SnookerEd25 wrote:I tend to agree with Wildey as above. If the WC cannot be run as it normally would, with a full (or near-full) complement of players, then scrap it and, by all means, replace it with a similar format but with a different event title.
However, playing Devil's Advocate, perhaps the drawback with that would be due to the terms of the sponsorship deal and TV contract; if it is not the 'World Championship' - even in name only - then that money possibly drops off, and there is no plan B - IE, no tournament at all - so no earning potential for any of the players, referees, commentators, officials etc.
To utilise the sponsorship money, the TV money, and any other revenue accrued then this may have to go ahead as the 'world championship', even though most of us know it isn't (at least in the regularly accepted use of the term).
I don't know the exact terms, but it's probably £5-10 million loss if they cancel the 'World Championship'.
WST would look pretty incompetent if they couldn't organise a snooker tournament when other sports are going ahead in some form (e.g. Premiership football). Especially after the relative success of the Covid Classic last week.
An alternative to help players financially would be to hand out a fixed sum. But that really would be welfare, rather than allowing players to compete as they have signed-up to do.
Does it count as a 'proper' World Championship? To 99% of people watching on BBC they will hardly notice the difference, except for obvious Covid measures. Our opinions aren't necessarily more important than theirs just because we follow the game more closesly.