IF I WERE A RICH MAN

How equitable should the split of prize money be on the professional snooker circuit?

Barry Hearn has virtually doubled total prize money since becoming World Snooker chairman two years ago and last year was a bonanza for a significant number of players.

For the first time in snooker history, ten players earned in excess of £200,000.

A total of 18 players earned at least £100,000 and 32 earned at least £50,000.

However, around half failed to earn the average UK wage, which at the last estimate was around £26,200 according to official figures.

So what, you may argue. The money is there to be earned by players who do well. Sport isn’t a charity. Snooker’s pay structure is similar to other sports.

All valid points, but so is the assertion that there is a serious divide between the haves and have-nots in snooker.

Take the Q School. This costs £1,000 to enter but players who get through (who have their money returned) have to win two matches in most events to earn any money at all. In last week’s Australian Open it was three matches.

Remember, they have already had to pay entry fees and their expenses for travelling to and staying in Sheffield.

The other arguable inequity is the relative amount of effort required to earn money from the professional game.

Rod Lawler played 11 matches before securing his tour card. He has since played seven matches in the first two events and qualified for the Wuxi Classic, where he is guaranteed £6,000.

This is the same guarantee as a top 16 player who is coming in for his first match. With this system of guarantees it would take a poor season for a member of the top 16 not to earn £100,000 as a minimum from the campaign.

Again, you could argue so what? These players have all started from nothing in round one of the qualifiers and worked their way up the ranks, got into the elite top 16 by their performances.

They have and they deserve their rewards, but are they getting too big a slice of the overall cake for, in some cases, barely winning a match?

I’m firmly against what Hearn describes as ‘subsidising mediocrity’ but would argue that mediocrity is a relative term.

Some players are obviously better than others. There are exceptional players, of course, but lower down the ranks there is still considerable ability.


If you think any of these players are mediocre then offer to play them for money and see how you get on.

To be on the circuit is to be the elite. There are many amateur players who have not made the grade. You have to be something special to survive the cut.

Is it really too much to ask to give the players some prize money earlier in tournaments – even if it’s just enough to cover expenses?

This would involve cutting the cake a little (not by fortunes) at the top level but surely money at all levels of the tour should be earned by winning matches rather than merely turning up.

There’s enough pressure as it is playing snooker for a living without having to think about the financial burden too.

I’m not talking handouts. But in the PTCs if you win a match you get money. Why not in ranking events?

I think top prizes should be big because they are headline figures: literally, they attract headlines. They also reward the considerable achievement of winning a tournament.

But many players are in danger of being priced out of the game. They will be replaced but only by players who face the same financial challenges.

This is a particular problem for young players. The last thing we want is new talent unable to afford playing.

The argument against is that it is merely propping up players who do not add anything commercially to snooker. We all know who the stars are, the wealth creators who bring in broadcasters and sponsors.

But I think that’s a rather sorry way to look at it, not least because matches are now being streamed on the internet. Money is being made on these matches by bookmakers and others – but in some cases not the players themselves.

Can that really be right?

One of the main problems is the labyrinthine qualifying structure. I’m still sceptical as to whether Hearn’s stated aim of having everyone start from round one will ever happen, but it could be the key to what many would see as a fairer pay structure.

Because though it’s true that prize money has dramatically increased in snooker in recent times, it’s equally true that many are missing out.

In this way, snooker of course mirrors wider society. But the difference is we have the chance to do something about it.