Fide sparks anger with ‘gross’ breast enlargement sponsor for women’s chess

[Helen Milligan]

Enthusiastic? I haven't seen any enthusiasm. The feelings are overwhelmingly of outrage.
A cosmetics company would be fine, of course. Slapping on a bit of lippy has no comparison with major unnecessary surgery.
Where is the the IOC on this one? One of the reasons drugs are banned is to prevent people causing themselves unnecessary damage. Is it OK for a sport (particularly a mind-sport) to promote breast (and also, if glutes implants are what I think they are, butt) augmentation?

[Kevin Thurlow]

I can understand the outrage, what were they thinking?

However, breast enhancement has a major use as a follow-up to breast cancer surgery, so it can be useful and desirable. It is not always about vanity.

Don't make the players wear the sponsor's logo.

[NickFaulks]

Enthusiastic? I haven't seen any enthusiasm. The feelings are overwhelmingly of outrage.

Perhaps female chess players are not representative of women generally, or perhaps those who are not outraged feel safer keeping their opinion to themselves. I have no idea, but cosmetic surgery is certainly very popular.

[Angus French]

I notice there's a FIDE Commission for Women's Chess (see here). Presumably they were consulted before the sponsorship deal was struck? What is their position on the matter?

[Nigel Short]

1) The sponsorship, by Establishment Labs, for women's chess, is substantial. 2) A lot of women get breast cancer during the course of their lives. 3) Women have the right to choose what they do with their bodies.

Incidentally, from the women I have spoken to on this matter (an admittedly unscientific sample - rather like the anonymous critics on LiChess, in fact) the response to the FIDE sponsorship deal has been generally positive. Words like "empowering" have been used. This is not to dismiss the very genuine concerns of Dr Helen Milligan, and others. But to argue that women as a whole are outraged by the sponsorship deal is simply not true.

[Helen Milligan]

Chess results are achieved by skilful thinking and hard work. Not by altering your appearance to fit society’s ideals. Chess is one of few activities where we are judged solely by what we can do. This deal undermines that. Hence, it is humiliating, not empowering.

Of course I understand that the top women are devoted to chess and will accept this deal as a way to continue in the sport they love. I think the continued focus on breast cancer reconstruction surgery is a red herring, though, since it is not clinically required and indeed (if I have understood correctly) is not even recommended. The pressures women are under to conform to society's ideals run deep, and the rewards for conforming are high.

[JustinHorton]

an admittedly unscientific sample - rather like the anonymous critics on LiChess, in fact

The lichess piece says

Before publication, we reached out to some women involved in the chess community and their responses are below. Most requested anonymity for fear of retribution from FIDE or other professional consequences

and it would be as well to acknoledge this and bear it on mind.

[Matthew Turner]

On hearing this news, I had very much the same reaction to Justin and Helen, but on further reflection, I think the issues are much more nuisanced. I think it is worth considering a couple of questions

1. Are young girls watching/following/taking part in women's chess more or less likely to want unnecessary surgery?

2. If you were advising Establishment Labs would you think this sponsorship was a good idea? (I wonder if this sponsorship is less about promoting their products and more about appealing to investors)

[Nigel Short]

We are very used to anonymous pieces in LiChess, by now, "for fear of retribution." Perhaps it is so. Or perhaps they are just made up...

[Nick Burrows]

1. Are young girls watching/following/taking part in women's chess more or less likely to want unnecessary surgery?

If that's who the adverts are targeting, then yes.

[JustinHorton]

We are very used to anonymous pieces in LiChess, by now, "for fear of retribution." Perhaps it is so. Or perhaps they are just made up...

Fantastic

[Kevin Thurlow]

Medical insurance covers breast reconstruction, so it must be a recognized practice. I spoke to one cancer patient who had reconstructive surgery, which she had to make herself feel better. When someone suggested she did it to please men, she got very cross and pointed out men's views were irrelevant to her choice. It is an individual choice and we should respect that.

