Discussion of this change in the Kansas City community has ranged from ambivalent to positive thus far. Bear in mind almost all our events already have entry costs, so we do not face the scenario of free events no longer being free. Since this thread is having concerns listed, there are two I have (and both have been expressed in some form already). Well, one concern and one question that might end up being a concern to others.

As for the concern, it is the charity events. My personal opinion is the optics are bad (for the event) if it must move away from being able to claim that 100% of the entry fees go to the charity. Be it out of the pot as-is or as a separate fee, either case removes the ability to advertise the event as 100% for charity. One solution under the current proposal is to just drop such events from awarding WPPRs, but the WPPRs give these events leverage (they attract hardcore players who might not otherwise be particularly interested in the mission of the specific charity), and could hurt attendance. Another option that is being suggested in K.C. is seeking a sponsor for the IFPA fee, and keeping the entries 100% free. I imagine this is the route we'll try to go, though we already are relying on sponsors for trophies and door prizes, so it does add a level of inconvenience.

As such, I would like to request the IFPA to consider modifying their proposal for an exception for charity events. Something along the lines of any tournament that donates 100% of its entry fees to a 501(c)3 or other registered nonprofit (at the national level for Canada or USA) and/or governmental entity is exempt from the IFPA tournament fee and still eligible as an official, sanctioned tournament. My hope is by requiring the entity to be registered as a nonprofit it would avoid loophole situations, but as added insurance I wouldn't mind seeing a cap on events per state that can do this (for example, each state is allowed four such charity tournaments per year, first-come first-serve on the IFPA calendar).

My question/concern is regarding the impact/feelings states may have now that the contributions to the National pot are not equal. One of our area players has estimated Kansas would probably send about $400 for Nationals if our tournament count and player count holds at current levels. I want to think someone earlier estimated their West Coast state would send about $2000. Now that it isn't going to be the same amount per state, will there not be increased pressure from areas that fund a higher share of the prize pool to get more participants at Nationals? They'd have a good argument, given the financing has moved from total parity to a proportional aspect. Obviously the 75% going back to the State is moot to this (since that stays "in house"), but I think it does raise interesting questions for the National competition.

Anyway, just a couple thoughts. Thanks!