“Place trophies to players in each section wishing to maintain amateur status” Top prize is $500 in the open and $250 in reserve section.
Amateur Status??
My son has been playing scholastic tournaments for the last 3 years, what is the effect of winning a cash prize on an under 15 Scholastic player (besides the usual effect of $$)?
Specifically, does this affect eligilibility in future scholastic tournaments?
Is there a $ diff between amateur and pro?
Are there amateur only tournaments?
I haven’t bought the USCF rules book, so I’m clueless about “Amateur Status”
Some time back in my state the High School association governing all competitions (chess, football, debating, cheerleading, etc.) had a rule that playing in any type of competition with monetary prizes made the player a professional and thus ineligible to compete in any activity on behalf the player’s school. The fear of that rule kept some high school players from participating in USCF tournaments (generally the less knowledgeable players that were more likely to be on the cusp as far as remaining USCF members, and thus the fear ended up reducing the membership retention rate of high school players). Eventually the rule was changed, but even now there are still some coaches who think the rule is still in effect. The tournament announcement cited may be inspired by a similar situation.
There have been cases where high school students have been ruled ineligible by the NCAA for athletic scholarships because of cash prizes won in HS in various kinds of competitions, though I don’t know if chess has been one of them.
There was a HS player who won $10K at the World Open, I could see the NCAA thinking that made him a non-amateur for athletic scholarship purposes.
Chicago Public School students are not allowed to play against non-scholastic players during the school year w/out losing eligibility! (Even if they renounce playing for cash prizes! This limited amateur requirement is reasonable for scholastic players, IMO.)
The CPS ban has been compared to not allowing HS basketball students to scrimmage against NBA players, unconvincingly IMO.
I believe (don’t quote me on this) that the ban is actually YEAR-ROUND, but that infractions are forgiven as of the beginning of each school year…
Thinking back to when I was the Scholastic Chair in 1987-89, Illinois’s rules have been a problem for the USCF for many years.
Kansas has had restrictive rules, too, especially for out-of-state events, though I think they’ve moderated them somewhat.
I seem to recall there were problems in New Mexico and Oregon, too.
I wonder if there aren’t some restrictive rules in Iowa? We don’t appear to get a lot of scholastic teams from there. (There were only 2 players from Iowa at SuperNationals III in Nashville and only 27 at Supernationals II in Kansas City.)
[quote=“nolan”]
Thinking back to when I was the Scholastic Chair in 1987-89, Illinois’s rules have been a problem for the USCF for many years.quote]
I agree because the rules seemed to change in Illinois kept changing for each tournament. But I would like the rules for each type of tournament sent to me because I may be getting back in to tournments once I re-activate my membership.
There is nothing official about that rating cut, however. The U.S. Amateur, for example, is limited to U2200. The word “Amateur” is used in several contexts, but it has no fixed meaning in chess.
If the original question was “Are there tournaments for people who are never, ever allowed to win money,” the answer is no.
Scholastic players are people too. If the scholastic player only wins a trophy, the player wins a trophy only not any money. So in fact there are tournaments were the players are not allowed to win any money.
I choose my words carefully. Certainly there are tournaments which do not offer cash prizes. In common usage outside of chess, however, “Amateur” means ineligible to win money under any circumstances. I doubt there are any such tournaments, and the condition would be impossible to enforce.
No, we’re just a small state with a small (but enthusiastic and welcoming!) chess scene. Iowa scholastic players regularly play in open tournaments and win money without jeopardizing their eligibility for scholastic play. Scholastic play is governed by Iowa State Chess Association (IASCA) rules not by any state athletic organization.
In Arizona, high school chess falls under the rules of the Arizona Interscholastic Association (AIA). The short answer limits highschool students to winning a maximum of $200 at a tournament or lose their “amateur status.” Loss of “amateur status” would also disqualify a high school student to participate in any and all other high school activities covered under the AIA for the rest of the students highschool years. That includes the normal sports such as football, basketball, etc but also includes high school scholastic competitions such as music, speech and debate, etc.
This AIA rules only apply to Highschool students.
Example: A student who has graduated from middle school could win big $$$ (no limit) prior to the first day of high school and will still be an “amateur” for high school and eligible to participate in all acitivities governed by the rules of the AIA.
The amatuer eligibility rule “shall not enter into any agreement”…“for their services as an athlete” would prevent a student from a paying gig if they want to participate in high school scholastic sports.
Basically, cannot compete for $$, cannot be paid or compensated if it is an activity covered under the AIA.
The actual penalty is loss of amteur standing in all sports in interscholastic competition for a maximum of one full calendar year from the date of discovery of the infraction or untill reinstated by the AIA Executive Board.
Its a choice, play for $ or participate in scholastic sports.
Though courts have usually given state high school athletic governance rules a lot of latitude, this sounds like one that might not survive a court challenge.