On September 02 2011 17:35 DrTJEckleburg wrote: I don't see how the argument of "it's the player's money, let them share it if the want" holds any merit. It is completely true that it is there money to spend as they please, obviously in any way they prefer whether for rent, food, or pornography, etc.
The condescending attitude that is being expressed by ReignFayth(forgive me, no other progamer is really posting in this thread as much as you) is not appropriate. Yes, you may be getting these prize winnings and it may be an extremely low amount of money to support your hard lifestyle or the hardships you surely endure; unfortunately, your situation means nothing to me in terms of legitimacy and professionalism. Where else do you see this type of behavior in sports? It's an honest question, I may just be ignorant but it's not like Jimmie Johnson of NASCAR shares with his teammate Jeff Gordon because they finish 1-2 in a season or whatever.
Honestly, do you really think this many people(spectators) would find this unacceptable or illegitimate purely because of the fact that we are all ignorant to your progaming lifestyles and society? Not all of us are people out for blood and drama, I rarely post on this forum or particpate in eSports anymore, but that doesn't mean my judgment is impaired. Please understand that we have concerns about the direction that this may take Starcraft II as an eSport just the same as steroids affects baseball(obviously steroids would be cheating as opposed to this though.)
The vibe I get is that you feel it is okay to do because it's always been done apparently(from WC3, though I don't think I(or my team, of course) ever considered splitting in the dozens upon dozens of CS LANs I participated in throughout the years.) Labeling an entire community of people as ignorant and mis-informed is only a way to make yourself look worse; same with TT1 threatening to leave the TL community because he is being judged for his actions? Ridiculous.
its really simple:
its technically NOT their money at all, not until it transfers ownership after the games. therefore, the tournament can decide what to do with it. They havent won it yet, so its not theirs at all. And you cant agree to give away someone elses money. If you agree to a split beforehand it becomes okay AFTER getting the money. But, the tournament gives players money on the basis that they are seriously competing for it. So, players that do this are really cheating the tournament by not providing what they're being paid to provide. As such, this is basically fraud.
And people wonder why microsoft, RIAA, MPAA, and ISPs like comcast and such are so shady. Its your lives people, and you're making it by saying its Okay to commit fraud as long as two friends benefit from it.
Enron, people?
It's not their money? Where the fuck do you think the people running the tournament gets the money from? Oh that's right, from people watching the games. And who plays in the games? Yep, you guessed it, the players.
What kind of messed up world do you live in where it's fraud for two people to make an agreement between themselves?
Your example of two people making an agreement between themselves is me and my friend place a wager on a game of Starcraft 2, where we each buy in for $5 and the winner gets $7 and the loser gets $3. Before the game, we agree to split the winnings where we each get $5. Yes, in your scenario, there is nothing wrong with this deal, other than it's completely stupid.
However, your example does not take into account the financial investment of the event organizers and sponsors, who are investing in a "COMPETITIVE TOURNAMENT" with a specific negotiated prize structure. These people are what is considered a third party. The two friends are no longer by themselves, they are concealing a secret deal from the third party who has a financial interest in this deal not existing. There is quite the difference.
Deal making does not remove the competitive aspect of the game. If they're under contract from sponsors or from the specific tournament that no deal making shall be made then it would be unethical for them to do so.
If they signed a contract not to do it, it's not just unethical lol.
There is a new show on TV in the U.S. called "Take the Money and Run" wherein a team of 2 contestants have 1 hour to hide a briefcase of $100,000. Then, a team of 2 detectives has 48 hours to find the briefcase. If the cops find it, they win the $100,000, otherwise, the 2 that hid it, win the money. If the two teams made a deal to split the money and each got $50,000, how long would this show be on the air ? What's the difference ?
Are you kidding me? The goal of that show is to WIN THE MONEY. That's where you are going wrong. The goal of a progamer whenever they go to a tournament is not "holy shit im going to win so much money" it's "i'm going to win this tournament". If you are into progaming to earn money, then you are in the wrong fucking business.
