"Chess is not accessible really to the mainstream. It's nuances are hard to grasp. It is hard to get viewership and interest, and therefore it attracts little money. I would LOVE to see this change ..." - Peter
I agree completely. However, I do not agree with you that "participation rates [cannot] be driven higher through paid management."
In Australia, there are a few commercial chess businesses that have between them increased participation in the junior ranks by tens of thousands. These businesses make a living out of promoting and running chess. I would acknowledge that the junior market is the low hanging fruit, but, there is still fruit to be picked from the adult end of the spectrum. Therefore I tend to believe, there is a reasonable chance that a paid manager of a national body might, with good will from the general chess playing population, be able to break the cycle of low numbers -> low corporate support -> low numbers.
Therefore, I still ask the question, "what criteria should be adopted for deciding whether or not to hire profession manager?" And the second question that follows it is, "how should such a professional manager position be financed?"
Perhaps I should make the first attempt to answer these questions.
- A professional manager should be engaged when the volunteer system is failing. I would define “failing” as continually falling numbers, and unfulfilled obligatory functions such as holding the/a national championship.
- The financing of the position should be by performance. For example, a percentage of revenues received plus a retainer.
Like all sports worldwide, chess is run by a mixture of volunteers and paid officials. The front line officials who run the clubs and associated tournaments are overwhelmingly volunteers. Even at the next tier, positions are nearly always filled with volunteers. It is not until we reach the level of national officialdom that we begin to see paid or contracted officials. Furthermore, while amateur events are organized predominantly by volunteers, while professional events are run by entrepreneurs. Mingled throughout all these levels are the "referees" who run the actual event, and who may or may not be paid.?
Notwithstanding the main chess playing?nations, chess?is a very minor sport. Its numbers barely warrant any official being contracted or paid. However, it is not until people (generally) are paid that they can or will make the effort to drive the particular sport to higher participation rates. Thus, a "cycle of smallness" is established. Given that chessers would like to see numbers up, I ask the following questions.
1. At the national level, what criteria should be adopted for deciding whether or not to hire profession manager?
2. How should such a professional manager position be financed?