The case AGAINST governing bodies and unions in poker Part 2

In Part 1 of this series I talked at length about why a poker labor union is simply not a feasible option at this point. In this the middle part of this series I want to take a closer look at what the creation of a governing body for the poker tours would mean, and the impact it might have on the game.

A governing body in poker would solve quite a few problems including avoiding scheduling conflicts between the different poker tours, establishing universal rules for poker and poker tournaments, and even addressing player behavior and setting etiquette standards. Unlike a union, a governing body would not simply be looking out for the players, but also for the game of poker as a whole, and also for the casinos and poker tours.

The first question that needs to be asked when it comes to a governing body in poker is: Who would the governing body look out for?

The first and most obvious answer would be the poker players, but there is a huge difference between the needs of the casual poker player and the professional poker player when it comes to running a tournament. Professional players might be looking for lower rakes, the aforementioned scheduling conflicts to be resolved, uniformity in the rules, better tournament structures, better food buffets, and the other myriad of concerns pro players face. On the other hand the casual player would be more interested in each event as singular occurrence and not so much the tour in general. So a casual player’s interests might revolve around the starting days, how long the tournaments last, cheaper hotel rates, and so on.

So where a professional player would welcome a very slow structure of 5 or more days of poker, the casual poker player would be more interested in having a two or three day tournament that begins on a Friday or Saturday, so they would miss as little work as possible, and if they need to take the Monday off they at least know they are in the money!

Another problem would be balancing the needs of the players with the needs of the casino, poker tours, and sponsors. As for profit entities these companies are looking to maximize profits, which flies directly in the face of the players’ needs, and without a union -which in part 1 I said was an absolute long-shot-the governing body would surely side with the businesses over the players.

The second question that needs to be addressed is: What would the overall cost of running this governing body be?

And herein lies the real problem with a governing body; these things do not run themselves and are not cheap! Portions of each prize-pool and sponsorship dollars would have to go to the governing body which basically eliminates any reason for creating one on the first place.  And without serious advertising revenue flowing in poker will not generate enough revenue to support its governing body without adversely affecting the prize-pool -and advertising revenue is the topic of Part 3 of this series…