7 Players Vs The Wpt

[APBT-Marcel 0]

I wish I didn't see who was involved with this lawsuit. I knew Andy Bloch was but didn't know any of the others until I read this post. It bothers me pretty heavily that these players are doing this. I will read more into it and see what happens in the future but these respected poker players will hopefully have a very good reason for this and strong case or I will be dissapointed.

[SeanPhillippi 0]

I am all for people suing to defend their rights. If these seven players had a basis to sue the WPT because of some indignity or law that the WPT broke, then I would say good luck. I would seriously question their timing as doing it during the WSOP and while people are fighting for the life of internet poker is, to put it as nicely as I can, not ideal.This lawsuit should not have been filed and has no shot at winning. This is not only because they are seven players facing a large corporation that a) has the financial resources to fight this to the end and B) doesn’t need the seven players involved to survive and thrive, but mostly because there is no legal basis for the lawsuit (which is the most important thing in the big picture). I am not a lawyer, but I do have some training in the law so I have a knowledge base in the law. Here are the reasons why (from another post I made on the forum):The WPT does exclude casinos from holding other tournaments, but there are so many other casinos around that the WPT’s actions are almost defiantly not going to be found as anti-competitive. It is possible for other entities to hold tournaments at one of the many casinos that do not have contracts with the WPT. The high barriers to entry and the very few number of tours has nothing to do with the WPT as that is a very natural occurrence in all duopolies/oligopolies (like some random person trying to start an airline to compete with Delta). Someone also mentioned on this forum about the 7 players inability to prove damages, so even if the seven players are able to prove that the WPT has used monopolistic power in a way that is anti-competitive (which is a long shot at best), they would then need to prove financial damages. The chance of this happening is zero.The name/likeness claim has no merit what so ever. To have a legally binding contract you just need three things, and I know quite a bit about contact law. Those three things are offer, acceptance, and consideration. That’s all you need to have a valid contract. Offer and acceptance are just what they seem, as in something needs to be offered and someone needs to accept it (and signing the contract is acceptance). Consideration is a pretty easy concept. Consideration just means that both parties need to either give up a legal right or bind themselves to do something that they were previously not bound to do. The players give up the rights to name/likeness plus the buy-in (among other things), and in exchange the WPT binds itself to hold a poker tournament. Consideration is clearly present here, so the contracts the players signed are valid. An example of an invalid contract due to lack of consideration is DN paying me $10,000 not to shoot someone. That contract would be invalid because I am already under an obligation (the law) not to shoot someone, so I am not doing anything for the $10,000.Contract law can get tricky in certain instances, but in this case it is very clear cut. It may not be a good contract, but that is no basis for a lawsuit or to say that the contract is not valid. Both parties entered into the contract in good faith, so I cannot even fathom an argument that the poker players are making. If the players have contract that preclude them from playing in the WPT, then that is on them.They CANNOT sue the WPT because they made agreements that have already given up their name and likeness and excludes them from signing other contracts that do the same. If they sign the WPT release that breaks their other contracts, then they still wouldn’t have a case. The other company can sue the player for breach of contract, but the WPT would be in the clear. The reason why is because the WPT is not bound to the terms of a contract that the player signed with a third party. The WPT can have players sign a name/likeness release to their hearts content, and if the player has signed something else that is in conflict with said release then the one who can be sued is the player and only the player.

This lawsuit CAN NOT be bad for poker. At worst nothing will change and we have the same sorry status quo. Whatever the WPT did for poker in the past is the past. What matters now is getting the best possible deal for poker players for the present and future. And striking down anti-competitive agreements and pernicious release forms is a step in that direction.I wonder why Daniel is so active in trying to change the WSOP to include more non-HE events even though the NLHE events are what the large majority of the players want (see number of entrants for each event), while at the same time criticising other players for trying to get a fairer deal (and yes, they are doing it on behalf of all players; e.g. if this causes the release to be rewritten or another competing tour to spring up, thereby increasing competition and leading to lower juice, IT HELPS ALL PLAYERS).If the WPT dies it will be because its lame poker show is drawing lower and lower ratings.

The lawsuit can be, and is bad, for poker. The reason is there is going to be a lot of bad press about this case, and the mudslinging both sides are going to partake in is only going to make it worse. Look back at the 2004 Presidential Election if you need a reminder of how low things can get. The bad press will make poker look bad, which is the last thing poker needs right now. The bad press will put more pressure on the U.S. Senate to pass the internet gaming ban, and since this is an election year and politicians are looking for “causes” that make them look good (and since the GOP are struggling to stay in power and are still trying to convince America that they should be in office because of their “values”) this lawsuit could not have come at a worse time.

[qyayqi 11]

it isn't "bad for poker". i bet a nickel that 80-90% of people who watch poker will have little to no exposure to the case. it will go through the courts & a ruling will be handed down. either the release will be upheld or it will be struck down.that being said, it is probably the right thing for the players to try. the organizers/venues make money off the players, and then get 100% of all tv revenues, and THEN want to get 100% of all money made on the side from sites, games, etc.i am curious about if/when players will see some of these revenue streams flow directly back into the pot. it would be absurd to expect 27 professional golfers to each pony up $200k of their own money so that a network can make money off tickets, advertising, dvd sales, and so on.for the main event, espn is paying to do coverage. i don't quite follow how the organizers are able to charge the players 5 million dollars out of the pot to play. they should have been putting 20% of all television revenues into the prize structure. imagine that... *gasp*... a live tournament with MORE than the buy-ins available to be won rather than less. shocking.the WPT wants to make their percentage of the buy-ins, plus all advertising revenue, plus syndication... and wants to have 100% ownership of the players so they can make MORE money that doesn't get channelled back into the prize pools? it makes me think of hands, cookie jars, and momma.a more limited release is defintiely not going to be the downfall of the WPT. they just won't be able to pimp the players' likenesses for free.

[Balloon guy 158]

Endorsements in golf are based on TV time. The more time your mug is in front of the camera, the more your hat is worth to an advertiser. If you were the WPT, would you find yourself cutting out players that rock the boat more?The editing room will punish these players for this action. The TV audience will punish the editing room for it's actions.The advertisers will only follow the audience.This will keep poker on the cable shows like GSN.It is funny though that the WPT made so many players, now some of them want to pretend that they are owed the rights to make gobs of endorsement money.Helmuth has it right, ANY TV time is GOOD TV time.It's the Moneymaker curse. It brought down competitive curling, it will bring down poker.

[SeanPhillippi 0]

it isn't "bad for poker". i bet a nickel that 80-90% of people who watch poker will have little to no exposure to the case. it will go through the courts & a ruling will be handed down. either the release will be upheld or it will be struck down.that being said, it is probably the right thing for the players to try. the organizers/venues make money off the players, and then get 100% of all tv revenues, and THEN want to get 100% of all money made on the side from sites, games, etc.i am curious about if/when players will see some of these revenue streams flow directly back into the pot. it would be absurd to expect 27 professional golfers to each pony up $200k of their own money so that a network can make money off tickets, advertising, dvd sales, and so on.for the main event, espn is paying to do coverage. i don't quite follow how the organizers are able to charge the players 5 million dollars out of the pot to play. they should have been putting 20% of all television revenues into the prize structure. imagine that... *gasp*... a live tournament with MORE than the buy-ins available to be won rather than less. shocking.the WPT wants to make their percentage of the buy-ins, plus all advertising revenue, plus syndication... and wants to have 100% ownership of the players so they can make MORE money that doesn't get channelled back into the prize pools? it makes me think of hands, cookie jars, and momma.a more limited release is defintiely not going to be the downfall of the WPT. they just won't be able to pimp the players' likenesses for free.