On September 02 2011 17:35 DrTJEckleburg wrote: I don't see how the argument of "it's the player's money, let them share it if the want" holds any merit. It is completely true that it is there money to spend as they please, obviously in any way they prefer whether for rent, food, or pornography, etc.
The condescending attitude that is being expressed by ReignFayth(forgive me, no other progamer is really posting in this thread as much as you) is not appropriate. Yes, you may be getting these prize winnings and it may be an extremely low amount of money to support your hard lifestyle or the hardships you surely endure; unfortunately, your situation means nothing to me in terms of legitimacy and professionalism. Where else do you see this type of behavior in sports? It's an honest question, I may just be ignorant but it's not like Jimmie Johnson of NASCAR shares with his teammate Jeff Gordon because they finish 1-2 in a season or whatever.
Honestly, do you really think this many people(spectators) would find this unacceptable or illegitimate purely because of the fact that we are all ignorant to your progaming lifestyles and society? Not all of us are people out for blood and drama, I rarely post on this forum or particpate in eSports anymore, but that doesn't mean my judgment is impaired. Please understand that we have concerns about the direction that this may take Starcraft II as an eSport just the same as steroids affects baseball(obviously steroids would be cheating as opposed to this though.)
The vibe I get is that you feel it is okay to do because it's always been done apparently(from WC3, though I don't think I(or my team, of course) ever considered splitting in the dozens upon dozens of CS LANs I participated in throughout the years.) Labeling an entire community of people as ignorant and mis-informed is only a way to make yourself look worse; same with TT1 threatening to leave the TL community because he is being judged for his actions? Ridiculous.
its really simple:
its technically NOT their money at all, not until it transfers ownership after the games. therefore, the tournament can decide what to do with it. They havent won it yet, so its not theirs at all. And you cant agree to give away someone elses money. If you agree to a split beforehand it becomes okay AFTER getting the money. But, the tournament gives players money on the basis that they are seriously competing for it. So, players that do this are really cheating the tournament by not providing what they're being paid to provide. As such, this is basically fraud.
And people wonder why microsoft, RIAA, MPAA, and ISPs like comcast and such are so shady. Its your lives people, and you're making it by saying its Okay to commit fraud as long as two friends benefit from it.
Enron, people?
It's not their money? Where the fuck do you think the people running the tournament gets the money from? Oh that's right, from people watching the games. And who plays in the games? Yep, you guessed it, the players.
What kind of messed up world do you live in where it's fraud for two people to make an agreement between themselves?
Your example of two people making an agreement between themselves is me and my friend place a wager on a game of Starcraft 2, where we each buy in for $5 and the winner gets $7 and the loser gets $3. Before the game, we agree to split the winnings where we each get $5. Yes, in your scenario, there is nothing wrong with this deal, other than it's completely stupid.
However, your example does not take into account the financial investment of the event organizers and sponsors, who are investing in a "COMPETITIVE TOURNAMENT" with a specific negotiated prize structure. These people are what is considered a third party. The two friends are no longer by themselves, they are concealing a secret deal from the third party who has a financial interest in this deal not existing. There is quite the difference.
Deal making does not remove the competitive aspect of the game. If they're under contract from sponsors or from the specific tournament that no deal making shall be made then it would be unethical for them to do so.
If they signed a contract not to do it, it's not just unethical lol.
There is a new show on TV in the U.S. called "Take the Money and Run" wherein a team of 2 contestants have 1 hour to hide a briefcase of $100,000. Then, a team of 2 detectives has 48 hours to find the briefcase. If the cops find it, they win the $100,000, otherwise, the 2 that hid it, win the money. If the two teams made a deal to split the money and each got $50,000, how long would this show be on the air ? What's the difference ?
Mmmmm, that's too small of a microcosm IMO. That example removes the value of prestige and community support as well as other intangibles.
On September 02 2011 18:44 benjammin wrote: it was gamegune 2010 mexico, but i haven't found much. this was the stream: http://www.livestream.com/sc2lacom but they didn't seem to save the finals
Any idea where to find the player contracts for that? Probably not gonna be easily findable. Good to have a name at least.
