The Poker Players’ Alliance has been a part of the poker community since 2004, but it has been most active since “Black Friday” hit back in 2011. The PPA, and especially the president John Pappas, was one of the most vocal advocates for online poker since the crippling of the U. S. poker scene, with Pappas often testifying in front of state and federal political bodies advocating for the passage of online poker regulation (or, in those cases where it was present, advocating against banning online poker). That is about to change, however.
Over the weekend it was announced that Pappas, who took over for Michael Bolcerek in 2007, would be stepping down from his position as President of the PPA. Replacing him is perhaps the only other figure that has been quite visible in the organization, Vice President and Director of Player Relations Rich Muny, with the change taking effect immediately. While there is no reason given for Pappas’ resignation (in an interview with GamblingCompliance, Pappas alluded to a “funding shortfall” that left him “unable to continue on in my current capacity”), he will remain on as a “strategic advisor” and on the PPA Board of Directors.
The statement to GamblingCompliance is perhaps the most problematic thing for the future of the PPA. If you cannot pay someone to be the “face” of the organization, just how much effect are you having in the political realm? And what is the future of an organization that is, for all practical purposes, broke?
The challenges facing Muny are extensive. There are plenty of states that are examining online gaming and/or poker regulations and it would be imperative that there would be a voice for poker in those debates. There is also the case in the U. S. Supreme Court that would overturn the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) of 1992, allowing all states to offer sports betting both live and online. So where does the PPA – or, as it appears now, Muny – put its efforts?
That is one of the things that the PPA, surprisingly, is trying to figure out. A survey is currently available that is asking the membership just how much the organization should embrace the sports betting front and whether it should join forces with other organizations in fighting for the overturning of the law. The results of that survey have not been released and, even if they are and demonstrate that the membership believes that sports betting should be pursued, what good is that if the organization is without funds to be able to pursue the issue?
Back in the mid-2000s, the PPA garnered the support of poker players as it attempted to ward off any legislation that would infringe on the rights of online poker and its players. After 2006 and the passage and signing of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, many in the poker community became a bit disillusioned with the organization, with the PPA itself saying that it was able to “hold off” the passage of such a law because of its efforts (most players didn’t agree).
From 2007 to 2011, it was basically the status quo as the PPA fought against an outright ban on online poker (the UIGEA made it illegal to FUND a gambling account over the internet, not illegal to PLAY online poker) and expanded into individual states’ efforts to infringe on the rights of poker players in general. The PPA was involved in court cases in South Carolina, New York, and other states, helping to change attitudes in legislatures and courtrooms across the country.
That would end in 2011. “Black Friday” brought about a seismic change in the U. S. online poker scene in the departure of the “Big Three” – PokerStars, Full Tilt Poker and the CEREUS Network’s UB.com and Absolute Poker – from its shores. Furthermore, the money that these companies was providing the PPA for lobbying efforts dried up. The PPA itself took a black eye when it was revealed that those involved in the malfeasance at Full Tilt Poker (Howard Lederer and Chris Ferguson) were high ranking members of the Board of Directors of the PPA.
Since that time, the PPA has significantly had to curb its advocacy, with Pappas and sometimes Muny paying out of their own pocket to reach a hearing in a state. The biggest effect (and this is questionable) has been their “Daily Action Plan,” which has either “changed minds” or “infuriated those who you’d like to have on your side,” depending on how you want to read hundreds of Tweets and Facebook posts to individual lawmakers. If four states having online gaming and/or poker regulations over a decade of efforts is supposed to be a “success story,” then we’d hate to see what the downside would be.
The PPA has made mistakes and it is questionable whether they have fully recognized or recovered from them. After the UIGEA passage, the PPA attempted (unsuccessfully) to say that they had helped to stave off the passage of such laws. After “Black Friday” and the poker community learning just how infiltrated by the online poker companies the PPA had become, the PPA had another opportunity to change its ways. It is arguable to say that the PPA, who once said it was the “voice of the poker community,” is now only the voice of itself, because the players don’t support it.
While Muny and the Board of Directors (by the way, who without looking KNOWS who is on the Board of Directors?) seem like the right people to keep the PPA going, wouldn’t it be a better move for a “voice of the players” to have a say in what is going on with the organization? Wouldn’t it be better to perhaps have other leadership to drive membership and perhaps bring in more membership revenues? Wouldn’t it be a better idea to join forces with online gaming advocates instead of saying that “we work for poker alone?” After all, one only needs to look at New Jersey to see that online casino gaming is the driver of online gaming, not poker.
What would the players like to see from the Poker PLAYERS’ Alliance? Other than the recent survey regarding sports betting, the people have been seldom asked what direction the organization should head. With a time of leadership change, perhaps the players should vocally say what is needed to Muny, even to the point of not having an organization at all.
