If we can move past this bad phase in the sport, we may one day look back and say we were lucky this happened. It helped us focus on what is important.”

So said World Pool Association (WPA) President Ishaun Singh following the announcement that the world governing body and Matchroom Pool had reached an agreement that would clear the way for all players to play in both Matchroom World Nineball Tour and WPA-sanctioned tournaments for the next 12 months, with hopes that the truce between the two parties would continue for years to come.

While worth the wait, the agreement between Matchroom and the WPA took nearly four months to hash out. The key to the entire conversation, according to sources close to the talks, was the immediate removal of bans imposed by the WPA on more than 200 players who had participated in the unsanctioned WNT Hanoi Open in October 2024.

Once the WPA received the votes from its members agreeing to drop the bans, the two sides sorted through numerous iterations of the agreement before eventually signing the one-year deal.

But the deal eventually got done for one reason: both sides were committed to getting it done. It was a shift in attitude from the cold war that raged for two years, during which the two sides took turns emphasizing that attempts to converse had been exhausted and that it was time for each to move forward with its own plans.

To me, the difference was obvious. And it started with the Hanoi. When the WPA set a hard rules enforcement deadline of Oct. 1, players were finally faced with having to make a choice to participate in the WNT Hanoi event or confine themselves to WPA-sanctioned tournaments. Many players with contractual obligations to their national federations, particularly European, determined the WNT event too risky. Those who participated in the Hanoi Open were, indeed, banned from future WPA events.

Suddenly, the players were divided. Players began looking to 2025 with great concern, calculating which side offered more potential for both prize money and opportunity. Speaking to many, I found the common threads to be disillusionment, frustration and anger with both sides.

Eventually, both organizations realized, as Singh put it, “that the division with the players and negativity was not going to work for either of us.”

Forget that they insisted on taking things that far before realizing that the fork they’d created in the road led nowhere in two directions. At least they eventually realized their decisions were at the expense of the very players both insisted they were trying to protect and support.

In a backhanded way, the players helped make this happen. Despite their inability to make a united stand to force Matchroom and the WPA to settle their own differences, the players’ becoming fractured served the same purpose. The watering down of the product; the sudden animosity between players; the lack of solid support for either promoter. All were factors in getting the WPA and Matchroom back to the table and convincing them to stay there until a deal was secured.

On the other side of the political spectrum is June cover girl Laura Friedman. Mike Geffner’s feature on the newly elected congresswoman’s long and winding road from New York’s Chelsea Billiards to Hollywood and on to Washington, D.C., is fascinating.

What is not in the story, however, is that the congresswoman was a regular contributor to BD from 1996-’99. Her monthly column, “Off the Rail,” was one of the best in the magazine. Not surprisingly, Friedman, who has excelled at anything she’s ever attempted, proved to be a talented writer, sharing thought-provoking insight on women’s pool, the sport in general and her journey as an aspiring player. I knew then we’d see her name again in the future!