Disclaimer: While my question is based out of the Miami Open decision (from this thread), I really am thinking of this in a more hypothetical sense.
There is something that confuses me. Let’s say one organizes an event with a guaranteed prize fund. On the event date the organizer doesn’t have the money to pay out the prize fund. I’m presuming that there isn’t a qualifying disaster and, to quote Chip Hazard, “there will be no mercy.” For this post I am assuming turnout is too low, and I am ignoring elements such as the organizer should have known better / should have had a reserve to cover the prize fund, etc.
Given the raw fact the money ain’t gonna be there: Is it better to play out the event with lower payouts, or is it better to cancel the event outright?
Either way one could probably assume an ethics complaint will be had and the potential to have one’s certifications/org membership pulled. In the former chess does happen and prizes are paid. In the latter there might be resource to call upon D&O or E&O insurance if one has had the foresight and resources to purchase it.
Makes me glad that the first event I’m putting together is a percentage payout… But which is the better way to turn if one is truly, er, pawned?
This isn’t a hypothetical; it’s happened several times, though it hasn’t been common recently. In either case, the result is/should be that the organizer gets banned from running future tournaments or advertising in Chess Life. From the players’ point of view I suppose it’s better to hold the tournament and pay out some of the prizes, though the organizer might well be better off canceling the tournament. (BTW, you don’t include a stipulation as to whether he refunds the entry fees. If he’s rented a site, he has to pay for it whether he holds the tournament or not.) From an ethical point of view, either choice should land the organizer buried in ice in the 8th Circle.
But which is the better way to turn if one is truly, er, pawned?