£

[James Pratt]

I had a look through at the prizes for this year's British not that Maths was exactly my strong favourite at school.

Did I read that the first prize was £10,000? What else might be included, appearance money, additional rewards, some sort of bonus that I overlooked?
A report in British Chess Magazine of Hove 1997 says the first prize was £10,000, that the prize fund for 'the top section' was over £22,000.
What am I missing ?
James

[Roger de Coverly]

Did I read that the first prize was £10,000? What else might be included, appearance money, additional rewards, some sort of bonus that I overlooked?
A report in British Chess Magazine of Hove 1997 says the first prize was £10,000, that the prize fund for 'the top section' was over £22,000.
What am I missing ?
James

I doubt you are missing anything. 1997 was the first year of sponsorship by Smith & Williamson, so they were looking for headlines and to attract the leading British players.

I should think that as well as the first and other prizes, the leading players would get a contribution to their expenses. That has been confirmed by Keith Arkell who added that playing in the British itself was a condition. Back in 1997,I think players were expected to finance themselves.

In the absence of external sponsorship, the British Championship has to fall back on four sources of finance. There's entry fees which usually involves a subsidy from the "amateur" events and those of a low rating playing in the Championship. There's a general subsidy from the membership of the ECF. Currently the ECF enjoys a Government grant towards elite chess, so I imagine that's utilised. There's also support from the chess charities, the John Robinson Trust and the Chess Trust. There are limitations on how these may be used.

[Alex Holowczak]

Did I read that the first prize was £10,000? What else might be included, appearance money, additional rewards, some sort of bonus that I overlooked?
A report in British Chess Magazine of Hove 1997 says the first prize was £10,000, that the prize fund for 'the top section' was over £22,000.
What am I missing ?

The 1st prize is, indeed, £10,000 this year, but the total place prizes go down to 10th place, and add to £25,000. In addition to that, there is £7,000 on women's prizes (which I suspect were lower in 1997?), and £2,000 on Junior/Rating Band/Best Game prizes. Thus the total prize fund for "the top section" of £34,000 seems to be more than 50% higher than it was in 1997.

I should think that as well as the first and other prizes, the leading players would get a contribution to their expenses.

I can't comment on what it was like in 1997, but it is true that in 2026 (and since at least 2010) several of the top players are offered conditions.

[Joey Stewart]

The British always seems reasonably well funded for a national competition, it's the weekenders with £100-200 prizes that are really stuck in the past especially now the costs of an average player more or less guarantees a financial loss whether you win a prize or not.

[Ian Thompson]

What am I missing ?

The effects of inflation? Prices have doubled between 1997 and now. The main prizes haven't kept place with inflation, but most of the other prizes probably have (e.g. the U2300 rating prize was £100 in 1997 and is £250 this year), particularly the women's prizes which I'm pretty sure are vastly more than they were in 1997.

The BCF Yearbook says the 1997 championships had £25,000 of support from Smith & Williamson.

[Alex Holowczak]

It just occurred to me that the prize money is now for 9 rounds' work rather than 11 rounds.

[IM Jack Rudd]

That comparison works even better if you go by session length: 45 hours rather than 77.

[John Swain]

Financial comparisons are being made between 1997 and the situation today.

Stretching things by just one year, I recollect that when we in Nottinghamshire helped to organise the British Championships in 1996, one of the preconditions was that the venue had to be free to the BCF. This condition was met. This is probably not the case for many venues in recent times, certainly not for many congresses which have seen rents rise considerably.

A second difference is the expenses paid to arbiters. Arbiting in the 1990s was largely a voluntary exercise. I can't recollect receiving any remuneration. Nowadays, whilst some arbiters still provide their services for free, or for break-even expenses such as petrol or train fares, many events including the British Championships rightly pay a fee to arbiters.

[Ian Thompson]

It just occurred to me that the prize money is now for 9 rounds' work rather than 11 rounds.

That comparison works even better if you go by session length: 45 hours rather than 77.

Not if you're looking at the ratio of prize money to days or hours of entertainment provided to spectators.

[Peter Ackley]

The British always seems reasonably well funded for a national competition, it's the weekenders with £100-200 prizes that are really stuck in the past especially now the costs of an average player more or less guarantees a financial loss whether you win a prize or not.

I'm sure I posted on this before, Joey. Prize funds will increase when entrants are willing to pay more to enter tournaments. Since people don't want to pay more, and (with my limited economic knowledge) costs are not going to go down, nothing is going to change.

