9-Ball
Topic: WPC - prize fund

who else thinks 400k usd isnt enough for the wpc.

Correct me if im wrong guys, but this years wpc seemed to have a really stron following, demonstrating the growth and popularity of the game arround the globe. live on sky in the uk i hear, and live in the US, online feeds, betting. matchroom sport must be making alot of money out of this, yet it still only has a 400k prize pool.

i mean compared to snooker which is over 1m GBP, and other sports with huge prizemoney.

and 9 ball seems to have more sponsors and a larger market than snooker.

who else feels this way, and what can we do about it.

i for one would be pretty dissapointed if next years wpc still had 400k.

sb..


-----------------
check out my website CuesportBuzz.com

£400,000 prize fund is not bad for a tournament in which there are no entry fees.
You could have Trudeau running it instead of Matchroom Sport then you would get a massive prize fund but no guarantees that anyone would get paid!!!

out of interest.... anyone know if the uk players pay tax on their wpc winnings as they won it out of uk??

I may be wrong andy but i didnt think any winnings were taxable whether won in the uk or elsewhere. I am sure somebody will correct me if this isn't the case

winnings in uk are taxable for pro players...same as snooker etc...

Winnings are taxable everywhere as far as I know.
In many cases though it is up to the person to declare his earnings as he is considered to be self employed if he is a "real" Pro Player.

I know with the winnings on the IPT, the US deducted tax before handing it over to the players (eventually!)

Basically, all players playing on any tour should declare any winnings minus costs for travel accomodation etc. This also includes sponsorship monies received and any winnings from certain high value money matches. Players should be self employed and do an end of year tax return including all forms of income (earned and interest, dividends etc.).

I am unsure as to whether the tax should be paid at the rates in the country applicable, but you have to declare the winnings from any country on the English Tax Return and you get Double Taxation Relief which basically means you do only pay tax once.

Players making a loss after deduction of fees, hotels and travel etc can claim tax back against their other income.

I suggest if anyone is unsure then contact the local Inland Revenue office (or I can do it) and find out where they stand. In my view all players on all tours should be registered as self employed.

Put it this way. If you earnt money from pool and dont declare it and the IR find out they can reclaim the tax, penalise you and charge interest.

This message is not meant to scare anyone, but to give a bit of clarity to the situation.

there should be some kind of threshold, in australia its about 15k of winnings in a year tax free before you have to declare anything. id say there is some kind of starting point in the UK too.

i doubt if you win one comp for 500gbp they would want you to declare that.

anyhow back on topic, is there anythign we can do to try and push up the prizemoney. email matchroom with complaint maybe?

sb..

Totally agreed with you steve, the amount of prize money for this event compared to other sports is ridiculously low at the top level. This is surprising when you consider the popularity in the US.

Craig, i may be misinterpreting your post above but does this mean anybody playing on the tour would be able to claim back the vat paid on expenses related to playing in the tournaments e.g. fuel, accomodation, food/drink?

On 2007-11-20 01:23 , SteveBurford Wrote:

Steve

With all due respect, you probably have no idea of how the World Pool Championship is financed. $400,000 is the maximum payout we can guarantee given the economic level of the sport and the event.

The event costs around $1.25m to put on which includes prize fund, TV production, staging, venue etc and that is a sum that we have to find every year in order to produce the tournament.

The event has little or no popularity in the USA, at least not financially and revenue streams such as on line streaming are insignificant at this present time.

Witness the financial collapse of the IPT to understand where pool stands economically.

However, we will always endeavour to increase the prize funds at our events where possible and without putting the long-term future of the event at risk.


Luke Riches
Matchroom Sport

just found out even the Chess world cup pays out better lol

$120,000US for the winner and $1,600,000 overall for 128 players

I dont undersaand how chess can have a bigger following than pool...

for an event like hte world championship then surly the money is not an issue

being world champion is the main aim surly?

if players wanna win big money they will have to accept that for now they will have to pay big entry fees which no one is willing to do

im sure it wont be like this forever and i think pool could defo attract bigger and better sponsers (KIA for example sponsered a money match a few months back i belive) which shows sposners outside of the pool market are intrested
with sponsers that are notfrom the cue sport market sposnering events then the money will start rolling in

when will the venue and country/place be announced.

fair enough the prize fund could be better but the post made by luke riches explains it all really,take one step at a time and progress from there.

mr riches my friend could you please keep us updated with the venue/country please,cant wait for next year,my first time this year and can say confidently i will be attending every year but next time im havin a blast in the qualifiers,shizen loads of practice needed first though lol

I have spoken to the Inland Revenue to clarify the situation, although clarity has not been achieved.

The question of whether a sportsman is liable to tax on winnings and therefore a tax refund on any losses is not simple especially given that the level of prize money is not high.

If we look at Snooker players or golfers then I would expect all who play on the tours should be self employed sportsmen and liable to tax on any winnings.

