As a person, Ronnie O'Sullivan is a mass of contradictions and many of the things he said at his post match press conference at Wembley yesterday contradict what he has said before.
However, there is more than a kernel of truth in what he says about the way snooker is promoted.
As a game, it has a lot going for it: it is easy to televise, has enough variations to make each frame interesting and can produce great drama.
For a period in the 1980s it was the most popular sport on UK TV and awash with sponsorship, tournaments and money.
To borrow a phrase from David Cameron, the WPBSA administration of the time did not fix the roof while the sun was shining. They seemed to believe the honeymoon would last forever.
They were wrong.
I'm not sure Barry Hearn, never mind Simon Cowell, is really interested in taking over the circuit.
However, a few years ago a group of entrepreneurs were. They were called Altium and one of their most vocal opponents was Ronnie O'Sullivan.
He has since admitted he was wrong and credit to him for that.
But the inescapable truth is that snooker's downward spiral dates back to the rejection of their bid to take over the game's commercial rights and promote the sport properly.
There were 2,000 people watching O'Sullivan beat Joe Perry in the Masters yesterday so reports of snooker's demise have been greatly exaggerated.
However, many of us who have been on the circuit for a number of years will recognise his assertion that it has all fallen a little flat backstage and that the fun has gradually drained away.
The sport basically needs a benevolent dictator to come in - as Hearn has in darts - and call the shots without interference.
Would the players vote for them this time? I think so, but who wants to get involved with a sport that his historically been so hostile to entrepreneurship?