Posted by Dr Fro 1:19 PM
Thanks to Adam for this:

There is a good article on ESPN.com about players wearing sponsorhip logos on TV. I think all parties are in the right here and there will be some struggle over time with some sort of compromise in the end.

Seeing how important the logo industry is to, say, golf and NASCAR, I think it will inevitably be allowed. Why would Phil Ivey play in a tournament that doesn't allow him to wear a logo if he can go somewhere else and get enough money from FullTiltPoker to more than cover his buy in?

The first step will be non-poker related logos. The example given in the article was for a bourbon. In time, I think they will look like NASCAR cars with online poker site logos from head to toe.

1 Comment(s):

Posted by  Johnnymac, at 2:00 PM, April 13, 2005  

I like the idea of a union - it makes sense as the next logical progression.

But I can't seem to think that but only a few players (< 30) have the leverage to change things. Not that many are a recognizable name-brand. They are famous because the Travel Channel puts them on TV and I doubt they could be famous without it. It's just not big enough yet. Even if all of the major named players quit, they would just be replaced by guys who are willing to go along with the travel channel rules.

Although I must admit that Lederer has a point that he is paying to play (ie the NFL doesn't charge the players entry fees). Maybe the solution would be for the TV networks to pay the players, but then that would lead to some serious ethical questions.

And besides, most players are independent romantic types and any sort of organization or "protest" would be kind of anathemical to the whole idea of being a professional gambler.

Very complicated subject.

__________________________________________________

Post a Comment