I agree with a lot of what you said, but the thing is nothing that you said is a basis for a lawsuit. The bottom line is the WPT has not broken any laws. I think they should have a release that is better for the players and that poker tournaments should put some of their revenue into the prize pool, but they choose not to do it and it is their right to do so.The seven players are trying to do something good, make playing conditions better for players, but are going about it the wrong way while their timing could not be worse. The seven players are hoping that the WPT is going to sit down and try to settle the lawsuit (not monetarily but by changing the way they do business) and it is a dangerous game they are playing. If the WPT decides to fight this to the end they will win, as they should, because in the eyes of the law they have done nothing wrong.What the players SHOULD be doing is unionizing, like all of the players in the major sports leagues have. I am not sure if the PPA is a union or not, but if it isn’t they should make it one or form one. If a players union signed up several thousand members, then they could go to the WPT and WSOP and collectively bargain the terms of the players release, the pay-out structures, and anything else they wanted. They could even, if I am remembering my labor law correctly (which I am pretty sure I am but not positive), go to WPT and WSOP events to sign up union members. The WPT and WSOP could not stop them as doing so would be illegal. The WPT and WSOP are also much more likely to listen to a players union with thousands of players than a group of seven players. Also, if a union tries to collectively bargain in good faith and other side doesn’t, then that could be a basis for a lawsuit. The seven players would have a better shot spending their money to try and form a union, and fight the battle that way, rather than spending that money on legal fees in hopes that the WPT sites down with them and decides to change.Here is an ESPN article where Annie Duke talks about the lawsuit and her reason for being involved in it:http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?...&name=pokerShe makes some good points, but none of what she says is a basis for a lawsuit.

[somedude 0]

It's not like the WPT is making money though. They lost $5mil last year, somehow. They are about the only company in the business to be losing money.The real problem with the WPT is the travel channel. Whoever signed the deal through 2009 should be fired immediately. ESPN would probably pay 2-3 times what the travel channel does. ESPN tried to get the PPT, but that's locked under the WPT/Travel Channel contract as well.

[mrdannyg 274]

Not one person I asked outside of the 7 thinks this lawsuit is a good idea. Not one. Who exactly did you ask, and how many?I can recall Lederer on "The Circuit" saying that players he talked to sympathised with them, but were not willing to rock the boat personally with the WPT because it could potentially take a chunk out of their livelihood.I think the majority of players, if they fully understood all the issues at stake, would give at least tacit support to this lawsuit. And I'm not talking about "superstar" players, but rather the "rank-and-file".It reminds me a little bit of the very early days of the MLB baseball players union. Most big leaguers of the 50s ridiculed the handful of activists that were trying to form a union to protect their interests. But as years went by more and more players understood what was really happening and got on board.

Paul Phillips has also stated he would've liked to be a part of it. I dunno, but thats 2/2 of the professional players that I have (very indirect) contact with who support it, other than Negreanu.Also, DN seems to be saying their argument is ridiculous, since the WPT is profitable for them, even with image-stealing. Just my opinion, but it is possible that this group of millionaires thinks something is more important than the best way to accumulate wealth. Perhaps the principal of having their image stolen and stolen, and privacy troubled is more important to them.

[SeanPhillippi 0]

Paul Phillips has also stated he would've liked to be a part of it. I dunno, but thats 2/2 of the professional players that I have (very indirect) contact with who support it, other than Negreanu.Also, DN seems to be saying their argument is ridiculous, since the WPT is profitable for them, even with image-stealing. Just my opinion, but it is possible that this group of millionaires thinks something is more important than the best way to accumulate wealth. Perhaps the principal of having their image stolen and stolen, and privacy troubled is more important to them.

Their image is not being stolen. They are signing a contract that gives the WPT permission to use their image. They knew what they were doing back when they signed the release and cannot sue just because they don't want to honor their contract anymore.

[mrdannyg 274]

Their image is not being stolen. They are signing a contract that gives the WPT permission to use their image. They knew what they were doing back when they signed the release and cannot sue just because they don't want to honor their contract anymore.

I somewhat disagree, but I do not have access to the contract or legal expertise ,so I can't argue that.My point was more than DN's argument that the players are doing this against other players is ludicrous. Some players agree and some disagree. In America you act for your own interest. DN should stop villainizing these players.Secondly I wanted to point out that the players suing might be doing so, even if they are aware that it is more profitable for them to just play the WPT events without control over their images. because of principle.In reality, it seems to be a case of a business dispute between an inexperienced business and non-businessmen, and so some sort of court or arbitrator will have to resolve what the two parties were unable to themselves.