If they signed a contract not to do it, it's not just unethical lol.
There is a new show on TV in the U.S. called "Take the Money and Run" wherein a team of 2 contestants have 1 hour to hide a briefcase of $100,000. Then, a team of 2 detectives has 48 hours to find the briefcase. If the cops find it, they win the $100,000, otherwise, the 2 that hid it, win the money. If the two teams made a deal to split the money and each got $50,000, how long would this show be on the air ? What's the difference ?
none. there's also a show called deal or no deal. if they took the dealing element out of that it'd be cancelled after 1 episode
On September 02 2011 18:42 meRz wrote: I guess it's a matter of what you care the most about. Most progamers got into this because they only care about winning, money is a nice bonus on the side if you eventually win, but also adds a shitton of pressure, taking your focus off the actual game and prestige.
Where do the people (sponsors) who are actually putting up the money for these events fall into the list of who to care about ? Because they are the ones that this deal-making affects. The integrity of the tournament.
I disagree. Aside from the money there's the prestige of winning. Compare it to tennis: do you think anybody would give a shit if Nadal and Federer decided to split the winnings of wimbledon if they met in the finals? Do you think either would just throw the match because they didn't care? No... the real prize is the trophy and the prestige of winning the tournament. That is what the players play for, although they need the prize money to make a living and keep playing.
On September 02 2011 18:15 meRz wrote: I don't get how this is even a problem. This would argueably even up the quality of a finals and make the players even more competitive against eachother.
When you take the money out of the equation you have two players who really could only really care about one thing, and that's winning. That's essentially what splitting does, at least from my perspective, you remove all the "omg I need to win because I fucking need the money". Sure, by splitting the players are removing tons of pressure off their shoulders which might be considered "weak" or "non-competitive" but in the end we all just care about winning, not winning MONEY. Essentially money is just a tool to keep us doing what we love to do, playing games on a competitive level.
EDIT: I just saw the post above me. Yes that's a no-brainer. If you are splitting the money you better give it your all to win the finals or else you're a fucking dick, basically pissing on competition and the spectators.
I think the biggest problem with this kind of deal is that it damages the trust that the spectators have in what they are seeing. E-sport is about having good games, but also about the story, and if you start to believe that the story you're told is fake you will have less interest in what is happening.
edit: nevermind, according to the gosugamer article the deal was made public, in this case i'm ok with that, and in anyway shape of form it was a dick move by fenix not to honor his words.
edit2: after reading the thread more extensively, especially Fayth posts and ToD I changed my mind about this,I don't really like the idea of having it 50/50 and would rather have something like 60/40, but I understand why progamers would do that, and as long as both the parties are ok with it I think they have the right to do whatever they want with their prize money.I might be naive but I wish it was public though.
On September 02 2011 17:35 DrTJEckleburg wrote: I don't see how the argument of "it's the player's money, let them share it if the want" holds any merit. It is completely true that it is there money to spend as they please, obviously in any way they prefer whether for rent, food, or pornography, etc.
The condescending attitude that is being expressed by ReignFayth(forgive me, no other progamer is really posting in this thread as much as you) is not appropriate. Yes, you may be getting these prize winnings and it may be an extremely low amount of money to support your hard lifestyle or the hardships you surely endure; unfortunately, your situation means nothing to me in terms of legitimacy and professionalism. Where else do you see this type of behavior in sports? It's an honest question, I may just be ignorant but it's not like Jimmie Johnson of NASCAR shares with his teammate Jeff Gordon because they finish 1-2 in a season or whatever.
Honestly, do you really think this many people(spectators) would find this unacceptable or illegitimate purely because of the fact that we are all ignorant to your progaming lifestyles and society? Not all of us are people out for blood and drama, I rarely post on this forum or particpate in eSports anymore, but that doesn't mean my judgment is impaired. Please understand that we have concerns about the direction that this may take Starcraft II as an eSport just the same as steroids affects baseball(obviously steroids would be cheating as opposed to this though.)
