This story in today's News of the World claims that a number of leading snooker players are 'fed up' with World Snooker, the governing body.
It quotes a top player as saying: "I'm fed up with world snooker, sometimes I wonder whether they have the best interests of the game at the top of their agenda.
"Prize money is down and there are not as many tournaments as there used to be, which frustrates me and a lot of the other players.
"I remember when there were 15 tournaments in a season and there was a lot more money on offer.
"At one point this season there was a two-month break between tournaments. That's not the way to run the game."
The newspaper does not name the player because he feared disciplinary action so neither will I, but I can tell you he has had a love/hate relationship with World Snooker throughout his career.
However, his comments do not mean that 'a string of top players' are 'fed up.' He speaks for himself, nobody else.
Everyone would like more tournaments but although World Snooker have done themselves few favours over the years, the fault for all this is not theirs and theirs alone.
In 2001, 110sport won a court ruling which meant any promoter could stage events without a World Snooker sanction.
But very few have been staged since by anyone other than the governing body.
Because getting tournaments on is hard work. You need a venue, sponsor, broadcaster and top players, and it's hard to get, say, the first without already having the second and vice versa.
If the top players really are 'fed up' then why haven't they voted out the World Snooker board in the various elections of the last few years?
They've had ample chance to organise themselves to take proper action. Almost uniquely, snooker is run by the players, at least in theory.
I don't believe snooker is 'in crisis' as the story suggests. It could be doing much, much better but it could equally be doing far, far worse.