it is unfair that all tops earn money

Isn't it unfair that only top 10-20s make money from chess tournaments? magnus made millions in years but what did others get? nothing.

even the losing player earns hundreds of tausands in world championship match.. or even candidates.

why there is tons of money for high ups and there is absolutely 'nothing' for us mere mortals? why isnt there anything in between?

imaginr how wealthy he lives so he didnt even care for wwc this year.. magnus. 2 million dollars for the winner and humdreds of tausands for the loser.. and he didnt even bother.

organizators exhibit quite capitalist approach on tournaments. why no balance?

Top 100 can live from playing, though sub 2 700 players will probably choose to supplement their income with books, coaching and whatnot, because they will still not earn too much.

Championship match should be worth even more in my opinion, because that should be the best chess has to offer, but it is just that there is not that much money in chess, so for the time being that is the best they can do.

And as there is not that much money in chess, top 100 player will probably earn much less on average then some high earning profession in the USA. Top 20 player will maybe earn as much as some higher earning profession, and top 5 will earn more. So I don't see how is that unfair towards other players. It is not like top 10 player earns tens of millions per year, while top 100 is earning peanuts.

It is just that chess is not as lucrative as some high earning sport.

As for Magnus, his income is not completely dependent from playing. I mean he just sold his company for 80+ millions to chess.com.

Who is going to pay for it? There's a market for top player games. No one wants to pay to watch non-masters, so there's no real market there.

I agree most of your points. While i disagree some of them, at least there must be some other options.

Money is a big motivator on everything, and if we want chess should spread to much larger communities, and faster we need to make it related with money somehow. It shouldn't be that profitable for just top 20 elites and no others.. It should be distributed more balanced so more people want to get involved with chess.

Question should be: how?

Well, take that tv show Queen's Gambit for example, it is a way to earn money and make people get involved to chess. Tons of people started playing chess after that show, or many players came back from after years of absence. It somehow was helpful to chess and still was profitable bussiness for some others.

Like in this example, people should find ways to make chess more profitable for expert players, not just top10 elites. So more people can earn money instead of just selected a few. People always find ways, when it comes to make money. they do brainstorms, hire people to think. We live with internet, and advertisements make money.. you just gotta make it interesting, and create something to watch.

It gives me pain to see the same 10 people keep making big money and others just look at it. I'm sure it will benefit chess if we can look into this.

What big money? They do not earn big money. Maybe compared to someone who earns an average wage , yes they do, but not compared to top professionals in other fields, which is what they are for chess.

If you take any profession , the best person in that profession will earn a lot, actually in most cases more than top chess players, who are probably not super rich.

Carlsen probably is, but that has more to do with his recognition and his company, more than his actual earnings from chess.

So if let's say someone that is 10th in the world can get a little bit over 200k $ per year (I saw somewhere that Carlsen earned a bit over 500 k last year). This is far from what top players in other sports get.

I mean good basketball player in Euroleague (which is more like top 300 player, far from top 10) can earn 1 million $ or more per season.
So if top chess players do not earn huge amounts, people who are good amateurs will earn peanuts from tournaments, because there is just not enough money to share.

So I would say that the money compensation is fairly realistic.

If suddenly sponsors decide to invest more money into chess because of more interest in it, things might change a bit.

That’s how capitalism works. If you bring in value, you get paid. Since people watch the pros, advertisers will pay to be on the broadcasts, and money is made. No money is brought in by non-top level players. Nobody would watch those games. Therefore they don’t get money, because they didn’t bring any in.

Did you want a participation prize?

sb3turbo said, “Isn't it unfair that only top 10-20s make money from chess tournaments? magnus made millions in years but what did others get? nothing.

even the losing player earns hundreds of tausands in world championship match.. or even candidates.

why there is tons of money for high ups and there is absolutely 'nothing' for us mere mortals? why isnt there anything in between?

imaginr how wealthy he lives so he didnt even care for wwc this year.. magnus. 2 million dollars for the winner and humdreds of tausands for the loser.. and he didnt even bother.

organizators exhibit quite capitalist approach on tournaments. why no balance?”


The FIDE budget in 2022 was 12.84. Million euros. They had to have companies fund that. The NBA made 10 BILLION DOLLARS in the 2021-2022 season.

You can’t pay a chess player the same amount of money as another athlete if they are making different amounts of money. You can’t pay someone THAT MUCH if you don’t have the money.

(Tell me if there is anything wrong with my argument I made this in a hurry lol)

No because it’s their job

Envy poisons the psyche.

Well they earned it. You know how much time and money it takes to become the best in the world?

We agree to disagree then. that said, it's very rare to see someone agrees on something with you on the internet.

I read all the arguments, some of them had some points while some others have no relevance at all. That wasnt what i meant completely..

I was talking about "a balance". which can be provided with some organizations. No one is actually "paying" anything. budgets are gathered from adversitesements.. you just need audience.. and audience needs something interesting to watch.. that was all.

organizators take the easy way.. they put elites on the show.. no need to make it interesting though.. no effort needed. thing is; there is not just elites on the chess world, who worths watching.. and not below the elites are all noobs. there are tons of professional expert players.. and they play very quality and educative games. but organizing an attractive tournament out of them.. requires some work. which organizators wont even wanna bother.

anyways.. I'm not expecting anyone to agree with me. which is very close to the impossible on the internet and i know it.

I want someone to pay me to be a mediocre chess player.

... anyone?

Actually, many tournaments already hold class sections and pay class prizes.

What balance?

But having almost no one else agree is another thing altogether.

If you were the organizer and your livelihood and sponsors' money were on the line, what would you do? And what's stopping you now?

That's because you have no balance.

There are tournaments for high-level players that are not elite level, the difference is that they are not tournaments interested in having an audience.

Today there's more income options for chess players when u consider the web and how people are streaming, offering lessons, having websites, etc.

Besides, the very best should get paid substantially more. As far as the number of events to earn big money, there's only so much demand for chess so there's no reason for vast amounts of money to be following chess. If u were looking to invest, how high would chess events rank on ur 'best stuff to invest in' list?