Cash Winnings - rules against earning competition money?

[Sciurus Rex]

Does the USFA have a rule against allowing money-winning fencers to compete in the organization's events? Where could I find the rules regarding that?

Let's say it's a small, local, one-touch epee competition among friends. $5 registration, winner takes 50 percent of the cash pool (remainder to second and third places). 10 fencers means the winner walks away with $25, or a $20 profit for the day. Will that piddly little amount cause trouble later?

[MikeHarm]

You can win money at Duel in the desert in vegas, so its obviously being done already by some places.

Mike

[Purple Fencer]

A clarification, if I may. At Duel they're not actually fighting for hard cash...they're fighting for X dollars in casino chips. Casino chips aren't actually money, so they can get away with offering it. I believe it's illegal to offer an actual cash prize.

[MikeHarm]

I don't see what the difference is. By that reasoning you could just throw some money in a bank account and offer the atm card & pin number as the prize and it wouldn't be winning cash either.

Mike

[DarkTransient]

I think there isn't any problem since professional athlets are no longer prohibited to participate Olympic Games.

[darius]

Actually, that's on a sport-by-sport basis, up to the Int'l Governing Body for each sport. I'm not sure which sports still *don't* allow pro players in the Olympics, but it's probably moot, since those sports are all obscure enough that nobody would make a living through them regardless.

darius

[Purple Fencer]

Originally posted by MikeHarm:
<STRONG>I don't see what the difference is. By that reasoning you could just throw some money in a bank account and offer the atm card & pin number as the prize and it wouldn't be winning cash either.

Mike</STRONG>

Well... it IS splitting hairs rather fine. Perhaps Edew could clarify it better.

[oiuyt]

Actually, that's on a sport-by-sport basis, up to the Int'l Governing Body for each sport. I'm not sure which sports still *don't* allow pro players in the Olympics, but it's probably moot, since those sports are all obscure enough that nobody would make a living through them regardless.

Not entirely moot for us, fencing's one of those sports. It actually comes down to the NGBs, not just the international bodies. The USFA does not allow professionals, the CFF does. I believe this was scheduled to be revisited by the USFA Executive Committee at one of their meetings this year but never heard any results from that. This was an issue around 3 years ago when the PFL was in its 8 month existence.

I know the DitD has some sort of thing that winners sign saying that they don't receive cash as a prize. Personally I agree with MikeHarm that something clearly intended to be negotiable (in the monetary sense) should count the same as cash. An alternative way of giving out money that seems to be clearly on the correct side of the line is as expense reimbursment. Clearly any fencer good enough to win such prizes spends far in excess of those prizes in any given year training and travelling and on equipment, etc.

Would be interesting to actually get an official policy decision on this, no? I'm not even sure who could be asked this question and have his/her answer actually be taken as fact. Does anyone know whether or not this actually WAS discussed by the USFA this year and if so what the outcome was? Pointers to minutes would be appreciated.

-B

[sabreur]

Well, if you win a world cup event, you usually collect a small (~$1000-$2000) prize, and USFA fencers do compete in world cups, even though they rarely win them....

The prize at the sabre world cup in Bonn is DM 3000 if my memory serves me correctly.

Regards, MR

[Event Horizon]

I think fencing competitions, at least the bigger ones, should have some type of "purse" to win. You should get something for all that hard work.

[Bugaboo]

"Should"
"I heard that"
"Ought to"
"I think"

I don't suppose there's anyone lurking on this board who actually knows for certain?

(And I really need to study up on my fencing acronyms. Some of the references here leave me scratching my head in confusion.)

[oiuyt]

(And I really need to study up on my fencing acronyms. Some of the references here leave me scratching my head in confusion.)

I guess that's probably in reference to my post...
DitD == Duel in the Desert (normally I wouldn't have abbreviated except that it had just been referred to in previous posts)
NGB == National Governing Body, the organization in charge of a specific sport in a specific country (eg the USFA)
USFA == United States Fencing Association
CFF == Canadian Fencing Federation
PFL == Professional Fencing League

sabreur- the fact that the FIE gives out cash is one of the things that was prompting the USFA to re-examine their policy. Again, don't know if this was actually done, and if so what the outcome was.