[SeanPhillippi 0]

I somewhat disagree, but I do not have access to the contract or legal expertise ,so I can't argue that.My point was more than DN's argument that the players are doing this against other players is ludicrous. Some players agree and some disagree. In America you act for your own interest. DN should stop villainizing these players.Secondly I wanted to point out that the players suing might be doing so, even if they are aware that it is more profitable for them to just play the WPT events without control over their images. because of principle.In reality, it seems to be a case of a business dispute between an inexperienced business and non-businessmen, and so some sort of court or arbitrator will have to resolve what the two parties were unable to themselves.

It doesn't matter whether we agree or not because this is a matter of fact and not opinion. It is a fact that the seven players do not have a legal basis for their lawsuit.For there to be a lawsuit, there needs to be a law that is broken. The WPT has broken no laws and has honored their agreements with the players. DN has an opinion, and we still live in America, so he has a right to express it. They may be suing on principle, but you need a legal basis to sue. They have no legal basis. There is a business dispute, but the WPT is on solid legal ground in their stance and the players are not. Saying there is legal basis because there is a dispute is like me telling you that you owe me $10 million because I said so. There is a dispute, but unless I can show why you owe me the money in which I claim you owe me, there would be no basis for me suing you for $10 million.

[CaneBrain 95]

we are all dancing around here. the bottom line:what the WPT is doing is probably "wrong" but it is not illegal by any stretch. the way to combat this is to form a real union. not have 7 guys sign off on a half baked lawsuit with little merit which basically says "the WPT is a big bunch of meanies."now you have bad publicity, in-fighting amongst the top pros over whether the lawsuit is a good idea, general chaos.I understand the frustration of the players who are angry at the WPT. but this was a dumb dumb way to handle it. (especially in a year where internet poker is fighting for its life. I agree wholeheartedly with the poster who said the "holier than thou" republicans will make a huge issue out of this a la flag burning and gay marraige.)

[EStormOk 0]

:rant mode on:The players make a point of saying that due to their other deals they can't sign the release to play the WPT events. Why did they sign these other deals if it was going to restrict themselves? Because of the money they were offered. It comes down to making decisions, every day in life people have to make decisions about their future. Sometimes we make the wrong decision, sometimes the right one. Lets take another profession and compare it to this situation. Chris Berman (who I assume has an exclusive deal with ESPN) can't go and sign a deal with Fox sports to go to work for them. The only way he could is to break his deal with ESPN first. Then he would have the freedom to make a choice with which company to sign with. If these players don't like their situation, why don't they try to break their contracts with the companies that they have signed an exclusive deal with? Because of the money.I guess this is just my long winded way of saying that the players have made their decison to sign with their original companies and now they want to have a deal with some one else too. Doesn't seem fair to me that they expect the second company (WPTE) to not have the right to ask people to sign an agreement with them in order to participate in their events. Now I realize that working for a company and competing in a companies events may be very different, but in these situations it is similar.How would the public react to Kobe Bryant filing suit against the Cleveland Cavaliers for not allowing him to play for them unless he signs a exclusive deal (while he is still under contract with the Lakers)?:rant mode off:

[llou 0]

It doesn't matter whether we agree or not because this is a matter of fact and not opinion. It is a fact that the seven players do not have a legal basis for their lawsuit.