The vibe I get is that you feel it is okay to do because it's always been done apparently(from WC3, though I don't think I(or my team, of course) ever considered splitting in the dozens upon dozens of CS LANs I participated in throughout the years.) Labeling an entire community of people as ignorant and mis-informed is only a way to make yourself look worse; same with TT1 threatening to leave the TL community because he is being judged for his actions? Ridiculous.
its really simple:
its technically NOT their money at all, not until it transfers ownership after the games. therefore, the tournament can decide what to do with it. They havent won it yet, so its not theirs at all. And you cant agree to give away someone elses money. If you agree to a split beforehand it becomes okay AFTER getting the money. But, the tournament gives players money on the basis that they are seriously competing for it. So, players that do this are really cheating the tournament by not providing what they're being paid to provide. As such, this is basically fraud.
And people wonder why microsoft, RIAA, MPAA, and ISPs like comcast and such are so shady. Its your lives people, and you're making it by saying its Okay to commit fraud as long as two friends benefit from it.
Enron, people?
It's not their money? Where the fuck do you think the people running the tournament gets the money from? Oh that's right, from people watching the games. And who plays in the games? Yep, you guessed it, the players.
What kind of messed up world do you live in where it's fraud for two people to make an agreement between themselves?
Your example of two people making an agreement between themselves is me and my friend place a wager on a game of Starcraft 2, where we each buy in for $5 and the winner gets $7 and the loser gets $3. Before the game, we agree to split the winnings where we each get $5. Yes, in your scenario, there is nothing wrong with this deal, other than it's completely stupid.
However, your example does not take into account the financial investment of the event organizers and sponsors, who are investing in a "COMPETITIVE TOURNAMENT" with a specific negotiated prize structure. These people are what is considered a third party. The two friends are no longer by themselves, they are concealing a secret deal from the third party who has a financial interest in this deal not existing. There is quite the difference.
Deal making does not remove the competitive aspect of the game. If they're under contract from sponsors or from the specific tournament that no deal making shall be made then it would be unethical for them to do so.
If they signed a contract not to do it, it's not just unethical lol.
There is a new show on TV in the U.S. called "Take the Money and Run" wherein a team of 2 contestants have 1 hour to hide a briefcase of $100,000. Then, a team of 2 detectives has 48 hours to find the briefcase. If the cops find it, they win the $100,000, otherwise, the 2 that hid it, win the money. If the two teams made a deal to split the money and each got $50,000, how long would this show be on the air ? What's the difference ?
Mmmmm, that's too small of a microcosm IMO. That example removes the value of prestige and community support as well as other intangibles.
I was just looking at it from the perspective of how stupid the show would be for the viewer.
People aught to be realistic here. Yes its a competition, but it is also their jobs. Most of these players dont have a lot of base salary. Would you gamble away half your monthly wage at your regular job? Yes it's a different situation, but still comparable imo.
Splitting winnings is a common pratice in other "sports" as well, the final two at most large poker competitions will split the winnings.
Here's a link from 8 months ago that says the players agreed to chop. So for those earlier in the thread saying there is no evidence well here you go.
I guess if it was THAT public knowledgable the tournament did not have a non-compete claus or whatever. Otherwise they would probably be seeking damages. I guess that's ok if it was out in the public that much.
The example of Nadal and Federer is actually a terrible one lol...
Both make way, way, WAY more money from sponsorship and doing advertising on television, the prize-money is big and nothing they'd refuse to take, but both definitely don't rely on the money.
On September 02 2011 18:35 skeldark wrote: I missed an important point here or the hole thread is total pointless.
After the winner gets the money its his money. He can do with his money whatever he wants. So if he give a friend half of his money you can not disallow this. No one throw a match, everyone try to win, no one broke any rules...
You can't say no one broke any rules unless you can show that "deal making" regarding splitting of prizes is acceptable. In the entirety of this thread, we've seen links to cases of players being banned from MLG (not SC2 related, however) and pro players weighing in that it's done and they just need to keep it quiet. Based on what do you conclude that "no one broke any rules" in a prize-splitting agreement before a match ?
