The case AGAINST governing bodies and unions in poker Part 1

Since Black Friday -and even before-there have been calls for the creation of some type of governing body overseeing the poker world, looking out for the betterment of the game along the lines of the PGA in golf, or even some type of poker player union that would look out for the players’ interests. On the surface these seem like solid ideas, but the reality is that despite the huge sums of money that change hands at the highest levels of the game, and the fact that poker is on TV seemingly 24/7, the game itself is not conducive to sponsorships, live audiences, and primetime TV advertising dollars - all of which are needed to take these next steps.

First, let me debunk the idea for a poker players union.

Aside from rooting for your hometown team, even at its highest level the NBA has two or three players per team that people might pay to go to see. If you take away the top 50 players from the NBA you don’t have much of a product, and anyone who has been to a CBA game or watched a Euro Basketball League understands this, which is why the NBA players union is so strong. In basketball the difference between the very best players and a good player is considerable, and very noticeable.

You start to see the difference when you look at the NFL, where the individuals themselves are not quite as important as the team as a whole. The difference between the very best players and good players is negligible -outside of Quarterbacks, and even though the removal of the top 50 players would hurt the product, it wouldn’t cripple it by any means. Which is why the NFLPA isn’t quite as strong as the NBA players union, as far as unions go.

Now, if you were to remove the 50 best poker players from the poker world the effect would hardly be noticeable. Since the skill-set needed to be a very good “TV poker player” is a somewhat decent personality and a modicum of poker skill, virtually any winning player is capable of being turned into a poker star by a cameraman and some good editing. A poker players union would be about as strong at the negotiating table as a piece of wet tissue paper.

There is also the issue of who gets to join. Is the union made up of professional poker players only? Is it open to any player; winning or losing? If casual, losing, players are eligible what about non-poker players?

Now there are other reasons to form a “union” since it could help with health care coverage, organizing to fight for poker player rights across the country, and could bring about some small concessions at events. But to think that a union of poker players would have much bargaining power in terms of corporate sponsorships, sponsorship-added money at tournaments, and other major changes is reaching to say the least.