PDPA players pension pot idea

[Dannyboy]

Just listened to Wayne Mardle's podcast interview - he had an idea that in my opinion is a very good one.

The PDPA take their 2% take of prize money already - for me this is too high and would rather see a £1k threshold put in place to help lower ranked players. His idea is than an extra 8% (rounding it up to 10%) is put into a pot that is released when a player retires / loses their tour card.

Mardle noted that he retired early at 38 and that he was lucky that he had a contract with Sky to fall back on as well as a lucrative exhibition circuit. Clearly not many people will have this behind them and with more and more events and travelling needed than when the likes of Taylor and Priestley were up and coming, there will be less and less players competing in their 40s and 50s.

Like with other sports, professionals need to 'make hay while the sun shines', but also requires close financial management to last their wealth into their later years (or in crises such as the coronavirus). It would also make it a bit more efficient for tax reasons.

Michael van Gerwen turned 30 last year. Is he going to be doing this for another 15 years? He has won over £8.1m in prize money since the tour card came in, in 2011. He would've contributed £162k in PDC levies and would have £648k in the retirement pot up until now.

Corey Cadby has fallen off the tour for his own reasons. He would've contributed £1.5k in PDPA levies since being rewarded his tour card, but would have over a £6k nest egg which would tie him over for a bit.

[Ginge]

Surely any sensible self employed person needs to be making their own pension arrangements. You cant hold everyones hand ffs.

[ILAD]

The PDC are greedy bastards and should pay all the players a pension.

[oche balboa]

Hearn doesnt own players a pension

[Rout]

When it comes to handing out piddly fines for posting on social media or having a few too many, the line is "They are essentially employees, no employer would allow their staff to... blah blah"

When it comes to things like this, players are self employed and on their own.

[ILAD]

Rout hates the PDC, episode 10003456774322212233........

[Gruntface]

Putting money aside is a good idea but there is nothing stopping players doing this already and probably with more tax efficient options given players live all over.

Not sure players would want that choice taken away by swallowing up up to 10% of earnings.

It also wouldn't be a pension if drawn on immediately. It would just be a rainy day fund at best and if the premise is supporting players on retirement it shouldn't be available all at once but rather drawn down on to further protect the players from spaffing it away.

The idea of savings is good but feel this is best left to players. Not only would any sort of fund incur additional admin costs in top of the amounts but it also is not going to maximise each players own circumstances.

[el_ringo]

£12 Million in prize money was won by PDPA members in 2019 the fund would be rather large in a few years as it would be growing at over a million a year at 10%.
I doubt anyone within the PDPA is suitable qualified to invest this fund. So someone would have to be foudn who could give at least an equal return on payers investment that the normal pension firms can do.

Before long the PDPA would be an attractive take over target for some unscrupulous person(s) to get hold of this amount

Does darts and professional dart players really need this ?

[1205]

£12 Million in prize money was won by PDPA members in 2019 the fund would be rather large in a few years as it would be growing at over a million a year at 10%.
I doubt anyone within the PDPA is suitable qualified to invest this fund. So someone would have to be foudn who could give at least an equal return on payers investment that the normal pension firms can do.

Before long the PDPA would be an attractive take over target for some unscrupulous person(s) to get hold of this amount

Does darts and professional dart players really need this ?

Any large pool of money is an attractive target, including every pension fund in the world. That's not a reason not to have some kind of retirement fund.

Simply offering a pension would be reasonable, even if optional. Make it opt-out rather than opt-in, because opt-out means people have to go to some trouble not to save.

If they want to make it lift all boats, rather than being a simple group fund, that's a different discussion.

[TheVillan]

If they choose to retire then they ought to have thought through how they will continue to fund themselves. If they lose their card, does that not mean they're effectively losing their "job" for non-performance?

If I were a profitable player, I think I'd be miffed at giving up 10% of what I would have won in order to bail out those who aren't profitable or aren't being responsible for their own futures.

[Ginge]

If they choose to retire then they ought to have thought through how they will continue to fund themselves. If they lose their card, does that not mean they're effectively losing their "job" for non-performance?

If I were a profitable player, I think I'd be miffed at giving up 10% of what I would have won in order to bail out those who aren't profitable or aren't being responsible for their own futures.

I dont think anyone is advocating players give up 10% to bail out others, are they?

When work take out money of my salary every month for my pension its only for my own, not for anyone else.

[waddle147]

It's a non-starter, at least as a compulsory measure. Of the 128 tour card holders, probably 70 of them are either running at a loss or just about covering costs with their tournament winnings. There'd probably be another 10-15 or so who'd find it difficult to manage without the extra 8% now. So we're more or less down to the top 40 or so before we start.

It also makes the assumption that players are too stupid to put a bit of money aside, or that they'd have no earning potential after retirement.

[TheVillan]

I dont think anyone is advocating players give up 10% to bail out others, are they?

When work take out money of my salary every month for my pension its only for my own, not for anyone else.

My initial interpretation was of a communal hardship fund but tbh having re-read it this is just more like a traditional savings scheme. Not sure why the PDPA would want to get involved past general advice of "get a financial adviser".

[hankeys_taint]

There is merit in the idea. I'd see it working like the Professional Cricketers Association. The contribution is not towards a pension as such but as a way to support players adjust to life away from darts. For example, funding training / education, player welfare and so on. It could also be used to give them a united voice (I have no idea if there is a current union / collective for players) with regards to how the game goes forward.

Would also be beneficial in offering education related to being a professional especially to those new to the PDA.

As for a pension, better off sorting your own stuff out. Sure, there is a case for a collective fund but with the differences in amounts won individual plans are better.