twinkizzle 0 Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 Many of the arguments surrounding the WPT draw on an analogy between the WPT and other professional sports associations. Putting aside the question of whether or not poker is a sport, it seems to me that this analogy is tenuous.NBA and NFL players have no other outlet to make the kind of money that they do utilizing their talents. The same cannot be said for poker. There are 10k buy-in tournaments all of the time, even when you exclude the WPT. Although the WPT is a tour in that it is held at different locations over the course of a year, it is just one of many series of tournaments. There the WSOP (which now includes circuit events all over the country), the USPC, etc. Can PGA pros make money playing at courses across the country? No... but poker players can. The argument about the WPT seems based on a flawed premise. It is not a monopoly that adversely affects players. Quite the contrary.Thoughts? Link to post Share on other sites
cap gusto 0 Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 The complaint in no way accuses the WPT of a monopoly. Antitrust does deal with more than monopolies. Link to post Share on other sites
Koy 0 Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 The only reason for the pro sports comparison is due to the lawyer’s resume. Link to post Share on other sites
jayvegas420 0 Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 isnt this the issue? isn't the WPT trying to limit the outlets with wich poker can utilize their talents? On top of that, don't they have their hands in the pokets of the players that agree to partake in one of their events?The comparison is tenueous, agreed. However, to say that professional athletes have only one orum to exhibit their talents is not entirely true either. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts