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.