1. I understand the butting of heads when it comes to certain logos - such as online poker rooms and the channels not being allowed to display such things. However, other logos, let's say a beer logo or something like that, should be allowed. While Annie Duke's comment is inappropriate at face value, her and Lederer are dead on in philosophy - they're paying to join these events, it's ridiculous they can't be sponsored in any form.

There are a lot of tournaments now. If someone starts to form another large group and caters to the players more (and schedules the events at the same time as WPT events), you'll see a shift in interests. It's not like that's happening right now, but you never know.

Posted at 4:16PM on Jun 16th 2005 by David

2. Like Lederer points out in the ESPN.com article, I think it's in the WPT's (and others) best interest to allow sponsorship dollars to flow into the poker scene - as it only further serves to legitamize the industry. A Cadillac-sponsored Hoyt Corkins - to use a made up example - would subtly help establish immediate mainstream credibility, because viewers are used to seeing big companies like General Motors sponsor players like Fred Couples on the PGA Tour. So I agree with Howard on that point completely. When one company comes in, others will want to follow, and it becomes self-fullfiling.

However, I also wish that these pros would not lose sight of the tremendous benefit they have been afforded by the "TV Businessmen" that they are so quick to go after while screaming the word "exploitation." Because of the exposure provided to them by tv, many of these pros are now able to sell books, hold fantasy camps, make appearances for fees, hold speaking engagements, etc. They need to understand and respect the machinations of a free market.

I have no problem with a little public negotiating between the sides, but using hyperbole and buzzwords mainly falls on deaf ears.

Posted at 4:16PM on Jun 16th 2005 by Dave Johnston

3. I believe Steve Rosenbloom's commentsw about a players association might be the best way to go her

Posted at 4:16PM on Jun 16th 2005 by Tim Roberts

4. Sorry about the cut off I meant to say a Poker Players Association mentioned my Mr Rosenbloom might be the way to go to give the player some leverage here!! Golf and golfers outside sponsers have learned to live together on TV broadcasts, why not Poker pLayers too?? JMHO

Posted at 4:16PM on Jun 16th 2005 by Tim Roberts

5. you write "Just a ridiculous statement to make on the issue. It's a massive overstatement of the importance of the debate, especially considering it is coming from one of the most successful players on the circuit; one who recently won a $2 million freeroll on ESPN and has an NBC sitcom in development based on her life." In reply to annie dukes statement. The basic fact is though that all the players are required to sign a release that allows the networks to use the filming of any players they want to their discretion. I mean what annie duke said was very legitimate no matter how much money she has won. Micheal Schumacher has an annual contract with ferrari for 40 million much more then annie duke and yet is still allowed to parade all those sponsorhips on his f1 car on any network. BTW when was the last time you looked at a NASCAR? Furthermore I didn't realize tigerwoods drove a buick just cause he liked them... There is not a single sport in which an a pro player isnt able to promote sponsorships except for poker.

Posted at 4:17PM on Jun 16th 2005 by Dan

6. Poker players are free to sign any endorsement deal they wish. They can do commercials, sell books, make speaking appearances, wear logo gear everywhere they go, run "fantasy" camps, get paid for appearances on Letterman, etc. etc. etc. Nobody is stopping them (and MANY are cashing in, as they should).

Saying that Annie Duke's statement is "very legitimate" shows an ignorance of how a free market develops and works. Poker players have never had the opportunities for non-poker income that they do now. Top pros can now make hundreds of thousands of dollars in yearly side income in 2005, simply based on the popularity of the game. Why is the game so popular? Because of the promotion of these same players as "stars" and "legends" by shows like the WPT. It's been a win/win for players and producers. Not only have the players reaped a benefit in the form of making them quasi-celebrities, but they've also reaped the MASSIVE benefit that has come from bringing hundreds of millions of new $$$ to the game in the form of fresh, new poker players.

Also - let's make some comparisons:

NASCAR: all sponsors must be approved by privately-held NASCAR prior to being allowed to be displayed on either the car or the uniform.

PGA: has specific guidelines for sponsorship logos (size and location) on all player's wear. All logos must be approved.

NFL: does not allow players to wear individual sponsorships on uniforms during television.

MLB: does not allow players to wear individual sponsorships.

NBA: does not allow players to wear individual sponsorships.

Now, comparisons to other sports are tenuous at best because of the inherent differences between how the games are played (teams vs. individual) and televised. Poker is also the only game where players put up their own money and battle to take the other players' money as the reward.