-B

[edew]

At the January PFL (1998, I believe), I took
third place and earned somewhere around
$314.00 or so. A check for that amount was
found in a mailed envelope several weeks
after I returned. It did not bounce. At the
recent Hawaii Open (Feb 2001), I won the open
foil and won $1000. A check for that amount
was mailed to me several weeks later. It also
did not bounce.

In both cases, I cashed the checks and spent
the money on fun stuff.

The DITD presents chips, but that's only
because it looks quite a bit more impressive
to wheel out a table full of chips than to
hand someone a check (unless it's one of those
Publishers' Clearinghouse or Lotto checks
which resembles a 4'x8' sheetrock cut in
half, then it would be pretty impressive).

We also had the Put-up/Shut-up tournament in
SF and the winner received cash (green stuff)
straight out. However, since the winner was
a collegiate fencer, he did not accept any
money, and no cash transaction occurred (in
that instance, in other events where the
winner was not a collegiate fencer, I believe
the winner did accept the moolah).

[oiuyt]

Eric, the question isn't whether or not fencers receive money for performance but rahter whether or not doing so violates the USFA policies and therefore (in theory) should prevent said person from participating in the national championships. The USFA DOESN'T enforce their rule (assuming that it IS still a rule, again I know this was supposed to be revisited but never heard any outcome). That doesn't mean that there ISN'T such a rule. The NCAA DOES enforce their similar rule which is why collegiate fencers are (or REALLY should be) much more careful about such things.
Have you been told by the USFA that receiving cash prizes is fine or is it more that they haven't told you "oops, you're now banned?" As of when the PFL was around (that first check mentioned) they definately DID issue a statement saying that people who were paid cash prizes would NOT be allowed to participate in national championships or anything on the qualifying paths to the national championships.

-B

[oiuyt]

Okay, this is a bit long....

Here's the USFA policy as stated on the website (unfortunately there's no date on it, from other things I believe that this was a policy from 1999):

Policy on Professionals
USFA Policies

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

STATEMENT OF POLICY CONCERNING PROFESSIONALS FENCING IN USFA COMPETITIONS AND USFA MEMBERS FENCING IN PROFESSIONAL TOURNMENTS

USFA Bylaws Article VII Section 18(d) provides: 'Professionals shall be permitted to compete only under such rules and conditions as the Board of Directors may from time to time prescribe.'

The Board of Directors has permitted all professionals who are competitive USFA members to compete in all USFA Tournaments with the exception of the individual national championships. At this time, National Championships include Division I, IA, II, III Nationals, age group Nationals and qualification tournaments to the Nationals. Professionals have been allowed to compete in the Veterans National Championships.

Fencing in competitions sponsored by other organizations will not result in disciplinary action against USFA members.

Professionals are fencers who receive cash prizes for placement in competition.
Times have changed since the Board of Directors decided that professionals would not be permitted to fence in the individual National Championships. Professionals now compete in the Olympics in sports when eligibility rules of the International Federation permit. The FIE awards cash prizes at Grand Prix international events.

The Executive Committee has decided to recommend that the Board of Directors revisit this important policy issue. It will be scheduled as a first hearing item at the Board meeting at the summer National Championships, will be submitted to the Congress meeting during the summer, and will be a second hearing item for decision at the annual meeting of the Board in September.

This was brought up at the July 2000 meeting of the USFA congress, here's some bits from the agenda (also posted on the USFA website, unfortunately in PDF so I need to retype to quote it, any spelling errors are therefore my typos):

Professionals are fencers who receive cash prizes for placement in competition or compensation for coaching a fencer for competition.

A motion to recommend that our FIE delegate vote in favor of the abolition of the amateurism code was made and carried.

Also,

There was a second motion to recommend that the Board of Directors remove the second clause of the definition to eliminate the person of coach from the definition of professional fencer; the preferred definition would be "Professional are fencers who receive cash prizes for placement in competition"

In discussion, it was pointed out that we would be in violation of FIE rules as they currently exist, therefore the motion was withdrawn.

The minutes for the July 1999 Congress meeting have nearly the exact same things (down to the same motions, same objection and withdrawl of the second motion).

