Hypothetical question rooted in some reality: Suppose a tournament advertisement goes out saying the usual “USCF membership required, $49 adults, $25 juniors.” The organizer collects money from the players for those memberships. The TD is unable to figure out how to use the new membership batch upload and asks a third party volunteer who says, “I know how to do it.” Now the volunteer pays for everything on line with his credit card and only asks that the organizer who collected the money reimburse him for the charged costs. Let’s say that the difference between the fees collected and the on-line charge amounts to about $134 which includes some affiliate commissions ($2 per membership or $34), online discounts ($2 per membership or $34) and six USCF 1-yr promotional memberships ($38) which the volunteer chose to buy unbeknownst to the organizer who had been charging the $49 adult 1-year membership ($11 per membership or $66). The organizer then has $134 more dollars which could be considered profit at this moment. Is this unethical? Does the USCF have an official policy on this? Where should the extra $134 go?
I don’t quite understand your question. Prior to online submissions, almost all affiliates charged $49 for memberships, submitted $45, and treated the $4 commission as a tournament revenue item. The only difference in your scenario is that the TD hired a third party to do the submitting. The only ethical question I can see is whether the TD should give back the money he saved on the promotionals. (I’d say yes, but it’s certainly debatable.)
I rather strongly disagree with your considering this a matter of ethics. It is a financial matter, no more, no less. (Unless you consider it unethical for organizers to make a profit.)
It is up to the organizer to decide whether to keep the affiliate commission and online discount or charge the member a lower rate.
I also know of organizers who charge a combined dues/entry fee that amounts to less than the total of the two if done separately, sometimes amounting to more of a savings than the amount of any affiliate commission or online discount.
In this case, I’d say whether the organizer keeps the commission and online discount or gives a portion of them to the 3rd party in return for doing the work is also up to the organizer.
The USCF office should rightly stay out of decisions like this.
I guess my main ethical problem was the use of the promotional membership. I imagined that USCF’s intent for the promotional membership was to decrease the price to the prospective new member or the lapsed previous member and therefore increase the demand for USCF membership. In my example, the end result was that the use of the promotional membership increased the profit for the organizer of the tournament. An organizer could intentionally charge $49 from each new USCF member and pocket $15 in commission by using the promotional/affiliate/online discounts. If no one has any problem with this then so be it.
It was not my decision to let affiliates submit promotional memberships, but if they have that option then I don’t know that they’re honor bound to rebate the difference back to the players.
Eligible players can get the promotional rates themselves by submitting their membership online or calling the USCF office.
I agree with Mike. Collecting a full and submitting a promotional is a somewhat sharp practice, but since people have the option of submitting memberships themselves, all the TD is doing is pricing himself out of the market.