I think this is now the fourth chapter in the saga between the Pro Squash Tour and Professional Squash Association.
Yesterday, the Pro Squash Tour filed a lawsuit in the state of New York. Named in the suit are the Professional Squash Association, Event Engine and John Nimick. The court document can be viewed here: PST Lawsuit vs. PSA, Event Engine, Nimick
Not sure if the players had legal fees in mind when they submitted their annual PSA registration fees or players tax during their last tournament, but given the decisions of their management and Board they now find themselves a party to a lawsuit in the litigious states of America.
As always, it will be interesting to see how these issues play out in the squash community.
So far, it seems there is a concerted effort by individuals sympathetic to the PSA to muddy the waters and bring in all sorts of side issues to distract from honestly and objectively judging the validity, business sense and legality of PSA banning players from playing in PST events.
For me the issues are:
- lack of PSA consultation
- how a decision of this magnitude should have been put to a vote at an AGM
- how the PSA seems to think it “owns” the players
- how the PSA seems to feel it can decide where and what events “its” players can participate in
- how this reduces playing and income opportunities for squash players
- how this decision inhibits the visibility and growth of squash in USA
- if confusion on the part of promoters, sponsors or IOC is the issue, what about all the other squash leagues, tournaments, exhibitions
- how the PSA ban is very selectively applied
- how issuing the playing ban shows another example of inexperienced leadership at PSA
- how competition should be encouraged … healthy competition forces companies, management to improve, innovate in order to grow, survive, attract talent, sponsors, etc (didn’t competition in the Middle East cause healthy escalation of prize money?)
Will the players and other stakeholders stay focussed on:
- how the PSA reached this decision
- was this decision in best interests of the players, sport, growing the game
- did this decision needlessly expose the association to legal risk and expenses
- if PSA is truly concerned with squash’s appearance in eyes of IOC and sponsors, why didn’t Alex negotiate a solution, rather than this public and now legal circus
Official PST Release
On Monday, lawyers representing the US-based Pro Squash Tour (PST) filed suit in New York state court against the UK-based Professional Squash Association (PSA) and two other defendants for allegedly improperly restricting competition in the United States, including New York State.
The suit is in response to the PSA’s unilateral ban on October 14, 2010, barring its members, under threat of expulsion, from participating in any PST event. PST is challenging this anti-competitive ban to protect players’ rights and to defend itself against this egregious move. The ban’s unfairness is clearly illustrated by the fact that the UK-based management is solely targeting U.S.-based PST events while allowing its members to participate in any other league, tournament or exhibition match in the world.
“The management in England singled out our successful and growing American tour,” said PST Commissioner Joseph McManus. “And they appeared to have made this decision in darkness without discussing the idea first with their full membership.”
The six-count suit includes allegations that the PSA engaged in improper and anti-competitive conduct by interfering with PST player agreements and business relationships. The suit further alleges that the predatory behavior is being conducted with the specific intent to exclude competition and achieve monopoly power.
PST Commissioner Joseph M. McManus said he wants the players to be free to compete, if they so choose. “The irony is that we are now put in the position of defending players and their rights against the very organization that should be protecting them in the first place.”
More comments and coverage from around the web:
SquashTALK – nothing
Telegraph Squash – Professional Squash Association set for legal battle over US tour ban
SquashSite – only official releases from PSA and PST on main site (wouldn’t want to risk having an opinion or anything) range of opinions on Forum
The Squashist - A Picture Speaks a 1000 Words – Drop Dead , PSA Called ‘Predatory,’ and Now There’s a Petition To Sign
Sportcal – PSA Tour Goes to Court to Contest Player Restriction Imposed by PSA Tour
The Squash Joint - entertaining, yet thoughtful article HERE
Control the T Blog – nice article HERE
US Squash Forum – minimal discussion HERE
Squash Player – regurgitation of PSA press releases
The position that the PSA has taken was primarily decided because of lost revenue potential. The fact that the PST is gathering sponsorship funds in the US is the most important. This is money that could be going to PSA squash tour. The PSA office primarily lives and breathes off sanction fees and 5% of all prize money, so when the potential for a growing tour comes along and accumulates $’s for Pro Squash, the PSA sees this as threatenting their bottom line! They see the $’s as potential revenue for their tour.
What’s really ironic about the whole thing, is that the PSA has very little to do if anything at all, with gaining sponsorship for their events. It’s the Pros and Club owners who market and retain the sponsorship. Maybe it’s about time they do what Mcmanus is doing, and go out and find some sponsors and run an event. Then they could become self suficient and leave the players be!
In america business competition is the norm. If the PSA wants to stay competitive, they are going to have to adapt. We learned from baseball that free agency replaced indentured servitude.
Professional sports are a monopoly, PSA is trying to protect its monopoly. I believe the NFL and MLB have been taken to court before over anti-trust laws and have won. As Mark has stated, it’s about money, and loss of money to the PSA
Most other “professional” squash leagues pose no threat to the PSA because in Europe most people in the squash community recongnize that these leagues are second rate to the PSA, I don’t believe that view would be the same in the US and thus the PSA actions to protect its brand in the US in order to protect is revenue.
Furthermore, the PSA is a private organization with the full authority to set its own rules. If the players do not like the rules, they are free to not be a member.
I would assume the PSA members (players) elect individuals to the board (appears to be article 44 of the PSA constitution) to speak and act on their behalf, therefore it would not be necessary to consult all members before making a decision. Much like there is no need to have a referendum everytime the government wants to inact a law, becasue we have already elected that government to speak and act on our behalf.
Maybe this is just a reflection of something that is rather interesting for the development of our sport.
Eg – Squash is on the go in USA!!!
Thank God for that!!
This however will change the whole picture of international squash and if PSA don’t find ways of adjusting they will lose ground. Very quickly!
One immediate recommendation is to make the management of the organization more global and stepping out of the protected UK zone.
I really don’t mean to be negative! I just see a need for change!