If we take Stephen Hendry for example. He earns say £1m from prize monies. On top of that he earns through exhibitions as well as sponsorship monies. Less and expenses paid out directly or to his management team and he makes a profit on his snooker activities for the year. The Inland Revenue will want a slice of that which means 40% above £40k (a lot of money). As snooker is his career then he's the same as a plumber/solicitor or anyone else earning a living doing something.

We turn to players who do not earn a living from their respective sport. Players ranked 80 and below for example on the snooker tour only earn say £10k before expenses and therefore some have other jobs. They (in theory) should still pay tax and be registered self employed for their snooker winnings.

Having spoken to the Inland Revenue yesterday, even they were unsure of whether any income (or losses for those people whose costs outweigh and prize monies received) should be subject to tax. They have asked me to put it all in writing so they can make a decision.

SkyBlue - VAT is a separate issue and in order to reclaim VAT you should be VAT registered as a self employed person. That way in theory you could claim VAT on petrol, hotel accomm etc. Not all expenditure has VAT and this applies to the entrance fees.

SteveBurford - As far as I am aware there is no such threshold in UK. We get a personal allowance which allows us to earn £5k (approx) of income before tax sets in, but I am not aware of a threshold for sports winnings. Have just been onto the Australian Government Tax website and there is no mention of a tax free threshold. In fact it is very complicated as they have a system of taxing "Special Professionals" of which a sportsman is one.

I will endeavour to find out exactly where we all stand, but as mentioned this is a complicated issue and in my opinion if one person is self employed then all should be. This means some players may pay tax and others may be entitled to a refund against other taxable income.

Just to add to the confusion another grey area is gambling winnings. In theory gambling winnings and losses are not taxable as it is considered a hobby, but if you are a regular gambler and do it as a career then the Revenue could ask for tax from it. This has happened to a client of an accountant I work for.

I will open a new post later on this topic.


-----------------
Multiple winner of the Solihull Wednesday knockout competition.

Cheers Chris...

well chris thanks for the info, i guess it comes down to clarification, if the money is a win or an earning. or maybe there is no seperation between the two, but in that case IR would expect people to pay tax on a 500 pound win on a scratch card or bingo.

sb..

Steve - Scratchcards and Bingo are classed as gambling and are not therefore not taxed. Gambling only becomes taxable if it becomes a career such a s John McCrirrick.

It could be argued that the GB 9 tour is a hobby time, but thats where the grey area comes in. If it is a recognised Pro Tour then it would difficult to argue that Pool is a hobby. When does a hobby become a profession (remembering that any person can have more than 1 profession). For example - if you buy and sell a car for a profit then theres no tax problem. If you do it twice/three times probably still ok. If you start doing it regular then the IR could argue its a profession.

If you played the Solihull Open tournament for example and won first prize and that was the only tournament you play then it's not taxable as it is a one off. But playing on a tour and also enterring Open events and the IR may view it as more than a hobby.

Also remember that any costs involved would be deducted from the income. Therefore, cost of membership to tour, travel and accommodation, and cost of all equipment (cues, cases, balls etc) are deducted. The majority of the 96 players would probably not make money and if thats the case can offset any deficit against other earned income and therefore be entitled to a tax refund.

Personally I doubt I will make a profit first year so therefore it would be worth me registering as self employed to receive the benefit of reduced tax.

I know this is probably not clarifying the situation, but thats the problem with our Government and the Inland Revenue, everything is rarely cut and dry and often they will only do something that benefits them.

Hello Luke Riches, and thank you for your input.
its good to see someone from Matchroom sport reading the pro9 forum.
as for your comments.. during the televised matches i can see the following sponsors
brunswick
iwan simonies
predator
san miguel corporation
Pagcor
flexirest
poolstars.com
wow Philippines
aramith
hansports.com (couldnt quite read it on the floor)

and on the website
accel
department of tourism
araneta center
sofitel Philippines

now not all of these would be paying cash donations but its a healthy list, not to mention matchroom sport as the main promoters.
now firstly im not saying it wasnt a good show, it looked like a very well run tournament. however you state it costs 1.25m to run the tournament, so approx 33% of the running cost goes to the players. im sure the 1.25 mill is not what the event loses, just the outgoings. then you have the incomes.
based on the kind of viewing numbers you would be getting on sky, internet, all around the world, surely these sponsors are paying good money to have their name in this footage, and if they are not, they should be.
my argument is based on the fact that the players provide this event, without players you have nothing to televise, no viewers to see advertisements, nothing, the players are the stars of the show and thats the basics of it.
if it costs 1.25m to make the production, doubling the prize pool would only make that 1.65m.
did matchroom make less than 400k profit on a 1.25m investment?
sb..

we should really have two threads for these two topics.

if you can claim expenses you should be able to claim practise.

and in that case most of us would be running at a loss methinks

sb..