Nick,
very good observations and points. I'll try to answer in a sensible manner.
First, given the history of tournament ball, as well as my own personal history (ie - screwed hard up the butt with a splintery telephone pole, without consent, without lube and on repeated occassions) I felt the need to be able to control the format, who participated in it, who could use it, how it would be used, etc.
Basically, my partners and I wanted the freedom to be able to set the standard, after which we had always planned on opening things up.
Given the proper environment, I'd be happy to forego the above.
(In reality, opening things up for use is an economic necessity, if for only one reason - where do the trained players come from? The comprehensive USPL league plan sets out the establishment of 'little leagues', private leagues, amateur leagues, professional ball, for fun leagues, etc.)
Second, the USPL format is not inexpensive to run (at least initially, there is a fair amount of up-front cost). By licensing the format, we are able to provide users with an exclusive property, one which they can use to make back some of that investment.
Thirdly, we wanted to control at least some of the manner in which money was made off of the format; our structure supported the obtaining of outside dollars and provided promoters, field owners, etc with incentives and opportunities to gain local and national advertising and marketing support.
(There were several licensing schemes, one of which cost less than the others, but mandated that the licensee would display X number of national advertiser's copy on their field.)
Fourth, following on from above: any large company who is being asked to spend large dollars for marketing wants to see what they are getting; the license requirements allowed us to go to those kinds of companies with a solid, believable plan, one which showed them how their dollars were going to be used in a business like, demonstrable and contractual manner.
Fifth, our 'pro' league structure served to concentrate things at venues which had at least the minimal requirements to support the format and league play. To compliment the paying licensees, we offered a 'team practice' license (at no cost), which was convertable, available for the asking to any team(s) that wanted to use the format but which did not have a licensed field within driving distance.
Sixth, that same licensing plan mandated the MAXIMUM fees that teams would be paying for use of the field, paint used at the field, air fills at the field - all supporting the concept of relying on outside dollars to fund it, as opposed to jamming players for it.
There's lots more, Nick - LOTS, but all of it relies on me saying: this is the way to do it for now, trust me and you'll see how it will benefit everyone. If you don't buy that concept (despite my history) none of the rest of it will seem right either.
All I can say is this: I watched numerous promoters screw over the teams for years, I decided that I could do something about it and set out to do so. I didn't show up at the formative NPPL meeting saying 'I'm taking over tournament ball here in the states' (something that several attendees at that meeting said they were worried about and were surprised that I didn't do it). I provided my WPF services free of charge, I provided my scoring services free of charge, I wrote the rules free of charge, etc., etc., etc.,
I've never been about money and the only times I seek 'control' are in those circumstances where I feel that certain things need to be done in certain ways; once things are rolling, I've been happy to (and have) stepped back.
If you (or anyone else) would like to see copies of the licensing program, league structure or anything else developed for USPL back in 98/99, I'd be happy to forward them to you. Our books were open as well and continue to be.
I have just one observation about your 'throw them both out there and the better format will win' comment. IF the industry were a level playing field, I'd be more than happy too - in fact, I'd welcome the challenge. But we both know that its not a level playing field. I've seen teams threatened with dire standing consequences if they even think about playing someone else's format, I've seen people offer a 'free paint day' to kill an event's attendance, I've heard company owners calling up other company owners and telling them that no more orders will be forthcoming so long as the company is associated with a league, or a team or an individual, etc.
The politics in this industry are dirty - very very dirty, underhanded and disgusting. Hardly anyone builds things first and then takes their profit. Everyone is suspicious of everyone else's motivations. No one trusts someone who just wants to make things better and everyone thinks that they must be the ONLY one doing something.
Give me a level playing field and I'll pretty much be willing to do anything with the patent. But so long as paintball remains the snake pit that it is, I've got to do what I think necessary to protect my investment.
