[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
Second, many people make the comment that if players don't like the WPT release, they can simply choose not to play. That is true. However, what if you wish to play in an open-to-the-public big-buyin televised tournament? Other than the WPT, where can you do this?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see why this is relevant. There is no "right" to play in big buy-in open poker tournaments.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this lawsuit does not allege that the WPT has in any way committed fraud or breach of contract. Rather, I understand the basis of the complaint is the theory the WPT has committed "antitrust" violations because of it's business practices.

The antitrust laws are themselves arbitrary and non-objective, and this lawsuit is a dubious exploitation of what is already bad law. We can debate whether the WPT's business practices are good for the poker entertainment industry (Raymer and co. may be correct that they are not), but nevertheless they have a right to offer whatever contracts to players, make whatever agreements with casinos, and set-up tournaments however they want, provided no fraud is involved.

That the WPT might (literally) be the only game in town is not relevant. They should have the right to conduct their business, for better or worse, in any honest manner they wish. The marquee players of course have the right to boycott or even set-up competing tournaments if they (perhaps correctly) conclude they are not getting good value from the WPT.

The negative consequences of this lawsuit that Mr. Raymer somewhat blithely dismisses are huge. These players are attempting by force to make the WPT offer better (according to them) player contracts and tournaments via the government. This grossly violates the rights of the WPT freely to conduct their business, however poorly. If anyone is being "uncompetitive" here, it is these players, who want to use the blunt instrument of governmental force to change the WPT to their liking. What if the WPT simply closed up shop? Would these players then "sue" to make them offer tournaments?

Do we really want to set the precedent that the government be intimately involved to specify how the WPT and similar organizations conduct their business? This seems like a much, much, bigger downside long-term than whatever (supposed) ill-advised policies the WPT is adopting with regard to players.