Why Chess Struggles to Find Money, and What One Organiser Does Differently
A summary of the late Peter Long’s 2015 opinion column in Malay Mail, “Funding chess tournaments... the right way”. These are the columnist’s views, not established facts.
Chess is one of the most widely recognised games in the world, with a potential audience in the hundreds of millions. Yet Long argues it is badly short of sponsorship, and he puts the blame on the people running it rather than on the game.
The problem starts at the top
Long’s first target is the World Chess Federation (FIDE), which he says has been led for twenty years by someone who has delivered no real direction or purpose. In his telling, FIDE has never learned to sell the game commercially. It relies instead on flagship events bankrolled by governments that want a turn on the world stage, and on wealthy Gulf states. The rest of its income, he says, comes from its own members: cuts of prize money, plus fees for entries, titles and ratings.
He also describes a trickle-down effect. National federations copy this model, and he says youth tournaments are the clearest example. Organisers don’t need sponsors if families will pay for hotels, entry and travel. Because children usually have to be accompanied, parents often bring the whole family along.
Long contrasts this with independent organisers of elite events and big opens abroad, who have kept local sponsors happy and worked with tech providers on live coverage, expert commentary and mobile-friendly viewing.
The Malaysian picture
Long is harsher still about Malaysia. He says local officials mostly repeat what has been done before, with no goals or targets for growing the game. He sorts Malaysian organisers into several groups, mainly by what motivates them:
- Dormant state associations that run events to meet minimum obligations, and are led by a handful of people who never let go of their posts.
- Aspiring international events, often backed by a veteran patron, such as the Penang and IGB Malaysian Opens.
- Tradition-keepers without sponsors, like the Selangor Open, which he notes needed a small prize-fund top-up from a regional chess foundation, alongside some government-linked rapid events in Sabah.
- Ego-driven or self-serving events, which he says exist to give organisers status, favours or rating points for their own students or friends.
- One-day rated weekend events that he describes as unsupervised, with high entry fees, low prize payouts and children as the main market.
The national federation
Long reserves his strongest criticism for the Malaysian Chess Federation (MCF). He says it seems to exist mainly so certain officials can profit, while the rest of the committee tolerates the conflicts of interest. He points to the federation’s control over national titles and team selection, which he says rests with one person. He argues that this power is used against children and their parents, who want to join overseas youth events and face inflated fees, coaching costs and the expense of an accompanying official. He also repeats a rumour that complimentary hotel rooms from organisers have sometimes been sold.
A better model
The column ends on a positive example. Mohd Fadli Zakaria, known as “Stonemaster”, runs Cerdik Catur Enterprises. Long says it secures around RM200,000 a year in sponsorship, which he describes as modest but vastly more than the MCF has raised. Fadli’s team runs events almost every weekend in Selangor and across the country. Long attended a two-day open at the Petaling Jaya Community Library, in its fifth year, with RM10,000 in prizes.
Fadli is a vocal self-promoter who uses social media well and has his critics. But Long says all sponsorship money goes back to players as prizes. When the sponsor covers entry fees, Fadli takes only a small fee for his work. Long adds that the MCF benefits from his events through rating fees and grassroots activity without doing any of the work.
The takeaway
Long’s argument is that chess can pay for itself through real sponsorship, with money flowing back to players, without squeezing parents and children. Organisers who treat the game as a service rather than a personal platform can still make a living, and his one example is Fadli.
This is a 2015 piece, so a lot have changed since then. The late Peter Long writing about the late Fadli Zakaria but doing so at what I feel - height of their lives. So what do you think? Have conditions improved since 2015??
