See, that would be useful information to have, wouldn't it? But apparently collecting it is too much of a burden, and no-one is prepared to estimate it without collecting it. It's the definition of amateurism.
National teams.NickFaulks wrote: ↑Fri Apr 13, 2018 9:41 pmThe other major recipient of membership fees is the national team, whose forecast annual receipt has risen to £43k. This will come as a disappointment, but probably not a surprise, to those who thought they had been assured that this was precisely what would not happen under the new regime. Nobody believes election promises, do they?
I find that an outrageous sum. This is exactly what I mean about the net flow of money from the grassroots to a so-called professional elite that in reality is just a bottomless pit into which we're shovelling banknotes. How much money does the men's national team bring IN that's actually available for spending on chess, as opposed to spending it on the national team?
What is actually the point of finishing 9th in an Olympiad? Is it prestige? (Trick question - Westerners don't award prestige to chess players.)
My suggestion to cut the men's national team loose and spend the money getting the women's national team to 9th in the world, is 100% serious. Imagine being one of the few countries in the world (possibly Georgia is another) to actually take seriously the idea that chess is a gender-blind game. The publicity would be amazing. Nigel Short would be furious, which would be another sign that we were doing something right.