[/ QUOTE ]

Link (http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nevada/2006/jul/19/071910071.html)

Personally, after a quick glance at the issue, I get the impression that the plaintiffs are scum. By trying to use government force to tear up a voluntary agreement they are not the least bit better than those who want to use goverment force to stop people from voluntarily depositing to internet gambling sites.

[mattnxtc]

I am not so sure that the agreement is voluntary and i think thats what the pros wanna change. I believe they cannot play if they dont sign the agreement

[JPFisher55]

From what little that I read, it seems to me that the real anti-trust issue is the contracts between WPTE and the casinos that prevent the casinos from hosting large tournaments for other parties.

[Lawman007]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not so sure that the agreement is voluntary and i think thats what the pros wanna change. I believe they cannot play if they dont sign the agreement

[/ QUOTE ]

Then it is a voluntary agreement. If they choose not to sign the agreement, then they don't get to play in the event. It's their choice. Every TV show in the country makes the people who appear on the show sign a release giving them the right to use their image.

These poker players should be treated no differently than anyone else. Nobody is forcing them to appear on the WPT, but if they want to then they should sign the same release that everyone else signs.

[AAAA]

the WPT invested a lot to get the tour to the place it is now. however, a couple questions come to mind...is the WPT just using the likenesses to promote the WPT events? or are they keeping the pros from selling rights to others for other events?

i can understand if wpt wants to guarantee the right to show the smiling winner for the purpose of promoting the WPT, but the players should have the right to make side deals...and since players are selling the rights to their names to other places, i am guessing it is just regarding the WPT stuff...are the players not allowed to promote themselves as winners of those events? that would be a bummer.

[True North]

The players' argument (and much of my understanding of this issue comes from what Fossilman has said here on this forum) is that the agreement unfairly gives WPTE blanket rights to the players' likenesses to use how they see fit. This could include using their names and likenesses to promote products that are in direct competition with products already endorsed or promoted by those players.

I'm not an expert on antitrust law, so I don't know how this argument would stand up in court. I do know that these are pretty smart people bringing this lawsuit, including two with law degrees, so I'd assume they believe they have some kind of a case.

[bluesbassman]

This lawsuit seems bogus. Of course I think the anti-trust laws themselves are illegitimate.

The WPT should have the right to offer whatever contract they want to players, who are free to sign or not. If they don't like the terms of what the WPT offers, then they can play elsewhere.

In the article, Lederer states:

["All I'm asking is that they not compete against me, with me, without even offering to pay me or asking my permission," Lederer said.]

Uh, doesn't the contract Lederer signed with the WPT explicitly give them permission to use his likeness? Or am I missing something? (I'm assuming he did sign a WPT contract.) If the WPT used anything not allowed by the contract he signed, then I agree he has a case against them.

I don't want the government to be specifying the contractual terms the WPT may offer players. And I disagree with the esteemed Mr. Raymer this is ultimately "good" for poker players or for poker in general.

Perhaps I've misunderstood this lawsuit, and it's about the WPT allegedly using players' likeness beyond that allowed by contract, which is a legitimate complaint.

Perhaps Fossilman would care to comment?