WST Statement on the Macau 5

The WST is disappointed to hear that a number of players under contract with the WST have elected not to play in a WST event, preferring instead to play in a non-sanctioned event in Macau thereby being in breach of the terms of their player contract.

Following recent speculation and the publication of an article containing many inaccuracies, the WST would like to make its position clear regarding non-sanctioned exhibition events.

It is important to stress that WST players do not have to enter all WST events, they have the freedom to choose, which has always been the case. This level of freedom is unlike any other sport where players have voluntarily opted to enter contracts with their club/organisation. However, with this level of freedom we do make clear in our player contracts that a player must not do anything that is detrimental to the WST or a WST event. It is without doubt that playing in a non-sanctioned event instead of playing in a WST event is detrimental to that WST event.

Given the exhibition event in Macau directly clashes with the final stages of the Northern Ireland Open, a player’s participation in it would constitute a breach of their player contract given that to compete in Macau, the player would not be available to compete in the Northern Ireland Open thereby devaluing the Northern Ireland Open.

Unfortunately, despite engaging in email correspondence and phone calls intended to best explain our position and enable the players to make informed decisions, five players (four of whom are ranked within the top 16) have decided not to compete in the Northern Ireland Open and have withdrawn their entry in order to play in Macau. These players are Mark Selby, John Higgins, Luca Brecel, Thepchaiya Un-Nooh and Ali Carter, none of whom will therefore appear in Belfast.

As a result, if these players decide to participate in the exhibition in Macau, the WST will have no alternative but to refer them to the WPBSA Disciplinary Committee for breach of their player contract, and this has been clearly communicated to the players.

Taking necessary action in these circumstances protects WST events on behalf of the fans who attend and follow our events through television and social media, our sponsors/commercial partners, broadcasters/streaming partners and most importantly, the other 125 members of the WST.

WST has always been and will continue to be supportive of a player’s earning opportunities outside of the WST provided that these do not distract, devalue, or conflict with the WST or a WST event. Players and promoters have ample opportunity to play in and host non-sanctioned events during gaps in the WST calendar. The WST does not therefore support any clash with a WST event and would consider a player’s decision to prioritise a non-sanctioned event clashing with a WST event to be a breach of their player contract, as this would undoubtedly result in sizeable financial implications to the WST including loss of broadcast income, and sponsorship and ticket sales revenue let alone losses due to any reputational damage.

We reiterate that we are running the sport for all 130 players on the WST, and this will always be our guiding principle.

Andre147 wrote:Players have every right to want to earn more money, but you can't just play in an event that's happening at the same time as a WST sanctioned one, even if that player didn't enter the WST event in the first place.

That's like me not wanting to go for my workplace and going to work somewhere else instead and not expecting the consequences of it.

HappyCamper wrote:

Andre147 wrote:Players have every right to want to earn more money, but you can't just play in an event that's happening at the same time as a WST sanctioned one, even if that player didn't enter the WST event in the first place.

That's like me not wanting to go for my workplace and going to work somewhere else instead and not expecting the consequences of it.

not refereeing in macau then?

Andre147 wrote:

HappyCamper wrote:

Andre147 wrote:Players have every right to want to earn more money, but you can't just play in an event that's happening at the same time as a WST sanctioned one, even if that player didn't enter the WST event in the first place.

That's like me not wanting to go for my workplace and going to work somewhere else instead and not expecting the consequences of it.

not refereeing in macau then?

Nope.

I was thinking though... Ronnie withdrew from the British Open to play play in a exhibition event with Jimmy White in Macau, and WST didn't say anything...

Iranu wrote:“The WST does not therefore support any clash with a WST event and would consider a player’s decision to prioritise a non-sanctioned event clashing with a WST event to be a breach of their player contract, as this would undoubtedly result in sizeable financial implications to the WST including loss of broadcast income, and sponsorship and ticket sales revenue let alone losses due to any reputational damage.”

I’m not entirely how how these consequences would be any different than if the players just chose not to enter, which players do all the time.

chengdufan wrote:

Iranu wrote:“The WST does not therefore support any clash with a WST event and would consider a player’s decision to prioritise a non-sanctioned event clashing with a WST event to be a breach of their player contract, as this would undoubtedly result in sizeable financial implications to the WST including loss of broadcast income, and sponsorship and ticket sales revenue let alone losses due to any reputational damage.”

I’m not entirely how how these consequences would be any different than if the players just chose not to enter, which players do all the time.