Is there a rule over how to spend the money after you won? Even if they make such a rule its pointless because you cannot say how he should spend HIS money... and lets say A and B are in the finals and make a deal. But the tournament say: you are not allowed to give YOUR pricemoney to someone else
Than he can: give it to Cc and C give it to B or give B 2500 from OTHER money he owns or buy something from B for 2500. you see how pointless it is try to force people how they should spend there money?
its not about HOW he spends his money AFTER hes won. Its about HOW the tournament WANTS to spend THEIR money BEFORE the players get it. And if they want their money to be spent on two players competing to their best, two players agreeing not to play their best behind the tournaments back, are thus defrauding the tournament and what it believes is happening in the transaction.
As if you agreed to sell a product to someone, and then they gave you fake money.
On September 02 2011 18:42 meRz wrote: I guess it's a matter of what you care the most about. Most progamers got into this because they only care about winning, money is a nice bonus on the side if you eventually win, but also adds a shitton of pressure, taking your focus off the actual game and prestige.
Where do the people (sponsors) who are actually putting up the money for these events fall into the list of who to care about ? Because they are the ones that this deal-making affects. The integrity of the tournament.
Do you even realize why sponsors are putting money into tournaments?
They only do it for exposure. As long as they get a legit final where 2 players are trying their absolute best to win then you are not hurting the sponsors. The integrity of a tournament is not hurt unless the player is a complete asshole, I've already stated in posts before this one that as long as the players don't act like assholes and stop trying because "they've already won money" then the integrity isn't compensated.
If you consider yourself a professional player then this shouldn't happen anyways. You should act professionally and give it your absolut best, split or not. If some players split and then don't even try and fuck around, then well they're not very professional players and should realize they are hurting the community, the tournament, and their own reputation.
On September 02 2011 17:35 DrTJEckleburg wrote: I don't see how the argument of "it's the player's money, let them share it if the want" holds any merit. It is completely true that it is there money to spend as they please, obviously in any way they prefer whether for rent, food, or pornography, etc.
The condescending attitude that is being expressed by ReignFayth(forgive me, no other progamer is really posting in this thread as much as you) is not appropriate. Yes, you may be getting these prize winnings and it may be an extremely low amount of money to support your hard lifestyle or the hardships you surely endure; unfortunately, your situation means nothing to me in terms of legitimacy and professionalism. Where else do you see this type of behavior in sports? It's an honest question, I may just be ignorant but it's not like Jimmie Johnson of NASCAR shares with his teammate Jeff Gordon because they finish 1-2 in a season or whatever.
Honestly, do you really think this many people(spectators) would find this unacceptable or illegitimate purely because of the fact that we are all ignorant to your progaming lifestyles and society? Not all of us are people out for blood and drama, I rarely post on this forum or particpate in eSports anymore, but that doesn't mean my judgment is impaired. Please understand that we have concerns about the direction that this may take Starcraft II as an eSport just the same as steroids affects baseball(obviously steroids would be cheating as opposed to this though.)
The vibe I get is that you feel it is okay to do because it's always been done apparently(from WC3, though I don't think I(or my team, of course) ever considered splitting in the dozens upon dozens of CS LANs I participated in throughout the years.) Labeling an entire community of people as ignorant and mis-informed is only a way to make yourself look worse; same with TT1 threatening to leave the TL community because he is being judged for his actions? Ridiculous.
its really simple:
its technically NOT their money at all, not until it transfers ownership after the games. therefore, the tournament can decide what to do with it. They havent won it yet, so its not theirs at all. And you cant agree to give away someone elses money. If you agree to a split beforehand it becomes okay AFTER getting the money. But, the tournament gives players money on the basis that they are seriously competing for it. So, players that do this are really cheating the tournament by not providing what they're being paid to provide. As such, this is basically fraud.
And people wonder why microsoft, RIAA, MPAA, and ISPs like comcast and such are so shady. Its your lives people, and you're making it by saying its Okay to commit fraud as long as two friends benefit from it.
Enron, people?
It's not their money? Where the fuck do you think the people running the tournament gets the money from? Oh that's right, from people watching the games. And who plays in the games? Yep, you guessed it, the players.
What kind of messed up world do you live in where it's fraud for two people to make an agreement between themselves?
Your example of two people making an agreement between themselves is me and my friend place a wager on a game of Starcraft 2, where we each buy in for $5 and the winner gets $7 and the loser gets $3. Before the game, we agree to split the winnings where we each get $5. Yes, in your scenario, there is nothing wrong with this deal, other than it's completely stupid.
However, your example does not take into account the financial investment of the event organizers and sponsors, who are investing in a "COMPETITIVE TOURNAMENT" with a specific negotiated prize structure. These people are what is considered a third party. The two friends are no longer by themselves, they are concealing a secret deal from the third party who has a financial interest in this deal not existing. There is quite the difference.
Deal making does not remove the competitive aspect of the game. If they're under contract from sponsors or from the specific tournament that no deal making shall be made then it would be unethical for them to do so.
If they signed a contract not to do it, it's not just unethical lol.
There is a new show on TV in the U.S. called "Take the Money and Run" wherein a team of 2 contestants have 1 hour to hide a briefcase of $100,000. Then, a team of 2 detectives has 48 hours to find the briefcase. If the cops find it, they win the $100,000, otherwise, the 2 that hid it, win the money. If the two teams made a deal to split the money and each got $50,000, how long would this show be on the air ? What's the difference ?
Mmmmm, that's too small of a microcosm IMO. That example removes the value of prestige and community support as well as other intangibles.
I was just looking at it from the perspective of how stupid the show would be for the viewer.
Yeah pretty stupid.
The more I check into this the more I find that tournaments already have control over the splitting issue. So it's a non-issue because tournaments can always call the two players out on breach of contract and seek compensation for damages. And if the breach is big enough it can lead to some pretty painful white collar penalties.
On September 02 2011 18:35 skeldark wrote: I missed an important point here or the hole thread is total pointless.
After the winner gets the money its his money. He can do with his money whatever he wants. So if he give a friend half of his money you can not disallow this. No one throw a match, everyone try to win, no one broke any rules...
You can't say no one broke any rules unless you can show that "deal making" regarding splitting of prizes is acceptable. In the entirety of this thread, we've seen links to cases of players being banned from MLG (not SC2 related, however) and pro players weighing in that it's done and they just need to keep it quiet. Based on what do you conclude that "no one broke any rules" in a prize-splitting agreement before a match ?
Is there a rule over how to spend the money after you won? Even if they make such a rule its pointless because you cannot say how he should spend HIS money... and lets say A and B are in the finals and make a deal. But the tournament say: you are not allowed to give YOUR pricemoney to someone else
Than he can: give it to Cc and C give it to B or give B 2500 from OTHER money he owns or buy something from B for 2500. you see how pointless it is try to force people how they should spend there money?
its not about HOW he spends his money AFTER hes won. Its about HOW the tournament WANTS to spend THEIR money BEFORE the players get it. And if they want their money to be spent on two players competing to their best, two players agreeing not to play their best behind the tournaments back, are thus defrauding the tournament and what it believes is happening in the transaction.
As if you agreed to sell a product to someone, and then they gave you fake money.
Either way i show that you can not make a rule to disalow it. its just impossible.
And who say that the player dont give there best? because there is no money to win? If you ladder do you play extra bad only because you dont win money?
1) its obvious there can not be a rule to disallow it. 2) obvious its not against any law so its not illegal like the op try to say 3) you can argue that the finals are worse than but i don't get why they should be....
On September 02 2011 18:45 meRz wrote: If you are into progaming to earn money, then you are in the wrong fucking business.
what? if you are not doing it to earn money, why would you become a PROgamer? you could just have an ordinary job and play for fun... seriously wtf
No it's actually the complete opposite. If you dont want to become a progamer, just get a job that gives you decent salary. The only reason progamers or"professional gamers" who try to make a living on gaming exists is because the time investement needed to be at the very top is 8-12 hours a day and there's no time for an extra job or school, thus due to the nature of reality (i.e you need money to survive in any scenario) you start trying to make money doing something you really love.
