Prize Money is Out of Control

[Alex Holowczak]

"Although I insist on making my arguments with lots of detail to show much I know, when those details are wrong I am still right anyway."

The detail isn't really wrong. The detail of contention is that golfers who miss the cut don't get prize money. That's correct in regular tour events, but apparently not in major tournaments that have restricted fields. The same is true in darts and snooker. It was only wrong because I quoted a Major as an example of it, rather than a regular PGA Tour event.

And I insist on making my arguments with detail because supporting arguments with detail to support them makes them stronger points. I'd have thought you'd be all in favour of that.

[JustinHorton]

And I insist on making my arguments with detail because supporting arguments with detail to support them makes them stronger points.

"I support my arguments with detail because it makes the arguments stronger. However if the detail contradicts the arguments they are still right anyway."

[Alex Holowczak]

And I insist on making my arguments with detail because supporting arguments with detail to support them makes them stronger points.

"I support my arguments with detail because it makes the arguments stronger. However if the detail contradicts the arguments they are still right anyway."

The detail didn't contradict the argument - that's precisely the point. My original explanation contradicted it, because I didn't clarify the distinction between a Major and a regular PGA Tour event in respect of golf. Your comments afterwards let me look into it further, which actually supported my point better.

[JustinHorton]

"What I originally argued was not in fact my argument. This existed innately, and when I came to it, it was as if I had always been there."

[David Shepherd]

I think the main point is that overall the event does raise the profile of chess and does bring in welcome money for the top British players as well as the Chess in Schools and Communities initiative. It also provides young players with role models and the realisation that if they become the best then they can earn significant amounts of money.

[Thomas Rendle]

The whole argument (from OP) is a silly one anyway, honestly I assumed it had been meant as a joke. Chess is a meritocracy and the top players deserve everything they get. They're badly paid compared other top people in their field (industry, law etc.) not only top sports.

[JustinHorton]

The whole argument (from OP) is a silly one anyway, honestly I assumed it had been meant as a joke. Chess is a meritocracy and the top players deserve everything they get. They're badly paid compared other top people in their field (industry, law etc.) not only top sports.

Without necessarily disagreeing with the rest of your posting, in what way are industry or law "their field"?

[Martin Benjamin]

Geoff's original post has (I suspect) an intentionally provocative tone, but in terms of the substance of what is being discussed, in general I agree with him. The top players are paid far too much in my opinion. To address Tom Rendle's point, Carlsen and co may not (comparatively) be as well remunerated as top players in some other sports - although I would not use the phrase "badly paid" even in a comparative context - but (again in my opinion) there is too great a disparity in remuneration between the "top" and "bottom" in most professions, sports and chess, and there are too many people wanting to be full-time sports or chess professionals and therefore thinking the onus is on others to pay them to play. I would like to see a shift back to amateurism in many sports, including chess. I readily acknowledge I am old-fashioned in this regard. In the Olympics, I have much more sympathy and support for the genuine amateurs who are competing than for the professionals.

[Alex Holowczak]

The whole argument (from OP) is a silly one anyway, honestly I assumed it had been meant as a joke. Chess is a meritocracy and the top players deserve everything they get. They're badly paid compared other top people in their field (industry, law etc.) not only top sports.

I think the World Champion gets paid reasonably for being World Champion, but:
1. What about the players ranked 2-10? The Grand Chess Tour is very good for them.
2. What about the players ranked 11-100? What is out there for them? There are lots of darts/golf/tennis/snooker tournaments where players of that ranking can play and earn a living.
3. What other tournaments are there supporting the World Championship for players, even the World Champion, to earn a living? Other leading sports have a tournament every week to support the World Championship/Majors/Grand Slams, but the prize money in chess appears to tail off significantly after the World Championship and the Grand Chess Tour.

The Isle of Man, with a first prize of £50,000, appears at a glance to lead the way in terms of Open tournaments. But prizes only went down to 11th place in 2018. Gibraltar's first prize is £25,000, and the prize money is a little bit more spread out than the Isle of Man, but even that only goes down to 15th. So if you're ranked 11-100 and all of the top 10 turn up to play, there aren't many sizeable prizes to compete for.

I think if you're the World Champion or in the top 10, the prize money is very good. But I'm not sure that the prize money in events for the players ranked 11-100 is.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Alex,

Thought I'd wait till you finished arguing with yourself before replying.

Cannot agree with comparing chess with any other sport, golf, darts tennis, snooker which
I have all seen put forward as comparable in the past do not come even come close.

Bowls. Each player has four men which they try to place in a good position whilst restricting
their opponents men comes about close as you can get using wooden pieces on an open field.

"The organisers are probably happy that you can't find out who is funding the event, since it means the donor is demonstrably
getting nothing that counts as a sponsorship benefit back in return, and thus there is no requirement to pay tax on it."

So the whole show was an elaborate tax dodge? I thought you could make sponsorship tax deductible.
Was this secrecy, which BTW MI5 would have been proud off, in place so the players could avoid paying tax?.

I'm thinking the organisers have hid the sponsors so nobody could approach them with a more attractive deal that does
not involve four chess players (here I remind you they were billed as 'The Fantastic Four') who have between them
the combined charisma rating of a soap dish.


Hi David,

"I think the main point is that overall the event does raise the profile of chess and does bring in welcome money for the top British players as well as the Chess in Schools and Communities initiative."

Never saw anything on the T.V. or news about this event. Think if anything the profile has dipped.

Not one of the 'Fantastic Four' are British, and the Chess in Schools and Communities saw none of the $300,000. They got a
free advert asking for donations (me?....an OAP...will be making a donation.)