One of the main reasons we have courts ... a legal process ... etc. is to establish whether or not a law was broken. Laws are often not clear-cut and the interpretation of the law is what the court proceding is there to accomplilsh -- to establilsh the proper interpretation of the written law given the changing conditions in society. New precedents are set and the interpretation changes over time.Not all legal experts agree with the practice of using the court system to shape the laws -- but I doubt few would deny that it happens. So ... your view that the law has either been broken or not doesn't totally apply. Another use of the court system is to open up the possibility that the court will modify the traditional interpretation of a law -- and/or "harass" a business competitor. Such a lawsuit brings the business opponent to the negotiating table with a strong incentive to negotiate. While it is a dangerous negotiation tactic, sometimes it is thought necessary in cases in which "asking nicely" hasn't worked.Both of these uses of the court system makes your "factual" perspective a little irrelevant. Your literal, factual perspective is simply "not the point" of the lawsuit to begin with.Personally, while I don't know the law well enough to judge whether or not the WPT has acted with too heavy a hand .... I do think the lawsuit is poorly timed. I am very worried about the legal status of online poker and a mud-slinging ugly fight between members of the poker industry will probably hurt that cause more than it will help anything. The disagreements within the industry can be dealt with after the industry is secure within the US.I think it is time to accept a few compromises and hang together to firmly establish the legality of poker online and raise the respectability of the game in general in a variety of forms and venues -- not split off into small, competing groups that may all hang separately.

[davezz5 0]

The most absurd comment of all, has to be Annie Dukes. I can imagine the scene in court. "Also Judge we dont like the blind structure....meh!"

[qyayqi 11]

:rant mode on:The players make a point of saying that due to their other deals they can't sign the release to play the WPT events. Why did they sign these other deals if it was going to restrict themselves? Because of the money they were offered. It comes down to making decisions, every day in life people have to make decisions about their future. Sometimes we make the wrong decision, sometimes the right one. Lets take another profession and compare it to this situation. Chris Berman (who I assume has an exclusive deal with ESPN) can't go and sign a deal with Fox sports to go to work for them. The only way he could is to break his deal with ESPN first. Then he would have the freedom to make a choice with which company to sign with. :rant mode off:

the significant difference is that berman COULD go explore advertising and other revenue streams on his own. his contract is binding and makes sense within the scope of where he is working. the WPT invites everyone to a poker tournament, then uses the leverage of "you might win" to get the players to sign a release that is very much beyond the scope of a tournament. they need the release for the rights to the players' images for the context of the tournament and any ancillary uses of the broadcast (syndication, dvd, etc). they do not need rights to the players for all time in any other medium they so choose.

[Bgfoot 0]

The most absurd comment of all, has to be Annie Dukes. I can imagine the scene in court. "Also Judge we dont like the blind structure....meh!"

now that's funny

[DanielNegreanu 141]

it isn't "bad for poker". i bet a nickel that 80-90% of people who watch poker will have little to no exposure to the case. it will go through the courts & a ruling will be handed down. either the release will be upheld or it will be struck down.that being said, it is probably the right thing for the players to try. the organizers/venues make money off the players, and then get 100% of all tv revenues, and THEN want to get 100% of all money made on the side from sites, games, etc.i am curious about if/when players will see some of these revenue streams flow directly back into the pot. it would be absurd to expect 27 professional golfers to each pony up $200k of their own money so that a network can make money off tickets, advertising, dvd sales, and so on.for the main event, espn is paying to do coverage. i don't quite follow how the organizers are able to charge the players 5 million dollars out of the pot to play. they should have been putting 20% of all television revenues into the prize structure. imagine that... *gasp*... a live tournament with MORE than the buy-ins available to be won rather than less. shocking.the WPT wants to make their percentage of the buy-ins, plus all advertising revenue, plus syndication... and wants to have 100% ownership of the players so they can make MORE money that doesn't get channelled back into the prize pools? it makes me think of hands, cookie jars, and momma.a more limited release is defintiely not going to be the downfall of the WPT. they just won't be able to pimp the players' likenesses for free.

Respectfully, you are not up to date on the current WPT release. My agent Brian Balsbaugh posted in the other thread explaining what the WPT can and cannot do. It is rather limited frankly.

