wrote in message
oups.com...

Thanks David, that was very informative. I guess then I would ask what
the sponsorship opportunities were that we supposedly lost.

I don't have any comment on the supposed lost opportunities
as a result of Sloan's election. It's just another internet claim
made without any evidence.

If you are speaking more generally, I can only give a general
answer that if there were a national chess organization that
somehow resonated with the 10+ million American chess
players, I don't think sponsorship would be hard to find.

I remember the Church's Fried Chicken Years where they were sponsoring
chess - for example, Larry Christiansen made a trip to my then hometown
of Champaign-Urbana in the (70s?) for a simul just so I could beat him
(we have to make this "all about me" just so Philsy won't be
disappointed!).

I also suppose there are many types of sponsorship opportunities -
supporting a tournament, a GM, a school program or programs. It seems
that institutions like Banks sponsor tournaments in Europe; there must
be some "value-added" for them or else they wouldn't do it.

I don't pretend to know much about the subject but you seemed to be
asserting that there will continue to be few opportunities for
sponsorship. Again, I am not sure if that is a good or bad thing, at
least from my perspective. Why can't chess "sponsor" itself?

I don't know what this means. I do believe that
getting more money into chess will improve the
chess experience for all players. Sponsorship
can be thought of as a way of expanding the
funding base. Example. I would love to see
chess reestablish a credible world championship
cycle, something which has been missing from
the chess world for a long time now. I am not
capable of personally bankrolling it. However,
a corporate sponsor could decide that my goodwill
(and the goodwill of others who think like me)
was worth the expense. If so, I would ultimately
end up paying a share of the costs of providing
the championship when I bought the sponsor's
products.

I understand your analogy re the 99.6 and the 0.4%, but I wonder if the
numbers aren't pretty much the same in most activities - a lot of
people play tennis at the local court, but few are a member of any sort
of tennis organization.

Membership per se has little to do with it. AF4C has
no members and few contributors (admittedly
wealthy ones) but is able to accomplish a function
of national importance - running the national championship.

The low membership of the USCF is relevant
because the USCF has defined itself as being a
benefit provider for its current members. If
instead it functioned as national organization
to further the game, it could have more
impact with fewer members. Ironically,
it probably wouldn't have to - if the
USCF had a positive reputation based
on national achievements, it likely would
have *more* donors and *more* sponsors.