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.htmAFAIK, 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.