I assume all readers know that men can get breast cancer too, and may have reconstruction afterwards.

I can understand people commenting anonymously on the matter, but I would also expect cries of "citation needed". Perhaps it depends on the viewpoint the reader wants to take.

Are the sponsors targeting the players? I agree you don't want to entice worried teenagers into unnecessary actions relating to appearance. It may just be good advertising, and there are probably tax advantages. How often do players give any thought to who is funding an event?

Chessbase website did an article a few years ago about a girls' junior event and filled the report with swimsuit pictures with captions saying, "Isn't X beautiful and she is only 14!" That seems incredibly offensive in comparison... Everyone has his or her own view of course.

[Paolo Casaschi]

We are very used to anonymous pieces in LiChess, by now, "for fear of retribution." Perhaps it is so. Or perhaps they are just made up...

Perhaps the LiChess comments are just made up. However, even if those comments were completely made up, I find it difficult to dismiss the concern about this sponsorship when even mainstream newspapers picked on the oddity.
It might be good money, but the optics of associating FIDE with a breast enlargement company look very odd.

[Paolo Casaschi]

In the strange times we inhabit, I'm not sure how you are supposed to find a sponsor who doesn't give offence to someone.

Sure. But how often do you see mainstream newspapers reporting about unusual sponsorship agreements? You can't possibly deny this arrangement looks very odd.
It's not only The Guardian, for example The New York Times picks on this as well with some interesting (and non-anonymous) quotes.

[Theo Wait]

We are very used to anonymous pieces in LiChess, by now, "for fear of retribution." Perhaps it is so. Or perhaps they are just made up...

A Vice President of FIDE making such a serious allegation should have something of substance to support that. The accusation - that Lichess is unethical enough to invent dissent against FIDE (what would even be the purpose? Lichess is the largest chess charity in the world and wants the sport to grow) is very serious. And, unless he is using the royal we, it seems to indicate this is a widespread opinion within FIDE.

The Lichess article specified women were uncomfortable to give public criticism. The Chess.com article had the same conclusion - an anonymous woman quoted, saying "in order to not be punished by FIDE, I will have to be at least neutral publicly". The conclusion to their article also said: "When asked privately, most women who responded to Chess.com expressed opposition to this sponsorship. When asked publicly, players in the Women's Team Chess Championship, the first event supported by this sponsor, have not been openly critical and have expressed appreciation for any sponsor supporting women's chess. The power dynamics and financial implications at play almost certainly impact this discussion."

Furthermore, it's worth pointing out that The Guardian was able to independently verify some of the comments made to Lichess as being from who Lichess presented them as - "Those comments were backed by another titled female chess streamer, who told the Guardian: “Fide does not have a strong track record in empowering women and I find it degrading and humiliating that an activity like chess, which is so cognitive, is being sponsored by a company which primarily profits from women’s insecurities. I highly doubt Fide would bring a penis enlargement company to sponsor the men’s World Championship.” - From The Guardian article.

It's incredible to me, as someone who genuinely loves chess and wants everyone to love it as much as I do, that a FIDE VP is more willing to believe Lichess, Chess.com and The Guardian are all inventing anecdotes and experiences, rather than actually believing women might be concerned about speaking out publicly. Perhaps the fact that a FIDE VP is making these slanderous allegations in public highlights exactly why so many people prefer to remain silent - the fear that those in power will hold it against them.

In the strange times we inhabit, I'm not sure how you are supposed to find a sponsor who doesn't give offence to someone.

Sure. But how often do you see mainstream newspapers reporting about unusual sponsorship agreements? You can't possibly deny this arrangement looks very odd.
It's not only The Guardian, for example The New York Times picks on this as well with some interesting (and non-anonymous) quotes.

Even the Daily Mail found it strange, as did the top comments by their readership. A newspaper which isn't really known for its promotion of progressive ideology, or boasts any kind of "woke" readership: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... mpany.html