"...It also provides young players with role models and the realisation that if they become the best then they can earn significant amounts of money."

Role models? Possibly, but good coaches, good well paid coaches first.

Where does the promising junior in this country go if their parents are not quite well off?


Hi Thomas,

Not a joke. If you think it's silly, so be it.

I'm thinking that kind of money spread amongst four players (albeit the Fantastic Four) whilst clubs are closing
and other more deserving chess causes are being ignored, cut off financially or having to beg for donations is not quite on.
I know I'm banging my head against a wall. But it's my head...

(...and Carl's wall. As long as he doesn't mind, I don't mind and if anyone else minds then I don't really care.)

[Alex Holowczak]

"The organisers are probably happy that you can't find out who is funding the event, since it means the donor is demonstrably
getting nothing that counts as a sponsorship benefit back in return, and thus there is no requirement to pay tax on it."

So the whole show was an elaborate tax dodge? I thought you could make sponsorship tax deductible.
Was this secrecy, which BTW MI5 would have been proud off, in place so the players could avoid paying tax?.

The point is that there is no sponsor, it's just someone giving some money. It's a donation.

You can't make sponsorship tax deductable. You pay VAT on sponsorship.

If Person X wanted to give £10,000 to a chess tournament and doesn't expect anything in return acknowledging Person X exists, then you can do that and it is a donation.

If Person X wanted to give £10,000 to a chess tournament from X's company, and in return they expect something like branding of their product to go on scoresheets/boards/advertising of the event, or naming rights to the tournament, then you need to pay VAT on the sponsorship. So when you contract it up, you put £10,000 + VAT in the contract.

We've run British Championships in the past with both, and either the Finance Director of the day or John Philpott would normally ask "Is it a donation or sponsorship?" as question 1 in response to the news.

If the GCT just has rich people giving their own money to run chess tournaments with no expectation of return, then there's no tax due. If you don't know who is putting the money up, then it's clearly a donation rather than sponsorship.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Alex,

I see, not a sponsor but a donator. (I thought the others were linking to a sponsor?)

I've donated a few times to tournaments in the past, pittance comparing to this, for a brilliancy prize.

How does it work?

A sponsor gives the money and gets advertisement in return, but the money is used how the organisers sees fit.

A donator gets no benefit but has a say where the money goes

If they wanted $300,000 scattered amongst the 'Fantastic Four' then so be it.
I cannot argue with that. it's what they wanted.

If it was meant to encourage cut throat chess then sadly it failed.
The sums involved (IMO) appear to have driven them into their shells.
They needed more than 2 classical games and of course no increments.

How about this for a good spin on the four drawn games by the Fantastic Four.

"....where high-level endgame technique and subtle defensive resources led to
drawn games without many thrills and spills for the average chess fan to appreciate.

https://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-cont ... 7-Dec-.pdf

"high-level endgame technique and subtle defensive resources."

I for one would not expect anything less from the 'Fantastic Four.'

[Roger Lancaster]

I have to say that, having trawled through this thread in the hope of learning something useful, I honestly wish I hadn't bothered. I'm not an accountant and so stand to be corrected but I believe the assertion that sponsorship is not tax-deductible is incorrect. Sponsorship costs, if they benefit a business, can be offset against profits before any charge to corporation tax. Whether they benefit a business is liable to end up as an HMRC negotiation and so the arrangement needs to be structured correctly - which is where the accountants come in! All that is separate from liability to VAT.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Roger,

Sorry you have not learned anything useful. I cannot remember the last time I learned anything useful in a forum either.

But in case anyone does not want to follow Rogers example and wade through all these pages.... in a nutshell.

On the 2nd of November this post appeared.

Chess Scotland - Och aye! They've nae got a bean. viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9918

Scotland has lost it's government grant. It now gets nothing.

Then I read a prize list with 4 players; billed as "The Fantasic Four" getting to divvy up:

1st $120,000
2nd $ 80,000
3rd $ 60,000
4th $ 40,000

For playing two classical games of chess and a handful of blitz games.

So I went ape.

If there is that kind of money getting pumped into the game why is some of it not being pumped into the
game at the grass roots level? 1% of the total prize money would be more than Scotland's original grant.

Seems like nobody agrees and 'The Fantastic Four' are worth every penny. ( a few encouraging PM's. but nothing public.)

There followed four predictable draws in the classical games by the 'Fantasic Four' which by the way contained:
"high-level endgame technique and subtle defensive resources."

I then tried to find out who put up the money but the shutters came down.
However if you want to help the cause there is advert of the main site.




Where you can donate as little as £5.00 to help Chess.

You will find it on the same page as this smug shot.



No wonder they are smiling. Nakamura walked off with $120,000 and Caruana, fresh from his P.12, D. 12 W.C. match got $60,000.

The rest of the 'Fantastic Four'? Aronian ($40,000 for coming last) and some French bod with a double-barrelled
name has skipped back across the channel with $80,000 in the hip pocket of his designer jeans.

I wanted to find how much tax was paid on the prize money so I had a figure to write to the government
and tell them how much money chess has made them and can Scotland please have a fraction of it back.

That avenue has also been sealed off. (Is it just me or can you hear the sound of shuffling feet as the ranks are being closed.)

I know Scotland is a different federation but it would have got to the right department. Pointless asking the Lottery people
for aid. They would take one look at the obscene amount 'The Fantastic Four' got and say Chess does not need any help.

[NickFaulks]

I then tried to find out who put up the money but the shutters came down.

Whom did you ask?

That avenue has also been sealed off.

How and by whom?