You mis-read me completely. I did not say that the AGA does nothing. I did say that what it does in the future is not clearly defined. I am not saying that there is an asymmetry of contribution. I am saying that there is an asymmetry of definition.

At my most cynical, I fear that this could degenerate into a defacto extortion racket. If Asian tournament sponsors give the AGA the right to decide who gets to go, then the AGA would have a monopoly, and could demand almost any cut it wants from the players.

...

So, yes, there is indeed something specific that AGA has done in all cases that made it possible to have representatives selected from open competitions accessible to all strong players. ...

Issue Paper: Proposal for AGA “Tap” of International Players’ Prizes/Appearance Fees
Thomas Hsiang, our International Vice President, has proposed requiring AGA
representatives in international tournaments to pay back 20% of their prize and/or appearance
fees, after foreign taxes.

The justification for the “tap” is the following: AGA officers brought us these tournament
opportunities. In particular, U. S. participation in the Chunlan Cup and the Sports Accord
Mind Games are ENTIRELY due to the effort of AGA diplomacy and development. The
women’s championship could have been lost to us as well had it not been because of the
AGA effort. AGA does not get management fees, but does incur real effort in making these
events happen. Up to now, liaison costs have been out of volunteers’ pockets. The “tap” can
help support further development without burdening individuals.

A quick estimate of this income to AGA in 2011 would be:

Fujitsu - $600; Chunlan - $400; Women's - $400; Sports Accord Mind Games - $2-4,000.

If we were to go in this direction, then I would suggest that a minimum be set, below which no
“tap” would be assessed, perhaps $2,000.

Our professionals and strong amateurs are being asked for their comments. As a start, I
asked the members of the Policy and Governance Committee for their comments. Here is a
condensed version of their responses, with no consensus:

O I think 10% on top of any government taxes should be plenty.

O I think this is a bad idea for a number of reasons. We can take a lesson from our big
brethren in the Chess world. They are facing the same issues of member retention and
financing.

[url]http://www.chessville.com/editorials/Interviews/20Questions/Marinello.htm
[/url]
AFAIK, the USCF makes no attempt to impose such a fee on its professional players, which
still hasn't prevented bad relationships and acrimony over the balance of amateur and
professional support.

As a fund-raiser, it doesn't add enough to make a big difference. As an irritant to our meager
handful of US professionals, it may be significant. They can easily tell the AGA to go jump in
a lake. They don't need us; we need them.

O I think we're putting the emphasis in the wrong place. If you want to compensate for the
value the organization is putting into choosing representatives, then charge ENTRY fees for
people to participate in qualifying tournaments. That pays directly for the work the
organization puts into the tournaments. Then let people enjoy their winnings.

Pulling money out of winnings that are already diminished by taxes just adds insult to injury
that we have so small a prize pool available for this game. When we have truly impressive
prize pools or so many tournaments that there's enough money to go around comfortably,
then the organization should consider skimming off its due, not before.

O "Tax" on the prize money is a traditional idea and a common practice in Asian Go
organizations. Although I think "AGA service fee" is a better name for it in our case.
O But isn't it also true that the Asian Go associations provide more services than we do to the
pros? It's kind of a chicken-and-egg problem. If we want to charge money, we have to
provide service in return; but if we don't have resources, we can't.

O Unfortunately, I think on balance it's negative if we try to impose it by fiat as AGA board
policy. It might fly eventually if it were discussed with the pros one-on-one over time, in the
light of building support for an American pro system. But we'd have to have some kind of plan
for that worked out first.

O The critical point is that in that situation, the strong players (professionals that
is) support the system. Not without some degree of irritation, but also not with any sense that
they are being exploited beyond reason. It is a rare person indeed who thinks they get their
money's worth from taxes, or are adequately paid for their work. But both are accepted as the
cost of getting on with life.

While we don't want to copy the Asian approaches exactly, there are elements well worthy of
emulation. The buy in of the group in question, seems paramount to me.

Let the player choose prior to the tournament. Does he want AGA backing for that specific tournament or not? And to what level? The AGA could have a choice of options, much like insurance companies do now.

This seems more like a subsidy of weak players. Any players capable of winning significant money would immediately opt out, leaving the AGA to foot the bill for the weaker players.
...

You seem to be assuming that the AGA would offer the same menu to everyone. I didn't say that.

Again, the insurance industry offers the guide to how it works: better drivers are offered a menu of better deals, worst drivers a menu of lesser deals. The AGA can offer better deals to better players.