Presumably some sponsors/broadcasters would need to choose which event to support/cover.
Ticket sales is a bit of a stretch. I can't imagine many spectators going to Macau instead of Northern Ireland. I suppose it's possible though.

McManusFan wrote:This seems a little heavy handed. I can't see these five facing any serious consequences. I wonder if it's more of a warning shot for future events.

chengdufan wrote:

Iranu wrote:“The WST does not therefore support any clash with a WST event and would consider a player’s decision to prioritise a non-sanctioned event clashing with a WST event to be a breach of their player contract, as this would undoubtedly result in sizeable financial implications to the WST including loss of broadcast income, and sponsorship and ticket sales revenue let alone losses due to any reputational damage.”

I’m not entirely how how these consequences would be any different than if the players just chose not to enter, which players do all the time.

Presumably some sponsors/broadcasters would need to choose which event to support/cover.
Ticket sales is a bit of a stretch. I can't imagine many spectators going to Macau instead of Northern Ireland. I suppose it's possible though.

snoopy2608 wrote:their strategy in dealing with this is interesting - the Macau event will now get far more attention than it previously would have done

Iranu wrote:“The WST does not therefore support any clash with a WST event and would consider a player’s decision to prioritise a non-sanctioned event clashing with a WST event to be a breach of their player contract, as this would undoubtedly result in sizeable financial implications to the WST including loss of broadcast income, and sponsorship and ticket sales revenue let alone losses due to any reputational damage.”

I’m not entirely how how these consequences would be any different than if the players just chose not to enter, which players do all the time.

carayip wrote:

Iranu wrote:“The WST does not therefore support any clash with a WST event and would consider a player’s decision to prioritise a non-sanctioned event clashing with a WST event to be a breach of their player contract, as this would undoubtedly result in sizeable financial implications to the WST including loss of broadcast income, and sponsorship and ticket sales revenue let alone losses due to any reputational damage.”

I’m not entirely how how these consequences would be any different than if the players just chose not to enter, which players do all the time.

WST don’t have problem with players not entering or withdrawing their events for personal reasons. But these guys are doing it for commercial reasons and who WST deems as rival promoter.

D4P wrote:I'm not going to defend WST, but I will say that it's kind of lame for the Macau people to schedule their event in conflict with a WST event, knowing that any players who choose to play in Macau will be subject to WST backlash...

D4P wrote:I'm not going to defend WST, but I will say that it's kind of lame for the Macau people to schedule their event in conflict with a WST event, knowing that any players who choose to play in Macau will be subject to WST backlash...

Prop wrote:I don’t see what the fuss is all about. It’s only a hugely lucrative, unsanctioned snooker event held in the gambling capital of the world less than a season after the sport’s biggest gambling scandal, which most of the top players are choosing over an official WST ranking event, rendering said WST event devoid of star attraction and doomed to leave a black mark on WST’s credibility as snooker’s answer to commercial sustainability in the years ahead

Iranu wrote:

carayip wrote:

Iranu wrote:“The WST does not therefore support any clash with a WST event and would consider a player’s decision to prioritise a non-sanctioned event clashing with a WST event to be a breach of their player contract, as this would undoubtedly result in sizeable financial implications to the WST including loss of broadcast income, and sponsorship and ticket sales revenue let alone losses due to any reputational damage.”

I’m not entirely how how these consequences would be any different than if the players just chose not to enter, which players do all the time.

WST don’t have problem with players not entering or withdrawing their events for personal reasons. But these guys are doing it for commercial reasons and who WST deems as rival promoter.

I get that, but what I mean is surely WST would have to demonstrate that this has had more of a financial implication to their tour than if all the players had pulled out and done their own personal exhibitions during the week (which presumably happens relatively often). If it was a month long tour it would be inarguably a rival. A one-off exhibition not so much.

SnookerFan wrote:Is there a lot of money in this Macau tournament?

carayip wrote:Maybe they fear if they don’t warn or stop them now, it will have a snowball effect that the top players eventually join forces with these rival promoters to form even bigger events? Then one man exhibition becomes 5 men that can also become 10 men. One off event can eventually become a series of events.

Iranu wrote:

carayip wrote:Maybe they fear if they don’t warn or stop them now, it will have a snowball effect that the top players eventually join forces with these rival promoters to form even bigger events? Then one man exhibition becomes 5 men that can also become 10 men. One off event can eventually become a series of events.

If it goes to court, I’m not sure “we’re worried this might happen” will cut it as far as evidence goes. Unless WST have Minority Report technology.