View Full Version : A question from the UK

06-07-2002, 02:47 PM
Hi there.

I play 9-ball in the UK and have really enjoyed it since I started.

The main game over here is snooker, it gets loads of coverage on the tv over here, and has a lot of sponsorship, creating huge prize funds for the tournaments on the tour.

Why hasn't pool gone this way? No disrespect but it seems as though the US haven't really tried to make it grow over there with introducing publicity and tv coverage.

Over here, the World Champs, the World Masters and the Mosconi Cup get lots of tv coverage, not too mention great promotion.

So, what is the main reason the sport hasn't grown?

06-07-2002, 04:33 PM
If we traded the Pro GOLF, BaseBall, Football, Basketball and Hockey alternatives for POOL.. we would have the best pool coverage and prizes in the world.

The USA puts more money into the above sports than POOL. They are the sports of choice. Americans like their sports delivered to them on a platter and pay the price.

Not too many Americans are willing to pay anymore money for the lowly game of POOL.

06-07-2002, 06:33 PM
We all wish we knew the answer to that question.

06-07-2002, 06:37 PM
The main reason the sport hasn't grown is because No One with real business experience and the right connections has tried it. We've had a few folks here and there with one or the other, but no one with the total package and no self-interest to protect has had a run at it yet. I still say the sport can be marketed successfully, but not the way it is now.

Ralph S.
06-08-2002, 11:27 PM
One of the biggest reasons why pool hasn't succeeded over here like it has across the pond in Europe is GREED. Plain and simple greed. Many of the players are more concerned what is in it for them. I personally feel that the mens' pro tour is a good example and that the WPBA is fast headed in that direction.
Ralph S.

06-11-2002, 03:10 PM
ESPN must appeal to a certain age group for their TV ratings. They need something fast that will not bore their audience. (Thats why the whole runout or outstsnding safety play is not shown). 9-ball and 7-ball meet this criteria but barely. Now days ESPN is the only one who can put this on the air affordably. It is the commercials surrounding the telecast that pays for it. If viewership is low, the commercials are the type that pay less. ESPN wants big bucks all the way around. If pool can't bring the money, they don't get the air time.

06-11-2002, 03:51 PM
not that more opinions are needed on this, as everyone involved in pool has their own. I think it lies within the corporation. As soon as a Busweiser, Ford, Dorito's, or Coca-Cola get excited about pocket billiards all of a sudden there will be coverage, money, and no more of those damn sardo commercials. But, until that day, the air time will be cheap enough, interest low enough, that we will continue seeing that stupid commercial again, and again. Before I started shooting seriously, I honestly thought I was going to have buy one of those damn things to "have a perfect rack everytime." I don't want to make this another anti-sardo rack string, however as soon as Coke is ready to pay 50 grand for a couple spots, and their name on the felt, all of a sudden pool will become popular, it will be on, and so will another ten excited sponsors.

Facts are facts. and the fact is that corporations decide what is popular with the masses. This problem that pool faces is faced in paintball, archery, and rugby (all sports that I have been heavily involved in). And the fact is no corporations are excited about supporting these sports, and as soon as they are, boom! money. fame. tv coverage. its just the way it is.

BigAl - throwing another log on the fire of frusterating debate

06-17-2002, 10:03 AM
Really? Has something changed in the UK over the last 4-5 years?

I've always heard that the female British snooker players were coming to the U.S. to play 9-ball was because there was no money to be made playing snooker in the UK. Was that wrong? Or, if this impression was correct, is there that marked a difference between prize funds for women's snooker and men's snooker?

Pizza Bob
06-17-2002, 12:47 PM
It is the huge difference in purses that drove the women snooker players to the US. If memory serves me correctly, the last year that Allison won the women's world snooker championship, the purse was the equivalent of about $6000 US. The men's champion of the same year won the equivalent of about $200,000 US PLUS a Ferrari worth about the same amount. Just a slight discrepancy. That's why you don't see a rush of snooker playing men, to the US, to play pool. The very top men earn in excess of seven figures (including endorsements).


Pizza Bob