Noah Whinston · @NWhinston
23rd Dec 2016 from TwitLonger
Response to Scoot's Quick Reactions to the PEA Response
Posted directly on the Reddit thread too--
Thanks for the response, Scott! I'll go point by point here:
SCOOTS 1). Telling us that the PEA is not an exclusive league and that the owners will give the players the right to choose, but continuing to force a choice between PEA and EPL creates the same end result. The PEA owners know from our private letters that the players have been saying clearly that they wish to play in both leagues. The players do not have to choose between PEA and EPL - that's a false dichotomy. The PEA does not need EPL to "vacate" North America in order to be a financially viable league. This sentiment contradicts exactly what the PEA and its owners said back in September when they told us that they would be able to work with other tournaments to make sure nobody's schedule was disrupted.
1) It's understandable why the players want to play in both leagues. I would too, if I were in their situation! But, at the end of the day, the team owners are the ones funding the prize pool, league operations, and spending the time and effort to manage the whole initiative. Running the two leagues concurrently doesn’t only hurt the economics of the PEA league, but individual team economics as well by further reducing the time available for players to stream and activate for sponsors, the two activities that contribute the most to team revenue.
SCOOTS 2). The PEA's proposed compromise with WESA involves forcing this false dichotomy. When Jason Katz described the PEA's compromise to me, he specifically said that EPL would have to "vacate" North America. In Noah's letter, he describes the EPL as being allowed to "continue to operate in Europe" - let's keep in mind that the EPL, if you include ESEA league, has operated in North America for over ten years. The PEA has yet to host a single event. It doesn't really make sense, for the players or the community, to have teams completely withdraw from a league that has existed in North America for a decade in favor of a league that has never run an event before. Giving the PEA a fair shot at their first season is one thing, but forcing the EPL out of NA in order to so is another thing.
2) It’s not a “false dichotomy” -- far from it, it’s an economic necessity. Also, our plan has been to partner with PGL for league production for Season 1 and they are as experienced and professional an operator as exists in the world. All that having been said, however, it's now up to the players which path they want to take.
SCOOTS 3). It is hard to comment on the PEA's prize money per player calculation because after five requests they did not send us the document containing the details behind it. But the pitch points the PEA has relayed in their letter were already pitched to me and the players in private meetings, and the owners already know that we are very skeptical about the pitch points and disagree on many of them.
3) I did the calculations for the letter myself at 1am in China, but they were pretty simple -- I simply divided totals by numbers of teams. Will find a method to share the exact math I used. Expect something in the next few hours, sorry for not having them on-hand.
SCOOTS 4). We can get into what are appropriate esports/traditional sports analogies later, but esports is unlike any traditional sport (in a good way) and simply cannot be forced into a box based on traditional sports precedent. The esports industry has some aspects in common with traditional team sports culture, but in many ways it has more aspects in common with traditional individual sports culture. The general point is that esports is a wonderful, unique industry. It has been built around the openness its inherent technology offers, and this openness has contributing greatly to the industry's dynamic growth. We should not be trying to stifle that by stuffing esports into traditional sports precedents.
4) Agreed, but the reason it's done in traditional sports and esports is the same. As a team owner, I would never be OK losing control over how my brand is used or represented by the players that play under the IMT banner.
SCOOTS 5). The PEA owners themselves are the ones who ultimately determine streaming and sponsor obligations. The owners are saying that the players do not have time to properly compete and practice and complete all of these obligations when the owners are the ones who are determining the extent of these obligations! There is also absolutely no transparency with the players about how these decisions are made and the economics behind them! The owners should be focused addressing this issue not by controlling the players' tournament schedules, but by being open with their economics and working with the players to determine and balance the players' various obligations collaboratively.
5) I'm sorry, but this point just doesn't make sense. All of our player contracts, when signed, include a specific list of how many streaming hours are required and the number of sponsor activations that need to be done. The decisions on that are made in the negotiation between the player and the owner when the contract is written, it’s not just arbitrarily enforced by the organization. Streaming and sponsors are the things that allow us to actually pay player salaries! Small percentages of prize money don't even come close to covering our salary expenses, to say nothing of support costs like coaches and housing. If players want to earn a salary, there’s no choice but to produce the things that help fund it!
SCOOTS 6). With regard to profit sharing, as we have explained to the PEA and its owners, having a cut of $0 still equates to $0. When you get more into the details about how the PEA defines profit and how it is calculated, it becomes less exciting. We have informed the PEA of these concerns already. Again, it's difficult to get into specifics when we have never been sent anything in writing.
6) Sure, profit sharing when profit isn't guaranteed has a chance of being $0. We understand that issue, and that's why we are offering a high minimum floor of prize money and a significant minimum guarantee of profit-sharing. As a reminder, we also want to offer 50/50 profit-sharing to the casters and analysts, not just the players. The decision on whether to do that is pending a Rules Committee vote, a committee which the players have chosen to stop attending because of the current situation.
SCOOTS 7). If the PEA had these kinds of tables and graphs lying around, they should have sent it over to the players when we requested it during our private negotiations. Just a reminder - they sent us absolutely nothing in writing despite us asking for it at least five times.
7) We've also tried unsuccessfully since December 14th to schedule a call with you and the players. There are communication failures on both sides. We're trying to own up to ours and rectify the situation.