Nick Metcalfe snooker column: With this much disquiet among fans, is Saudi tournament really worth it?

Written and published prior to confirmation of a new ranking event in Saudi Arabia, which is scheduled to take place later this year following an announcement from the WST and is in addition to the invitational event from March 4-6

"I'm at the grim acceptance stage."

"I'm personally not going to argue against it, but I don't like it."

"We'll have to grin and bear it."

They're among the most positive comments I've heard from snooker fans over news that a tournament will be held in Saudi Arabia. Yes, you read that right, the most positive comments.

When the mere hosting of an event causes this much disquiet among those who love the sport, it's fair to raise the question over whether the whole venture is really worth it.

Saudi Arabia is one of the worst human rights violators on the planet. Their violations are outlined clearly by Amnesty International, which you can find for yourself at the click of a button.

This is not to say that any country is perfect. My home country, the United Kingdom, certainly isn't. It feels more divided than it has for maybe two generations. There's extreme poverty here. Some recent policy decisions from UK governments clearly fall into the morally questionable category.

But there are levels. Anybody seriously trying to compare countries like Saudi Arabia and the UK in terms of human rights and freedoms in 2024 is being thoroughly disingenuous.

I don't want this to just be about some frantic search for the moral high ground however - a place that I realise us journalists love to frequent. Every single person reading this can be taken to task for their own personal choices and histories. Okay, the writer of this column could be too. Everybody is a hypocrite to some extent. But don't we have a duty to limit that hypocrisy when we can?

What can't be denied is the levels of money on offer for players heading to Saudi Arabia for the ten-player event in March. Similar riches will then presumably be on offer for a full ranking tournament, which is likely to follow next season. And as we know snooker players on the whole aren't like those competing in golf or tennis. Many are really struggling financially, especially those outside the world's top 50. The attractions of a potential big payday are there for all to see.

One of my issues however is that I can't think of a second reason to justify the Saudi event and so far nobody else has been able to provide me with one. Therefore it seems to be a pretty simple case of asking whether a load of cash is enough in itself to override the significant issues over morality. I suppose that question is at the very heart of this for me.

Some of my attempts to find more balance have led to points being put forward by others that I do take on board. Perhaps none more effective than those asking why the people of Saudi Arabia can't just enjoy a sporting event in their country. Why should they be held responsible for the actions of their government? As I write this, I can see the faces of the many Saudi people I met at the Qatar World Cup just over a year ago. Pretty much to a person they were a delight, and understandably thrilled that big-time sport was in the region. Don't they deserve nice things on their doorstep?

But the moral issues always feel so close by. I've had women and people from LGBT communities contact me in recent days to say they wouldn't feel safe travelling to see the event. Whichever view you take on this complex matter, this is so disturbing. Where does it all sit with snooker's drive for diversity?

Many fans have raised China's involvement in snooker. That country also has a terrible human rights record. To be honest, that's really a question for previous generations of journalists to address, when tournaments first went to China. From my memory and the conversations I've had, there was far less coverage of questions over morality in newspapers and elsewhere in the media, and in most cases next to no reference at all. But in fairness to those past scribes, we simply knew far less about such issues thirty or forty years ago. Today's pundits don't have that problem. We can find things out within a matter of seconds.

Also, China's love affair with snooker is evident for all to see. Some of the best players in the world are Chinese. Audiences in the tens of millions watch snooker on television in the country. They teach the sport in schools there.

None of that applies to Saudi Arabia, a country with no connection to snooker whatsoever. Hence the legitimate charge of 'sportswashing' being levelled here, one that has also dogged the Saudis with their involvement in Newcastle United, the creation of the breakaway LIV Golf tour and staging of high-profile events like world title boxing fights.

It's true that this event may well go ahead despite our misgivings. But since when is that a good reason to not speak out? Don't we have a duty to raise these moral issues and where appropriate try to draw our own lines in the sand?

Of those voting in a poll carried out by the podcast I co-present, Talking Snooker, two thirds said they were uncomfortable with this tournament. Take a look at Twitter, Reddit and online snooker forums. This isn't a both-sided matter where fans of the sport are concerned, nothing like it.

So again, I ask the question, one that is occupying the minds of snooker people everywhere: Is it really worth it?

Ronnie retirement talk relevant again... but I can't see it

I really liked Ken Doherty suggesting Ronnie O'Sullivan may retire from the sport if he wins an eighth world title this spring.

Somehow, Doherty managed to breathe some life into one of sport's most moribund topics. O'Sullivan has threatened to quit in pretty much every one of his 30-plus years on tour. Most of us stopped listening around the turn of the century.

However, for a pundit to actually name a date for O'Sullivan to walk away. Now that's interesting.

Let's be clear on one matter. If O'Sullivan does walk away after another Crucible triumph, it will be the Hollywood moment to beat all others, even in his absurd storied life.

Beating Stephen Hendry's total of world titles in the modern era. Completing the Triple Crown set in a single season for the first time, making it 8-8-8 in UK, Masters and world crowns. Being clear at the top as the undisputed world No.1 when close to his fifties. It would be brilliant and outrageous and in many ways pure perfection.

But like most pundits, I can't see it. Walking off into the sunset when you're still the best and so many prizes are up for grabs? I think O'Sullivan is too much of a competitive animal to turn all that down. At the age of 48, his powers don't appear to be on the wane in the slightest. He looks to be sitting pretty for the next five years, and maybe beyond that.

We still have to thank Doherty mind, even if it doesn't happen. He's actually made the dreaded words Ronnie and retirement relevant for a while.

• For more from Nick Metcalfe, listen to Talking Snooker or follow him on twitter