“ARE BIG-MONEY MATCHES GOOD FOR ANGLING?”

Nick Bevan

– “There’s nothing wrong with the big-money competitions. They attract thousands of anglers which translates into revenue going into fishing through ticket sales.”

Roy Gudgeon

– “What I think is damaging is the plethora of small matches which are then split into even smaller matches of four- or five-peg sections with no overall winner. You don’t even cover your costs if you win.”

Alex Fanshawe

– “Match fishing and angling are about as similar as ping pong and tennis, in my opinion.”

Ryan Couch

– “They are good for match angling but I’d like to see more big-money comps on natural venues.”

CeeDee Dickinson

– “There is a desire among anglers for decent prize money competitions. These attract people to the sport just as top-flight competitions do in other areas. Why the Angling Trust doesn’t have a decent prize money competition in the UK, under FIPSED Coarse Fishing rules, is a mystery.”

Harvey Wright

– “Nothing wrong with it at all. If you’re good at something, why shouldn’t you have a chance to win life-changing amounts of money? I prefer to watch RiverFest or Feeder Masters, as I prefer natural water fishing, but I admire anyone at the top of their game.”

Ben Hughes

– “There are too many of them now. Given the cost of fishing qualifiers for the big-money matches they’re only accessible to the same small collective of top anglers. These matches are all pulling from the same pool of anglers, which is why entries for these events are down – they’re being spread too thin and anglers are now having to choose carefully which events they fish to avoid clashes. Unless some private investment is found, I don’t think big-money finals will be around for much longer because there’s less and less revenue being generated by ticket sales.”