Former professional Peter Devlin has lashed out at what he believes is an unfair tournament structure on the World Snooker Tour.
Devlin, who graduated from Q School in 2020 to join the main tour for the first time in his career before dropping off two years later, took to social media to vent his disdain at the current guise of the professional circuit.
“[Here is a] little note for anyone saying the new tiered system on the main tour is better,” Devlin posted on social media platform X.
“Liam Davies – qualified for six venues. Won 17 matches this season. £38,900. Ronnie [O’Sullivan] – won five matches this season in ranking events. £48,000.”
“Having to win three or four matches to get to the big names, then lose to them, and they earn more points than you is crazy in my book.”
The World Snooker Tour has adopted various structures and formats over the years.
When Barry Hearn initially took over the reins of the sport in 2010, there was an instant shift away from a tiered structure with plenty of events instead contested over a flat draw.
For around a decade, that resulted in the top-ranked players entering most events at the same round as those near the bottom of the list.
Yet as time passed, this approach drew an increasing number of critics, not least because it meant that the lowest-ranked players often had to be drawn against one of the top seeds in the opening round.
It also resulted in a lot of tournaments and venues having to accommodate up to 128 players across a single week’s play.
In the last few years, therefore, there has been a change back toward the older tiered system that was more commonly used prior to 2010.
Rather than the full tour of 128 beginning in round one, the venue stages of several tournaments now boast just 64 or even 32 players.
This season’s China Open, for example, saw the top 16 from the world rankings seeded through to the last 32 with 16 qualifiers joining them in a format similar to the one used at the World and UK Championships.
The Home Nations Series events, meanwhile, allow the top 32 seeds to bypass the qualifiers with those below that cut-off point sent to the qualifying cubicles in a two-round preliminary phase.
With the exception of Players Series events, professionals have to win at least one match at a tournament to earn ranking points, regardless of which round they enter in.
Many would say that this is generally a more realistic approach in how to organise a tour’s structure.
While it does grant some protection to the higher-ranked players, some would argue that they deserve it as recognition for their form.
Tournament promoters typically also want guarantees that the best players in the world will be at their venue.
The 2023 German Masters represents a prime example of an event that was badly impacted by marquee names losing in the qualifiers or simply skipping the event entirely because they were forced to qualify.
For those nearer the bottom of the ranking ladder, players have the opportunity to face similarly ranked contenders first before dealing with the prospect of a stronger opponent.
England’s Devlin, however, does not share that opinion and feels it is unfair for the higher-ranked players to be awarded such an advantage.
“People give the argument that if you win multiple matches to qualify, then you are sharp and ready to take on the bigger names,” 30 year-old Devlin continued.
“That might be the case, but for some reason they decide to play the main event two months after the qualifiers have finished, so all momentum is completely squashed.”
“No pro players should be scared to play any other pros. Flat draws all the way for me.
“If not all, then at least in a majority of events. The Home Nations [should be] back to the way it was. Young players and new players need experience in venues.
“You’ve got people turning pro and never experiencing anything other than the soulless carpeted basketball court in Leicester.
“That’s not what they dreamed of when they turned pro, and they deserve better. If they end up getting to a venue, they’ve got no way of being ready for it.
“I’m saying this, because I’m still grafting and determined to get back to the tour, and that’s not the kind of experience I would want if I got back on.
“It looks thoroughly miserable and demoralising for anyone lower-ranked.”
So far this season, there have already been several instances of qualifiers doing well in tournaments.
Noppon Saengkham came through his two qualifying rounds at the China Open before beating Judd Trump, Ronnie O’Sullivan, and Shaun Murphy en route to the final.
Indeed, three out of the four semi-finalists in Taiyuan were qualifiers.
At the Wuhan Open, Chang Bingyu emerged from the qualifying competition before beating Trump, O’Sullivan, and world number one Zhao Xintong to claim his maiden ranking title.
Featured photo credit: WST
I doubt Devlin will win this argument — he seems to forget that the WST is not just an organizer of sporting events, namely snooker tournaments, *it’s a business* — like must pro sports, I imagine the majority of the WST’s income comes from selling media rights, and how much money they get for the media rights depends on viewership — and the truth is, far fewer viewers will tune in to see marginal professional players like Peter Devlin, as compared to e.g. O’Sullivan and the other top players who are the sport’s marquee names — they want to see the better players, the marquee names, especially in the later rounds — seeding the current T16 or T32 is one way to make sure that happens — it can also be seen as a sporting incentive, something you earn via success, meaning winning matches and advancing in the draw, on the WST.
However I agree that the WST should, even must, do more to financially help lower-ranked players — there is no question that *qualifiers are a sporting attraction*, especially for the bigger events (Judgement Day etc) — there you can see the David v Goliath stories, and root for the underdog — you need a pool of players for that, and for most if not all of them, being a professional snooker player must be financially viable.
Disgruntled Devlin. The lot of the snooker player good enough to go pro but not good enough to thrive at pro level seems a bit soulless. For someone who falls into that category and struggles to find solace in the experiences as well, as Devlin sounds like he couldn’t, it must be very frustrating and disillusioning. His final point however (as presented in the article.) that some tournaments could retain the flat draw structure – even if the heavy majority go tiered – might have some attraction to more than just the disgruntled journeymen pros. One of the things that I like at the moment is the variety of tournaments and having two or three per season that do use the flat draw could be a welcome boost to that variety within the season as a whole?
