Consultation on the Draft FIDE Live Moves Broadcasting Policy

[Chris Goodall]

Yes, it very well might be. When cricketers were banned from consideration for Test cricket, they had no right as such to play at that level, but the ban was ruled illegal nonetheless.

No it wasn't. No ban was ever "ruled illegal". That's simply untrue - don't know what more I can say.

I think you may find (and the matter may have been discussed on the International forum, when we have discussed cheating in chess and the possible consequences of issuing bans) that preventing people from participating in lawful activities is not necessarily trivial. A federation may have to demonstrate not only that a rule has been broken, but that it was proper to have that rule in the first place. I wonder if they would necessarily succeed, where the function of the rule is to prevent people from playing chess and its purpose is to protect a monopoly that does not exist in law.

With a little imagination, you can assert that a federation may have to do almost anything. Show me a single example of a chess sanction being overturned by a secular legal system on the ground that a rule was not "proper".

[JustinHorton]

With regard to your second point, so what? How often have people had to go to the courts against the chess authorities?

With regard to your first point, what's your objection to my interpretation of the 1977 case, which went against the cricket authorities?

[Paolo Casaschi]

For example, do you remember when the European football associations tried to limit the number of foreign players in their teams, including the ones from other EU countries? They tried adding such a rule for their members, they were challenged in court, they lost.

And that's why we don't have a rule any more that clubs must include 8 home-grown players in their 25-man squad... oh wait, yes we do.

If you are claiming that the Bosman ruling did not fundamentally change the system of rules and regulations in European football, if you are denying that the Bosman ruling reversed a number of rules and regulation that the football associations thought they could apply to their members in contradiction to the EU workers' freedom of movement principle, then I seriously doubt your assessment of the chances for the FIDE proposal to survive a legal challenge.

Moreover, before even questioning whether FIDE will be ultimately be allowed to act on such a regulation, I yet have to see a clear argument why such a regulation would be beneficial to the chess world. Keep in mind, a few people making a better profit, that is not a necessarily beneficial to the chess world. Personally, I believe it would be beneficial to the development of chess to have several options for watching major chess events, in different languages, aimed at different chess skill levels. Last but not least, as Michael Pein points out, before pretending to have exclusive broadcasting rights for major events you need to show your ability to deliver a good coverage: Agon clearly missed on this for the candidates this year.

[Roger de Coverly]

With regard to your second point, so what? How often have people had to go to the courts against the chess authorities?

The Blackpool Congress got taken to the Small Claims Court in recent years. They tried to retrospectively disqualify the winner of one of their grading restricted sections from first prize. They lost. Although he didn't have a current grade, they had accepted his entry and didn't have the form of words restricting the prizes of any ungraded players outside of the Open.

[NickFaulks]

Moreover, before even questioning whether FIDE will be ultimately be allowed to act on such a regulation, I yet have to see a clear argument why such a regulation would be beneficial to the chess world.

On my count, that now makes it 2-1, plus a lot of fence-sitters.

[Chris Goodall]

With regard to your second point, so what? How often have people had to go to the courts against the chess authorities?

With regard to your first point, what's your objection to my interpretation of the 1977 case, which went against the cricket authorities?

So there aren't any examples, you're just speculating.

In the 1977 case, the "ban" you're talking about was PR-speak for a employment dispute between two rival employers. It had nothing to do with cricket; they could have been shipbuilders or violinists. Since FIDE doesn't employ people to play chess, you can't compare the two.

[Chris Goodall]

Moreover, before even questioning whether FIDE will be ultimately be allowed to act on such a regulation, I yet have to see a clear argument why such a regulation would be beneficial to the chess world.

On my count, that now makes it 2-1, plus a lot of fence-sitters.

Nick, what are you contributing other than stirring? I've no doubt it'll be 50-1 in the end, because chess players like free stuff.

[Chris Goodall]

I yet have to see a clear argument why such a regulation would be beneficial to the chess world. Keep in mind, a few people making a better profit, that is not a necessarily beneficial to the chess world.