Here's my bottom line: I think the WPT should open up their broadcasts to sponsor logos (with certain guidlines) because it is good for the overall health of the game. I'm IN FAVOR of these private entities coming together on a compromise. But I don't see "exploitation" (because the benefit of WPT to the players has been undeniably massive) and I view Annie Duke's statement as pure hyperbole.

Posted at 4:17PM on Jun 16th 2005 by Dave Johnston

7. To clarify: MLB, NBA, NBA allow individual equipment sponsorships - like bats, shoes, etc. But they do not allow logos to appear anywhere other than their natural location on the shoe or bat, etc.

And also...I mean no disrespect with any of my comments. Just arguing the issue.

Posted at 4:17PM on Jun 16th 2005 by Dave Johnston

8. It seems odd that Howard would pick a personal fight at Steve Lipscomb and the WPT when the WPT clearly conforms to Travel Channels legal basis for not allowing logos. Bicker with the stations, not the production companies. Can the system be tinkered with? Perhaps. Is the proper way to trigger that by making personal attacks in the press that are uninformed and mis-guided? Absolutely not.

I would invite Howard and Annie and any other disgruntled player to not participate in the 5 $500k freerolls that the WPT set up as a win-win thank you to the players for the shared success. I'm sorry, but when has the WPT or Steve Lipscomb EVER expressed that players OWE them? At worst, if ever mentioned, players do owe any mainstream notoriety to televised poker, but Howard is ridiculously off-base with any suggesstion that WPT feels he 'owes' them anything. In fact, its the other way around. These players would like their buy-ins paid for. I'm sorry, the last I checked, it was a poker tournament, where you buy-in, and try to win, like everyone else.

If Howard and the rest are worth their salt as far as their 'fame' has gone to helping the WPT to earn millions, they should check the source of who gave them that fame (Vince V.P. publicly coined the nickname, 'The Professor'), and should be happy with the ENORMOUS prize-pools created by the show. If you're that good, you win ALOT more money than if there were not any cameras. If you're not that good, make like Alaska, and pipe down.

Mr. Johnston's opinions are dead on.
These comments by Howard and the like are akin to calling yourself homeless because you are unhappy with 4 star accomodations, and choose to wait out in the street, crying fo the 5- star down the street. It's disgusting, actually. AGAIN, it's a POKER TOURNAMENT. Buy-In, and win. End of the day. If you get anything beyond that b/c of exposure, be happy. If you don't like it, boycott. See how many people won't enter because 5-20 pros choose NOT to play. Sorry for the rant, but the sense of greedy entitlement is horrifying.

Concerned viewer and player,
Alex

Posted at 4:17PM on Jun 16th 2005 by Alex

9. Agree with Alex, mostly. These guys are playing in 2 million dollar freerolls and we're supposed to feel bad here?

Posted at 4:17PM on Jun 16th 2005 by Scott

10. Just a case of some ungrateful elitists biting the hand that fed them.

Read Lipscomb's comments - his hands are tied. Is he supposed to break his agreement with the Travel Channel just to make the players happy ?

Regarding Duke's comments, it's not the first time she got emotional and said something stupid during an interview.

Look, if it bothers you that much that they get to film you and use your likeness (oh my, how horrible - they really are slave drivers aren't they), then just don't play.

Believe me, if you were to drop off the face of the poker world there would be plenty of great unknown players ready to take your place.

Posted at 4:17PM on Jun 16th 2005 by Dave

11. Clearly the case for the fear of "government wrangling" cannot be made by anyone here, as the government has been largely silent on the subject of online poker sites thus far. With some of the brightest and best among the players, networks, and online sites, how come we can't all come together and get what everyone wants --sponsorship for players?

Posted at 4:17PM on Jun 16th 2005 by Johnny "Vegas"

12. Johnny "Vegas"...

The government has "wrangled," unfortunately...

In April of 2003, The United States Department of Justice seized $3.2 million in assets from Discovery Communications (parent of The Travel Channel) as a result of Discovery's airing of commercials for the offshore casino operation Tropical Paradise.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30812FB345A0C728FDDAC0894DC404482

In addition, the DOJ also sent federal grand jury subpoenas to well-known broadcasters and advertisers seeking details about their relationships with offshore betting operations during that same year.

http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3409301

The federal government's actions have been limited, but they have been specifically targeted to deter the growth of online gambling advertising. Networks are still very wary of the entire concept - hence the rise of the silly "poker school" spots.

Posted at 4:17PM on Jun 16th 2005 by Dave Johnston