As I said before, the tap idea is reverse insurance.

The 30% is a max. The president is currently planning a 20% tap.

Dude, you've just blown his whole bargaining position

And you just revealed that he is willing to bargain.

Hi, Everyone,

Attached is a request for comments on our proposed "tap"/fee on prizes/playing fees in international tournaments.

This is being mailed to all members rated 5.0 and up (including foreign members: your opinions would be welcome, too!), all chapters, and AGA leaders. If anyone has been missed, it has not been intentional.

No decision has been made on whether to move ahead on this proposal or not: much will depend upon your input.

Please send me your comments by 31 January?

Thanks!

Allan

Proposed AGA “Tap” or “Fee” on International Tournament Prizes/Playing Compensation

As many of you know, we have been considering assessing a “tap” or “fee” on players’ prizes or game payments in international tournaments. The issue was submitted to the Policy and Governance Committee for comments; a summary of their responses is below. The issue also
was discussed at the last Assembly meeting, without extensive comment or consensus.

The AGA Board, at its November meeting, authorized the President to assess up to a 30% fee, AFTER considering public comments and reporting back to the Board.

This is to ask you for your comments on the following proposal:

The AGA would assess a 20% fee on players’ prizes or game payments, from players representing the U.S. in international tournaments. The fee would apply to total prizes/compensation in any one tournament of $1,000-$2,000 (open question) or greater. The fee would apply only if the AGA does not receive sponsor funds for general AGA use.

Rationale: The AGA has worked hard to secure invitations to international tournaments for many years. The AGA also has been working to increase the number of tournaments we get invited to, with some success. We also will be looking for sponsors for new international
tournaments in the U.S. Our future development and growth depends upon promoting Go in the U.S., increasing services to the chapters, adding tournaments to our schedule, supporting our pros and strong players, sending teams to international events, such as the World Mind
Sports Games, and so on. Even after generous contributions, we spent about $27,000 from reserves to send our team to the first World Mind Sports Games. If the games return, we will want to invest in our team again.

Given the needs and our current limited budget, we think that it is reasonable to ask the pros and strong players who receive the opportunity for international competition to pay a little back to the AGA. Thus, this proposal.

Please send your comments to President@usgo.org by 31 January? Many thanks.

Allan

Policy and Governance Committee Comments

O I think 10% on top of any government taxes should be plenty.

O I think this is a bad idea for a number of reasons. We can take a lesson from our big brethren in the Chess world. They are facing the same issues of member retention and financing.

http://www.chessville.com/editorials/In ... inello.htm

AFAIK, the USCF makes no attempt to impose such a fee on its professional players, which still hasn't prevented bad relationships and acrimony over the balance of amateur and professional support.As a fund-raiser, it doesn't add enough to make a big difference. As an irritant to our meager handful of US professionals, it may be significant. They can easily tell the AGA to go jump in a lake. They don't need us; we need them.

O I think we're putting the emphasis in the wrong place. If you want to compensate for the value the organization is putting into choosing representatives, then charge ENTRY fees for people to participate in qualifying tournaments. That pays directly for the work the organization puts into the tournaments. Then let people enjoy their winnings.

Pulling money out of winnings that are already diminished by taxes just adds insult to injury that we have so small a prize pool available for this game. When we have truly impressive prize pools or so many tournaments that there's enough money to go around comfortably,
then the organization should consider skimming off its due, not before.

O "Tax" on the prize money is a traditional idea and a common practice in Asian Go organizations. Although I think "AGA service fee" is a better name for it in our case.

O But isn't it also true that the Asian Go associations provide more services than we do to the pros? It's kind of a chicken-and-egg problem. If we want to charge money, we have to provide service in return; but if we don't have resources, we can't.

O Unfortunately, I think on balance it's negative if we try to impose it by fiat as AGA board policy. It might fly eventually if it were discussed with the pros one-on-one over time, in the light of building support for an American pro system. But we'd have to have some kind of plan for that worked out first.

O The critical point is that in that situation, the strong players (professionals that is) support the system. Not without some degree of irritation, but also not with any sense that they are being exploited beyond reason. It is a rare person indeed who thinks they get their
money's worth from taxes, or are adequately paid for their work. But both are accepted as the cost of getting on with life.

While we don't want to copy the Asian approaches exactly, there are elements well worthy of emulation. The buy in of the group in question, seems paramount to me.

It sounds like the majority of comments from the Policy and Governance Committee were negative, yet the board authorized a go ahead? I'm confused.