Because it increases the chances of making chess tournaments financially viable in their own right, without having to resort to begging dictators for free gifts. That's a perfectly clear argument, you just didn't agree with it.

[Roger de Coverly]

Because it increases the chances of making chess tournaments financially viable in their own right,

If it is possible to run a chess tournament purely with finance from on-line users, it will be the established chess sites like chess.com, chess24, ICC etc. who will be doing it and in some limited cases already have done so. It won't be Agon and FIDE popping up a handful of times a year. In fact you could speculate that the chess sites are sufficiently well established that they could set up a world governing body in parallel with, or opposition to FIDE.

[Paolo Casaschi]

I yet have to see a clear argument why such a regulation would be beneficial to the chess world. Keep in mind, a few people making a better profit, that is not a necessarily beneficial to the chess world.

Because it increases the chances of making chess tournaments financially viable in their own right, without having to resort to begging dictators for free gifts. That's a perfectly clear argument, you just didn't agree with it.

This is wishful thinking. There’s no evidence that sponsors would be found under those circumstances. Agon over the last few years promised several times that major sponsoring deals were about to be signed. Time and again that turned out not to be true, every time with different excuses. The track of record of Agon does not necessarily gives them credibility. Just look at the numbers they sometimes quote in their communications... number of chessplayers in the world... number of viewers for a given event and so on...

[JustinHorton]

In the 1977 case, the "ban" you're talking about was PR-speak for a employment dispute between two rival employers.

In the 1977 case, the ban I was talking about was an actual ban, which the court ruled to be illegal. Whether it was anything to do with chess was not the point at issue.

[JustinHorton]

Nick, what are you contributing other than stirring? I've no doubt it'll be 50-1 in the end, because chess players like free stuff.

I wouldn't mind hearing that "free stuff" phrase a lot less. Chessplayers don't like "free stuff" more than anybody else. It so happens that there is something called the internet and over the past twenty years, large amounts of chess information, like lots of other kinds of information, has become available on it. We take advantage of it: so do we if we are music fans, for instance, or newspaper readers, or what you will. It's got nothing whatsoever to do with chess as such.

But insofar as it relates to chess, it's a good thing. It's a great thing. It means that our sport can be seen, easily, by anybody with access to the internet. This is what we need. It means the most casual of players, who in the pat would never ever have dreamed of going to a tournament or buying a chess book, can watch everything up to and including the world championship, and get hooked just as we would like them to be. Hurrah for this. This is vastly more important in the long run for chess than allowing some bunch of grifters to squeeze a few dollars more out of us, which they're not going to squaeeze anyway because we're not going to watch their show. You want more money in chess, you need to increase its audience. What would be the worst, most stupid way to go about that? I reckon it would be restricting chess broadcasts to one set of people who would charge for it. What a super way to drive all the casual fans away that would be.

[Chris Goodall]

Whether it was anything to do with chess was not the point at issue.

Eh?

"The major pertinent detail, which is that decisions by sporting federations can be and are successfully challenged in the courts."

Now you're telling me it doesn't matter who made the decision because it was per se illegal. Okay, but no-one has ever claimed that being a chess federation gives FIDE the right to send someone to punch me in the face. We were talking about decisions made by FIDE in their exercise of their power as a chess federation.

[Mick Norris]

Moreover, before even questioning whether FIDE will be ultimately be allowed to act on such a regulation, I yet have to see a clear argument why such a regulation would be beneficial to the chess world.

On my count, that now makes it 2-1, plus a lot of fence-sitters.

Ok Nick,thought it was obvious, but I'm against it, so 3-1

[JustinHorton]

Whether it was anything to do with chess was not the point at issue.

Eh?

"The major pertinent detail, which is that decisions by sporting federations can be and are successfully challenged in the courts."

Now you're telling me it doesn't matter who made the decision because it was per se illegal.

I have no idea what you're trying to say, Chris, since the court decision involved a sporting federation. I think if you keep changing your ground so often the best thing to do might be to ask the umpire for a fresh guard.