I feel the fee is basically a tax on all sanctioned competitive pinball events and players that ends up in the hands of the top 1% competitors.

I don't see how making it more lucrative will grow the industry. The vast majority of competitors aren't in it for the money and the money doesn't make that much difference. The onus is on the TDs to act as cashiers -- not something they necessarily are excited about doing when there's no real incentive for them.

In traditional competitive industries, it's sponsors that fund the prize money pool. The fact that the IFPA wants players to fund it says a lot about the state of pinball and the degree to which those in the industry who profit from it, aren't motivated or can't see a return from traditionally funding competition the way it is in virtually every other competitive field.

Rather than get players to fund the hobby, I would have liked to have seen the IFPA approach Stern and get sponsorship of $50-100k for the tournament series. That would have been a win-win for everybody. The fee system is a losing proposition for the majority of competitive players. And it offers absolutely nothing to the one group that works the hardest for the IFPA and never sees hardly any return: Tournament Directors. The real value and asset to the competitive scene are the TDs, who in this latest proposal, get another 8 foot length of the shaft.

Who knows if they tried. But the operative issue is: SPONSORS fund the prize money in just about EVERY OTHER COMPETITIVE EVENT ON THE PLANET. So if you want more money in competitive pinball, the appropriate thing to do is approach the sponsors, not the players.

I fail to see the logic in the argument that more prize money will attract more sponsors. That doesn't make sense. More players, a larger market attracts more sponsors. This proposal doesn't really benefit most players. How does, "Now I have to pay more money to compete" get more players to sign up?

I agree.. I don't see Stern coughing up the sponsorship money, even though, ironically, they stand to benefit the most from all this. Which to me, makes it even more egregious that the players should kick in more money. I think this ponzi scheme will eventually collapse.

Now that Bowen Kerins has dropped out of the IFPA, there's more mumbling that this "new idea" isn't that great of an idea. Some of us have been saying this for awhile, but I guess, the IFPA has to figure that out for themselves.

In my state, sanctioned events have dropped off considerably. Our player base just isn't finding it fun the way things have been going. The additional fees are the last nail in the coffin.

I'm not just some random person mouthing off. I was the first to bring sanctioned competitive pinball to my state. I hosted two SCSs, and now I'm hosting no more sanctioned events. The people in our community don't care any more. I'm responding to the community. We'll continue to host events, but we'll do more independent ones. Some of our people may host a few events here and there, but sanctioned competition has dropped off considerably in the last two years in our state, and I don't see how this fee system improves it. It seems to alienate both casual and high end markets.

I end up going back to... why bite the hand that feeds you? Why ask for more from the players and the TDs? Why shouldn't those who are profiting put more back into the community?

Sponsors make virtually all major sports work. There are exceptions, in industries like poker, where players do fund a prize pool, but even then, sponsors kick in huge amounts of extra money and resources. Totally player funded competition is more the exception than the standard.

It depends upon whether "my" good idea was just that: my idea, or the result of examining the market and industry, doing research and determining it addressed some kind of need?

If I got a lot of disapproval of an idea I had, I would re-evaluate that idea. I do that constantly. I've had plenty of bad ideas that have never been implemented because I got feedback and realized I hadn't fully thought those things through.

I'm not saying your idea is bad. I'm just not seeing how it benefits me and my community.

I see the main benefit appears to further monetize select high level competitions. I don't think the SCS attracts pinball players.. I think the every day stuff the TDs do is what drives the industry, and this plan really doesn't offer anything to the core group that feeds the machine that ends up in SCS.

I think promotional tournaments with interesting prizes do more to grow the industry (and it's sponsors that feed that). I'd put more emphasis on that, but that's me. Your mileage may vary.

Hey, do what you have to do. I understand you have to experiment.

I'm just curious if you've done research that indicates the main thing people really want out of sanctioned events is "more prize money at the state and national level?" Is this something of top priority? Until you brought up this idea, I never heard anyone complaining that this was a problem that needed to be addressed?

Anyway, I sincerely wish you and the IFPA success in your venture. I don't see at this time where its advantageous for me to feed into that system. I will remain open to whatever opportunities present themselves and whatever the people in our community want. If there's demand for those events, we'll do them, but it remains to be seen from my vantage point. Good luck with things and thanks for at least entertaining other opinions.