[ QUOTE ]
To give you an idea of how ridiculous this lawsuit is, take a look at the WPT's financials:
http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor...sp?Symbol=WPTE
Look at that income line: $189,000. That's right, over the last four quarters, the WPTE has produced a whomping $189K in profit. If I was a judge, I would start laughing when I saw this case. What "monopoly" only makes $189K per year?
This is a frivolous lawsuit if I ever saw one.
[/ QUOTE ]
You don't measure a monopoly by how much money they've pissed away through poor management decisions, you measure it by how they restrict competition.
You (and Daniel) seemed to be concerned that the WPT might be damaged if they lose this lawsuit, when in fact I think the opposite is true. The WPT may benefit greatly from changing their business practices, and it looks like it will take a suit to make that happen.
The issue about the players release is a trivial one for the WPT. It's unlikely they gain much from having it, but it's a huge problem for top players. Ownership of a players image is worth more to the player than it is to the WPT. How can a pro player license their image to any company when the WPT can simply license that same image to that companie's biggest competitors? Why would any company pay as much for non-exclusive rights? Why would any company pay the WPT as much for rights that don't include participation by the pro in company events? If the WPT and players both own the same rights, the total value of the rights is diminished greatly.
Changing the release so the WPT can only use their image in conjunction with normal promotion of the events shouldn't hurt the WPT at all. But they'll benefit from having top pros in their events. Currently the WPT is hurting for the following reasons.
1) They signed a horrible contract with the travel channel that didn't pay them enough and also brought them into a large legal conflict with the travel channel when they started the PPT. And I've never seen a PPT event so it looks like they aren't able to get decent distribution for those episodes.
2) Their tournaments are boring and repetitive. Some of it is that not enough top pros are featured. Some of it is the same boring all-in fest at the final table (without featuring any real poker play or any play from earlier in the tournament. I'm so bored that I haven't watched in a while, but I'll also include the same boring set, same boring announcers as well. Nothing has changed in five years of their events except losing their most popular personality. Sadly I prefer watching the allin fest that's Poker Superstars on Fox, just because I'm more interested in watching a table full of pros than one full of anonymous luckboxes.
ESPN's coverage, while not perfect, at least tells you a story of what happened in many of the events (esp. the main event), and shows you some interesting post flop play. It's announcers are getting tiring as well, but ESPN remains heads and shoulders above the WPT.
Lastly, the WPT didn't create the poker boom, it capitalized on it. Once Moneymaker won the main event, they were the chief beneficiary.
If the WPT goes away, tournament poker will still be as popular, and still be heavily televised. The only difference is that it will be produced in a much more interesting fashion. My guess is the WPT needs a new management team, but not sure if that can even happen. I question whether their poker site is a good idea or not. If it is, they certainly fumbled the ball on getting it up and running fast enough. They need to make some proactive moves before the WPT brand continues to fall farther and farther behind the WSOP brand.
But if the WPT is going to stay, they definitely need to get the top pros back in their tourneys. Compromising on this stupid release would end this lawsuit and bring the pros back in about ten seconds. Otherwise they'll continue to fade into obscurity.