Ronnie O’Sullivan demands alterations to the snooker prize money structure: “It’s not fair.”

In order to assist lower-ranked players who are having financial difficulties, Ronnie O’Sullivan has asked for a reorganization in snooker. Specifically, he has suggested that first-round losers be given enough prize money to cover their costs.

Players who lose their opening match in a tournament are currently left without any compensation for lost travel or lodging expenses, nor is there any prize money for losing in the first round of competitions.

Players in the top half of the rankings are able to take these losses because a first-round loss is rare for them otherwise, while those outside the top 64 who make significantly less money are left to struggle.

Following his victory over Michael Georgiou in the second round of the Scottish Open on Tuesday, O’Sullivan was questioned about funding in snooker and went on a rather diatribe.

To be quite honest, I wouldn’t let my son to play snooker, so perhaps it’s for the best that he doesn’t get the chance. the Rocket disclosed to Eurosport.

“I would rather he played tennis, football, or golf.” Just kidding, I’d rather he played curling! I honestly wouldn’t want my child to play snooker if I had a child that wanted to take up the game.

It was a hot sport maybe twenty to twenty-five years ago, but it has kind of lagged behind other sports.

“You would want your child to participate in sports like Emma Raducanu, who is excelling in them,” You observe the football players and golfers, such as Rory McIlroy,

Probably just a matter of time. Snooker might be back on top in another 25 to 30 years, but for now, I’d say, “Go get a job, buddy.” Put down the snooker game. That is my sincere belief.

I’m not referring to the victorious. I am referring to the struggling guys who are ranked 60 or 70 in the globe. It is detrimental to them. The 125th golfer would earn a million dollars on the golf tour if you were to compare his earnings to those of the 125th snooker player. You can generate enough revenue to cover any losses you may incur, so you can afford to miss a few cuts.

“Giving the first round losers their expenses is at least one way you could maybe remedy it.” Many of these people lack the necessary funds. It isn’t just.

Remove it from the top. Give the extra money to the losers in the first round so at least it will help them; winners don’t really need it.

Publicity for the subject will increase with O’Sullivan’s speech, but many people play.

Mark Williams thinks that fewer players should be assured of a solid salary by keeping the professional tour at 128 players and paying first-round losers.

The three-time world champion stated to Metro.co.uk in November that “there must be well over half the tour who are skint.” To make decent money, you have to get to the later levels, and not many people accomplish that. It’s quite hard to make a living because they’re usually the identical ones every time.

I wouldn’t cut the tour because it’s too large—I’m not sure to what extent—since you never get 128 [pro] players at one event anyway. Hopefully, everyone will be able to make a livelihood once they join the tour, which includes covering the first round of expenses.

The goal is to go on tour, and if you’re on a professional tour around the world, you ought to be assured a job. Losing is not a concern for you. Although it will be more difficult, it might be feasible for everyone to make a living at that point.

When asked about the topic during the recent UK Championships, world number 55 Anthony Hamilton stated that paying first-round losers seems like a sensible idea, particularly for an event that pays a substantial £6,500 for winning a single match.

The Rocket recommended reducing the winners’ reward money, but another choice would be to redistribute it sooner in the competition.

Naturally, there ought to be! Regarding whether or not first round losers should receive prizes, Hamilton spoke with Metro.co.uk. “Winners get £6,500, and losers get nothing? Properly should be £1,000.

Even still, winning £5,000 is still a wonderful sum of money. It’s sensationalism, to put it as bluntly as possible, in my opinion. Since some of these locations are pricey, you’re not seeking to get rich by getting beat up—you’re just asking for money to cover your expenses.

Lower-tier players on the tour often face such financial hardships that some professionals work outside of snooker to supplement their income.

Iran’s Soheil Vahedi, who left the tour after the previous season and is currently playing as an amateur, has already expressed his views on how tough it is to make a living in the game, particularly when playing abroad, and he has demanded greater assistance from the World Snooker Tour.

Vahedi stated to Metro.co.uk earlier this year that “they [WST] need to sit and talk about this.” In order to avoid running out of money altogether, they must figure out how to help others. I believe that no one would disagree with my request, so that is what I am asking for.

“It’s not good for the game of snooker if we end the tour and never play again.” People would be less inclined to travel to the UK or play snooker if they were aware of how challenging it is.

The 1992 Players Championship winner and current professional Joe Perry concurs that the sport faces the risk of losing players who are unable to support their ascent up the ranks.

“Players will be lost,” the Gentleman stated to Metro.co.uk. While some are fortunate enough to receive financial assistance, the majority are unable to continue trying and failing. Eventually, the funds run out, and you are unable to continue chasing rainbows.

It’s unfortunate that some of these athletes may have successful careers but it’s so hard to break through at the right time or with the proper breaks. The incentives at the bottom are, well, nonexistent.

You’re a professional snooker player. “We’re going to let you play on the tour next year” is not something you receive over the mail. You should receive something because you deserve it, regardless of how you got it.

“A flat £250 for losing the first round is something, but it won’t change anything.” If you’re a professional snooker player, you shouldn’t be losing money in competitions.

Did Barry Hearn’s players not receive pay if Leyton Orient lost 4-0 on a Saturday while he was the club’s chairman? Naturally, no.

According to WST’s perspective, they don’t want to give players credit for failing to accomplish anything. Nonetheless, the majority of calls are made only to cover losses rather than to turn a profit on the first round of losses.

Some argue that if a player is having serious financial difficulties, they are just not skilled enough to compete on the circuit; nevertheless, because of the structure of the tour, it is extremely difficult for new players to advance.

It is a matter of constantly being thrown in at the deep end rather than gradually learning to swim because those at the bottom of the rankings will frequently play players at the very top.

According to Perry, “Vinny Calabrese was one of the Australian guys that came over to play in Cambridge, and I remember what he said; it stuck with me.”

He played a string of draws against players he was never expected to defeat, including Barry Hawkins, John Higgins, Ronnie O’Sullivan, Mark Williams, and others.

When the next draw was made, he declared, “I’ve got a good draw,” holding Nigel Bond and Jimmy White. I was thinking, that’s not a very nice draw.

They were about a 1/3 or 2/5 when the betting opened, but they looked fantastic because the other draws were practically impossible to win. The pressure to win was so great that he lost both of them.

Although he was a gifted small player, who will emerge as a winner when facing players like him every week? It’s harsh, and I find it objectionable.