[matt21sz 0]

It doesn't matter whether we agree or not because this is a matter of fact and not opinion. It is a fact that the seven players do not have a legal basis for their lawsuit.For there to be a lawsuit, there needs to be a law that is broken. The WPT has broken no laws and has honored their agreements with the players. DN has an opinion, and we still live in America, so he has a right to express it. They may be suing on principle, but you need a legal basis to sue. They have no legal basis. There is a business dispute, but the WPT is on solid legal ground in their stance and the players are not. Saying there is legal basis because there is a dispute is like me telling you that you owe me $10 million because I said so. There is a dispute, but unless I can show why you owe me the money in which I claim you owe me, there would be no basis for me suing you for $10 million.

No you don't. You don't need any basis to sue. I could sue the guy down the street for any reason I choose. To WIN a lawsuit it sure helps to have a good legal standing, but bringing a lawsuit, anyone can do at any time.

[llou 0]

No you don't. You don't need any basis to sue. I could sue the guy down the street for any reason I choose. To WIN a lawsuit it sure helps to have a good legal standing, but bringing a lawsuit, anyone can do at any time.

Absolutely. One person can sue another at any time for any thing. The reason can be a totally silly one -- but the plaintiff still has the right to file the suit and work it thorugh the process. That's how people can use that process to achieve a goal or make a point that have little if anything to do with laws being broken.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

we are all dancing around here. the bottom line:what the WPT is doing is probably "wrong" but it is not illegal by any stretch. the way to combat this is to form a real union. not have 7 guys sign off on a half baked lawsuit with little merit which basically says "the WPT is a big bunch of meanies."now you have bad publicity, in-fighting amongst the top pros over whether the lawsuit is a good idea, general chaos.I understand the frustration of the players who are angry at the WPT. but this was a dumb dumb way to handle it. (especially in a year where internet poker is fighting for its life. I agree wholeheartedly with the poster who said the "holier than thou" republicans will make a huge issue out of this a la flag burning and gay marraige.)

Excellent post. It echoes my sentiments for sure. As I said in my v-blog, I could care less who is right or wrong here. Of course the WPT is "sticking it to us" in several ways, but it ain't illegal and as long as the demand is there they can continue to do what they want. The only way to get the WPT to feel the pressure from the players is to get a large group of players to be on the same page. These seven players aren't strong enough to bring down the WPT with a boycott.

[GoStags92 0]

It is funny though that the WPT made so many players, now some of them want to pretend that they are owed the rights to make gobs of endorsement money.

What I find interesting about the players involved in this suit is that only 3 of them established themselves publically though the WPT: Lederer, Gordon, and Bloch. Otherwise, the other 4 have gained their (TV) notoriety though ESPN and the WSOP events. Are Hachem, Raymer, Ferguson, and Duke doing this in an effort to set precedent for the so-called "limitations" placed forth by ESPN?Either way, I agree, that this will do nothing positive to further promote poker on TV.

[CardWarfare 4]

What I find interesting about the players involved in this suit is that only 3 of them established themselves publically though the WPT: Lederer, Gordon, and Bloch. Otherwise, the other 4 have gained their (TV) notoriety though ESPN and the WSOP events. Are Hachem, Raymer, Ferguson, and Duke doing this in an effort to set precedent for the so-called "limitations" placed forth by ESPN?Either way, I agree, that this will do nothing positive to further promote poker on TV.

Honestly, I feel like Annie Duke gets involved in anything Lederer does. As for the other three, I have no idea how anyof them profit from this, as none of them have ever won or final tabled a WPT televised event (if memory serves..). It can't be for the advertising, since the WPT has that no-logo rule, and if the blind structure is so bad, is the WPT really crippling their livelyhood?

[Laffer 0]

i go with whichever side Evelyn Ng is on.

[herokid7 0]

i go with whichever side Evelyn Ng is on.

+1

[GoStags92 0]

Honestly, I feel like Annie Duke gets involved in anything Lederer does. As for the other three, I have no idea how anyof them profit from this, as none of them have ever won or final tabled a WPT televised event (if memory serves..). It can't be for the advertising, since the WPT has that no-logo rule, and if the blind structure is so bad, is the WPT really crippling their livelyhood?

Yeah, Lederer, Bloch and Gordon are the only ones of this group to ever make a final table. Obviously, Lederer and Gordon are the only 2 WPT winners in the group.