How do you think professional sports started anyways? Do you think someone just woke up one day thinking "holy SHIT I'm going to earn so much money playing football"
No.
It was more like "I'm really passionate about football I love doing this, I want to keep doing this for as long as I can, to do that, I require money."
EDIT:
Do you think players such as KiWiKaKi is in this for the money? The guy has a so much easier time making a living on Poker for example.
Prizes create a legitimacy for the tournament and they make the games more exciting. How often do you hear casters say "If he wins this next engagement he might go home with FIFTY BILLION DOLLARS!!" or some such? I hear it every single finals. To know that there is a real monetary incentive to play your very best and that there is pressure going into the games makes the finals of a major tournament stand out from a Go4SC2 finals between 2 good players.
When a player wins a large tournament and holds up his giant cheque I find it deceitful to have secretly made that cheque non relevant to the finals. The money is yours to do with as you please, but I do not have to like it. And please, if you plan to ruin another finals, just dont tell anyone. Ignorance was bliss for me atleast.
On September 02 2011 18:35 skeldark wrote: I missed an important point here or the hole thread is total pointless.
After the winner gets the money its his money. He can do with his money whatever he wants. So if he give a friend half of his money you can not disallow this. No one throw a match, everyone try to win, no one broke any rules...
You can't say no one broke any rules unless you can show that "deal making" regarding splitting of prizes is acceptable. In the entirety of this thread, we've seen links to cases of players being banned from MLG (not SC2 related, however) and pro players weighing in that it's done and they just need to keep it quiet. Based on what do you conclude that "no one broke any rules" in a prize-splitting agreement before a match ?
Is there a rule over how to spend the money after you won? Even if they make such a rule its pointless because you cannot say how he should spend HIS money... and lets say A and B are in the finals and make a deal. But the tournament say: you are not allowed to give YOUR pricemoney to someone else
Than he can: give it to Cc and C give it to B or give B 2500 from OTHER money he owns or buy something from B for 2500. you see how pointless it is try to force people how they should spend there money?
its not about HOW he spends his money AFTER hes won. Its about HOW the tournament WANTS to spend THEIR money BEFORE the players get it. And if they want their money to be spent on two players competing to their best, two players agreeing not to play their best behind the tournaments back, are thus defrauding the tournament and what it believes is happening in the transaction.
As if you agreed to sell a product to someone, and then they gave you fake money.
Either way i show that you can not make a rule to disalow it. its just impossible.
And who say that the player dont give there best? because there is no money to win? If you ladder do you play extra bad only because you dont win money?
1) its obvious there can not be a rule to disallow it. 2) obvious its not against any law so its not illegal like the op try to say 3) you can argue that the finals are worse than but i don't get why they should be....
Its pretty obvious you can. if the tournament puts a clause that states that there be no "agreements between players that will detract how the tournament plays out, and that all players must play to win or lose all the money, and that if any said agreement about sharing money to losers in a pact is found to have been made before the games or during, the players must forfeit their earnings", then yea, even if it becomes their money temporarily, they did it in breach of contract and thus can have their money taken away legally.
of course they cant say how you spend it after you own it, but they can say under what conditions you come to own it in the first place. and if those conditions are violated, you can't spend it after the fact.
So its not impossible. Once he gets the money without breaking the contract, he can go nuts and give away ALL OF IT to any player he wants, or to a homeless person. But he can't breach the contract and do the same. If the contract forbids him making deals before-hand, he can't say "nu-uh its my money I do what I want", because the contract is valid before play commences and before money changes hands, in fact the exchange of money is inherently a part of the contract on the commencement of untainted play from the players.
You canNOT, under any legal system, claim FUTURE rights when you have no binding agreements to those rights in the future in the present where you're claiming them.
How can people not see this clear logical fallacy and defend blindly these people's behaviors.
EPT