Rather than stating the problem, Joey, why not tell us what your solution is... I've stopped running tournaments myself at the moment but my solution was I work out what the costs are, I work out what people will pay, I work out how many entries I will get and what is left is the prize fund. If people then complain I ask if they'd like to take over organising it.

[Alex Holowczak]

Stretching things by just one year, I recollect that when we in Nottinghamshire helped to organise the British Championships in 1996, one of the preconditions was that the venue had to be free to the BCF. This condition was met. This is probably not the case for many venues in recent times, certainly not for many congresses which have seen rents rise considerably.

The event is also very different in nature in 2026 compared to 1996:

• There are more events for recreational players; including rapids, blitzes, team events, and more.
• There is a festival of events happening during the event.
• There are junior training camps with coaches for local juniors during the event.

The space required at the event is more than it used to be, even if the duration that we need it for is shorter.

A second difference is the expenses paid to arbiters. Arbiting in the 1990s was largely a voluntary exercise. I can't recollect receiving any remuneration. Nowadays, whilst some arbiters still provide their services for free, or for break-even expenses such as petrol or train fares, many events including the British Championships rightly pay a fee to arbiters.

It was largely a closed shop in those days when it came to arbiter appointments until about 10-15 years ago, and so you saw the same faces every year, who were happy to do it for virtually nothing. It is a different world now - an open application process with remuneration. Some arbiters still don't think it is enough, even though it compares reasonably well to what officials are paid in other sports.

[Roger de Coverly]

It was largely a closed shop in those days when it came to arbiter appointments until about 10-15 years ago, and so you saw the same faces every year, who were happy to do it for virtually nothing.

I would be fairly sure they got hotel accommodation paid for in 1997. That contrasted with the majority of the competitors. At some events, the arbiters even won prizes in the sense that they got awards at the prize giving.

[John Swain]

...

The event is also very different in nature in 2026 compared to 1996:

• There are more events for recreational players; including rapids, blitzes, team events, and more.
• There is a festival of events happening during the event.
• There are junior training camps with coaches for local juniors during the event.

...

I don't wish to derail this thread, which is about finance, but I would counter the idea that the British Championships have only recently developed events for recreational players or a festival programme. I agree with the third point concerning junior training, which is a welcome improvement. The following is taken from Stewart Reuben's report about the 1996 British Championships in Nottingham:

"There was much more local support for the congress than for many years. Perhaps this is because people have become used to the congress being organised by the same team every year. Local sponsors were found: East Midlands Electricity sponsored prizes for Midlands players; Jessops Department store offered free subsidised entries for Nottingham Juniors; Deloitte & Touche sponsored the new Under-125 and Under-100 Championships and Boots provided a voucher for the best performance by a female. The BCF can never expect to succeed in arranging such local business support. Neil Graham took responsibility for the evening events which included activities as disparate as cricket, football, bridge, Any Questions, Richard Furness’s General Knowledge Quiz, a new Golden Oldies Music Quiz, Crazy Lightning, Bug-house, speed chess and a shop window competition. In addition a local information stand was manned throughout the event. Locals also helped with the weekend tournaments."

source: https://saund.co.uk/britbase/pgn/199608bcf-viewer.html

Eight of the organisers and arbiters named in Stewart's report, who helped to control the weekend and some other tournaments, were from Nottinghamshire, with only one, Neil Graham, being a regular at the British Championships.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"It was largely a closed shop in those days when it came to arbiter appointments until about 10-15 years ago, and so you saw the same faces every year, who were happy to do it for virtually nothing."

I suspect the senior arbiters did pretty well in 1997, as it was largely their actions which led to Smith and Williamson's generous sponsorship.

[Alex Holowczak]

The BCF can never expect to succeed in arranging such local business support. Neil Graham took responsibility for the evening events which included activities as disparate as cricket, football, bridge, Any Questions, Richard Furness’s General Knowledge Quiz, a new Golden Oldies Music Quiz, Crazy Lightning, Bug-house, speed chess and a shop window competition.

In that case, it seems to have diminished, and then returned to its former glory.

"It was largely a closed shop in those days when it came to arbiter appointments until about 10-15 years ago, and so you saw the same faces every year, who were happy to do it for virtually nothing."

I suspect the senior arbiters did pretty well in 1997, as it was largely their actions which led to Smith and Williamson's generous sponsorship.

Do you think? It isn't really an arbiter's job to raise sponsorship for the British Championships. I accept that it may be an arbiter wearing another hat, but the idea that the arbiters were really good was the selling point to a sponsor seems unlikely to me.