The agenda of the BoD meeting July 1998 includes:

a. Executive Committee Report of Action from teleconference held March 23, 1998
1. Approved a motion to modify the text defining "professional fencer" as approved by the Board as follows:
"Professionals are fencers who receive cash prizes for placement in fencing competition."

2. Approved a motion requiring each entrant to the National Championships competitions in 1998 to sign a statement attesting to the fact that he or she has not received any cash prize for placement in a fencing competition. The National Office, Bout Committees and other authorities responsible for National Championship entry, registration or competition shall honor such statement as true and the remedy for misrepresentation in connection with the giving of such statement shall by disciplinary action as provided in Article VIII of the USFA Bylaws.

The minutes from the same meeting include:

Mr. Gilman asked for an explanation for the change in the definition of professionalism. Mr. Alperstein explained that after the February Board meeting, the EC, on further reflection, felt the definition adopted at that time went beyond the original intent of the Board and this was the best way to address the issue. Defining exactly what constitutes a professional coach would be a complex and controversial exercise and ultimately moot in that the USFA is sponsoring a motion to the FIE Congress to eliminate the amateurism code intheir bylaws.

July 1998 is as early as minutes and agendae for the Board and Congress are posted on the USFA website. The above citations are every mention of professional fencing in any of those.

Basically from reading them it appears that the current policy is the professionals are not allowed where a professional is defined as "Professionals are fencers who receive cash prizes for placement in fencing competition." It's clear that mostly the USFA wants to remove this policy but hasn't officially done so yet. Will you get in trouble for accepting cash prizes? No. Does it technically violate USFA policy? Yes.

[sabreur]

OIUYT,

You aren't by any chance either a lawyer or a lawyer wannabe, are you?

I think that between the fact that you win cash at World Cups, and the fact that the noble EDEW has obviously pulled down some bucks, and no one is preventing either those
American fencers who compete in World Cups, or the afore-mentioned illustrious EDEW from competing in USFA national competions, you might be able to conclude that the policy is OBE.

Unless of course, you are planning to protest the participation of anyone who might have competed in a world cup or other tournament with cash prizes--if supported, such a protest would certainly reduce the quality of the field....

If you really want an answer, post the question to rec.sport.fencing, and Mark Orton will respond--he generally is on the up and up about what is going on in the bowels of the USFA.

MR

[edew]

To OIUYT (or however it's spelled):

Since the 1998 PFL, I've competed in various
local, sectional, and national events, including the 2000 Summer Nationals (Div IA, Div II) and 2001 Summer Nationals (Div IA, Div I, Div II, and Div I team). So I guess the answer is that USFA isn't going to pursue it too much.

I also spoke with Felicia Z about this, since she's on one of the committees which has some oversight to this issue. She said that the USFA rules will be changed soon to be more amenable to those who receive cash prizes. NCAA rules, however, are still pretty strict.

At the moment, only the winners of various events (DITD, Hawaii Open, etc) have received monetary prizes. In the case of epee at the DITD, Ingo Grausam has been the only winner, and he's a German fencer (i.e., not under the auspices of the USFA). Felicia won the women's foil, Michael Marx and Sean McClain split the prize for men's foil, and Michael D'Asaro Jr won the men's sabre. Chances are, they will win the prizes again this year (although I think the sabre will have a different result as some courageous NY sabre folks will come out for the chance). Thus, we don't have enough different people winning the prize to see what impact it has with the USFA. Felicia isn't fencing much nowadays, Michael Marx is primarily a coach, Jr is not competing actively anymore, and only Sean is still competitive, although it's not clear for how many more years (I guess he'll try for 2004 and that'll be it in terms of strongly competitive).

At the Hawaii Open, Petar Toshcov won the open epee, I won the open foil, and some Japanese woman won the women's foil. Petar is a Bulgarian fencer, and the Japanese woman is, as you might guess, a Japanese fencer. So again, the only person USFA could "make an example of" would be me. None of the others I've mentioned are punitively touchable by the USFA. Me, if some guy wants to make a protest at an NAC about my "professionalism", I think the USFA will have to act on it. But there are enough other fencers at an NAC to back me up, if there is any backing up to do.