If Devin manages to get to the top 32 he would have the same advantages. As someone said it’s a business and tournaments don’t want to have a load of big names go out early. Just play better and it will work out for you!
So, what do other games do (it’s a game, not a ‘sport’)? Do other individual games/sports such as 9-ball pool, 8-ball, black-ball, darts, tennis, bowling, badminton, etc let the top players enter later and not from round one?
Yes, it’s a business and some events are far away from where the player is based. But isn’t that the same for all sports/games? example if I want to play in the US 9-ball Open, I know I have to travel to the USA, same with tennis – if I want to play at Wimbeldon – I have to enter and travel to London and qualify there (close to Wimbeldon).
If you can’t afford it, well… don’t go, don’t enter… seems to be the normal thing in other games/sports…
Peter Devlin has been outspoken before, and the issues he raises are important points of discussion. So it’s welcome to see the beginnings of a debate in snooker (thanks DC!), where too often debate is supressed. Unfortunately most people will regard Devlin as too weak a player to matter, and simply dismiss anything he says without consideration.
I don’t agree with much of it, but there’s definitely a problem holding most professional matches (almost exactly 50%) in the Mattioli Arena in Leicester, and most matches (around 52%) behind closed doors somewhere.
The tiered draws vs. flat draws is much more subtle. I’ve done quite a lot of analysis (computer simulations) on this. In general most players’ earnings are similar, but players near the edges of the tiers (ranked in the 40’s or 70’s) are damaged by tiered draws, because they tend to face stronger opponents on average. But in terms of schedule (I calculated travelling expenses and nights in hotels), the top players have a big advantage with tiered draws – nodoubt the reason why players like Shaun Murphy called for it.
My own stance on all of this is that the fundamental problem is that WST uses a points-based ranking system which forces a fixed-size tour (currently ~128), with all players participating in all events. This means we can’t have smaller events to suit local capacity (the reason why there aren’t any events outside UK and China except the German Masters), and why the players are practically forced to relocate to the UK (it costs non-British players around £40k a season just to play professionally, and then they have to spend months separated from their families). With out some kind of reform, this may well ultimately break WST.
I was at that German Masters. Rolf Kalb opened the tournament with an apologetic speech saying that the reason why there were many top players missing was that the qualifiers had been played the week before Christmas, immediately after the UK Championship and Scottish Open, and that this had affected the motivation of some.
>Rolf Kalb
He’s a big part of the reason I got interested in snooker.
On a winter night, when it’s -20C outside and feels colder in the wind, you aren’t too motivated to go out — channel surfing took me to Eurosport and a table game I’d not seen before (I didn’t watch much TV back then, and still don’t today) — so I watched for a while, and the game itself with all its interesting facets, plus Rolf’s style and informed commentary helping me understand what was going on, made me a fan — that must’ve been the UK Championship, maybe 2004 or 2005 (I recall it was a big, important event in December) — it was a sad day when Rolf retired.
I spent a day at the Tempodrom 2015 — had something to eat at Potsdamer Platz between sessions.
It is wonderful to read all your comments and for the report by DC. At the risk of sounding judgmental; I could read comments from Sean, Daniel White and Lewis every day. I also appreciated Oliver’s comment but what eah wrote about his personal experience is exactly why I came to snookerhq, it was perfect.
At the end of the day snooker is a game. Why? There is only one level of play mixed with about 60 players that have no business available to them. Even if the WST went to Europe with smaller purses and only available to a second tier group of players, it will not be a good business proposition. Just like alluded to above, I hate to say it; but how can you call it a sport when many profession players play with no spectators.
Thank You all for your comments…don’t be a stranger.
A mixture is best but events such as the World Championship, UK Championship and the China Opens should be tiered as they require the added gravitas of having a two table setup where each match feels like an event.
O’Sullivan has won less matches but they were partly in the most lucrative and prestigious event of the season so far.
There’s no perfect system but a combination of flat and tiered draws would probably offer the best balance for the elite and those lower down the pecking order.
Snooker is like all other sports, it’s a feast or famine. You can be a good player but make nothing, you need to be very good to make a living. There isn’t the money of golf for ex, and you can’t just fall back on a career of being a club pro giving lessons. Peter, like loads of good amateurs, they’re just not good enough to make a living. These guys would be much better off flipping burgers but can’t face getting a real job, having a boss, getting up in the morning, being on time, etc. You got to make your decision early, if you don’t you end up in this career no-mans land. Success for Pete is defined as getting thru q-school, where in reality it’s the bottom a ladder and in snooker you have to go a long way up that ladder to make a basic living. There’s riches for the best, which used to be top 16, now the good money reaches way down to top 48. Below that you need to consider what you are doing, there’s no money for handouts, certainly not in snooker. Hearn has overseen huge increases in prizemoney and many more events, but he always said only the winners get paid, perform and get paid. Perform, don’t whinge.