[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
Despite Raymer's spin, they haven't put Raymer's image on a billboard and used it to try to sell Coke or something.

[/ QUOTE ]


No they haven't.
And Raymer never said that they did.

The fact is, the WPT could do this IF THEY WANTED TO because of the contract.

And the players are just supposed to take the WPT on their word that they will be listened to if they are bothered by the way in which their likeness is being used.

But the WPT wouldn't have to listen if they didn't want to because they make the participants sign the contract.


If the WPT isn't going to mis-use a player's likeness in such a way then why not reflect that in the contract?

The fact that they refuse to adjust the contract in such a way and instead say, "Oh, don't worry about it. Just tell us if there's a problem and we super-duper promise we'll do what you want and just forget about the contract" is somewhat disquieting and I don't blame them for that aspect of the lawsuit.

But there is logic to the argument that "if you don't like how they do it...there are plenty of other tournaments you can play instead."


evidently some of the casinos that are interested in running other tournaments at other times are unable to because of their ties to the WPT and they get kind of pinned-down.

Obviously these casinos probably shouldn't have signed such a contract in the first place.
Seems to me that their potential for future big tourneys wouldn't be there in the first place without the WPT.
So I don't have quite as much sympathy in regards to this issue either. As Daniel points out, if you want to hold a big tourney, you can do it elsewhere (although the concept of the Gold Coast holding a big-time tourney struck me as pretty amusing).