[Chris]

Originally posted by oiuyt:
<STRONG>
Would be interesting to actually get an official policy decision on this, no? I'm not even sure who could be asked this question and have his/her answer actually be taken as fact.</STRONG>

Well, that's the trouble with a whole lot of things: the duration of time it has taken to revise the Operations Manual, its programs and policies (or rather the difficulty of getting people to think clearly, and OBJECTIVELY about the changes), as well as the inability of comprehensive proof-reading has led to numerous left-hand/right-hand conflicts, and many conflicts over what various people have been told "directly by (fill-in-the-blank)".

Originally posted by oiuyt:
<STRONG>
Does anyone know whether or not this actually WAS discussed by the USFA this year and if so what the outcome was? Pointers to minutes would be appreciated.
-B </STRONG>

The agenda and minutes of these meetings are being posted on the Website, under the "Info for Members" menu option: http://www.usfencing.org/Official

Although the most recent minutes have not been posted, you can check the agenda.

Also, you may find that reading Appendices A, B, and C to the USFA Operations Manual helps a lot less than it should: there seems to be a lot of people who can't write coherently, and quite a few who can't understand, even when it is, as well as a lot of conflicting terms: Just because you might get paid a little something for winning something doesn't really make you "professional", unfortunately, there's the 'slippery slope' issue about where to draw the line.

The other problems arise from the various authorities involved: the IOC has rules applying to their competition, but the FIE can certainly have other rules applicable to people competing in the World Championships which have nothing whatsoever to do with the Olympics; likewise for the USOC, and the USFA (which tries it's darndest to make everybody happy, except, of course, the fencers!)

A Key phrase is (Extracted from the rules of the IOC - International Olympic Committee)
IV. THE OLYMPIC GAMES
1. Participation in the Olympic Games
26. ELIGIBILITY CODE
"To be eligible for participation in the Olympic Games, a competitor must:
...;
not have received any financial rewards or material benefit in connection with his or her sports participation, except as permitted in the bylaws to this rule."

Now should the word 'participation' be applied microscopically, or MACROscopically?
Certainly, on the WHOLE, since many of us often spend a good bit of money buying equipment, belonging to clubs, and maybe even taking classes, and getting lessons, as well as paying USFA memberships, and traveling to tournaments before we get good enough to think about winning; we could certainly win (or perhaps, rather 'win back') a lot of 'money' (or whatever) before we start talking about being financially rewarded, or benefitting materially.

The words 'material benefit' would seem to imply that only useless trinkets should be allowed as prizes; however, our friends, the soviets, pretty much did whatever they wanted, so everyone else felt they should change their standards, as well.

Also the phrase, "except as permitted in the bylaws to this rule" give rise to the loopholes wherein the NGB's (National Governing Bodies - i.e. the USFA, or US Swimming, or US Track and Field Assoc.) can administer training funds: anytime US Fencers 'win money' money at World Cups, or wherever, it is supposed to be funneled through the USFA, which keeps track of the funds, and their use, according to some protocol, which I won't pretend to have knowledge of.

If you want to get hardline about it; the Olympics is supposed to be AMATEUR athletes, who only do it because they love the sport, so they really shouldn't even get ANYTHING, and the results shouldn't be written down to reward the victor with the immortality of the record books.

Obviously, I am taking the argument to the point of absurdity; but in the face of this perversion, what else can a poor boy do?!?

The fact that some people can, for various reasons of good fortune, dedicate a lot of time and money towards the pursuit of some of these activities, while others struggle just to keep body and soul together, has provided motivation, and justification for much of these subsidy practices, and the policy people have not done a good job of keeping up with it, nor communicating the changes that DO get made.

Next thing you know we will all have to carry around notarized copies of our incomes tax forms!

If you are really worried about it; I recommend you get your hands on good source documentation, and a better lawyer, and the Oxford English Dictionary. Oh, and you'll probably need a good French-English Dictionary, too!

I don't suppose that really helped much!


Fencing = FUN!

Chris

[epeemike81]

oiuyt isn't a lawyer, just one nitpicking sob.

-m