{"channel":"chess","content":"https://www.chess.com/news/view/being-a-chess-professional-in-europe-sucks-blohberger\r\n\r\n<<< While players inside the top 20 or 30 \"don't really have that many financial struggles,\" Blohberger said that grandmasters outside of that do, especially in Europe. The two main problems, as he described, were (1) the high cost of living and (b) the lack of recognition. \r\n\r\nIn both respects, he compared the conditions of Europeans and Asians. To illustrate one difference, he gave an example: imagine two 2600-rated players, one from Germany and the other from India. \"If both of these players have the same rating... and they play the same tournaments... they will, on average, make the same prize money, let's say, and this prize money is of course worth way more in this case in India than in Germany.\"\r\n\r\nHe also raised that the prizes and \"honorary\" (a stipend paid by leagues or clubs) have stayed the same for decades and have not risen with inflation.\r\n\r\nThe second issue was recognition. While chess has been historically popular in Europe, the popularity boom seems to have transferred to Asia. >>>\r\n\r\nThe short answer is << YES >>.  The iron law of economics is that, in a field such as this (<red> revenue is generated from \"sponsorship\", minimal barriers to entry, legible skill differences), the \"marginal\" professional will only earn subsistence wages.  And this guy, at about 500th in the world (2530 ELO), is clearly marginal.","created_at":"2025-01-25T16:12:33.262037","id":149,"llm_annotations":{},"parent_id":null,"processed_content":"<p><a href=\"https://www.chess.com/news/view/being-a-chess-professional-in-europe-sucks-blohberger\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">https://www.chess.com/news/view/being-a-chess-professional-in-europe-sucks-blohberger</a>\r</p>\n<p><div class=\"mlq\"><button type=\"button\" class=\"mlq-collapse\" aria-label=\"Toggle visibility\"><span class=\"mlq-collapse-icon\">\u2212</span></button><div class=\"mlq-content\"><p> While players inside the top 20 or 30 \"don't really have that many financial struggles,\" Blohberger said that grandmasters outside of that do, especially in Europe. The two main problems, as he described, were (1) the high cost of living and (b) the lack of recognition. \r</p>\n<p>\r</p>\n<p>In both respects, he compared the conditions of Europeans and Asians. To illustrate one difference, he gave an example: imagine two 2600-rated players, one from Germany and the other from India. \"If both of these players have the same rating... and they play the same tournaments... they will, on average, make the same prize money, let's say, and this prize money is of course worth way more in this case in India than in Germany.\"\r</p>\n<p>\r</p>\n<p>He also raised that the prizes and \"honorary\" (a stipend paid by leagues or clubs) have stayed the same for decades and have not risen with inflation.\r</p>\n<p>\r</p>\n<p>The second issue was recognition. While chess has been historically popular in Europe, the popularity boom seems to have transferred to Asia. </p></div></div>\r</p>\n<p>The short answer is <span class=\"literal-text\">YES</span>.  The iron law of economics is that, in a field such as this <span class=\"colorblock color-red\"><span class=\"sigil\">\ud83d\udca1</span><span class=\"colortext-content\">( revenue is generated from \"sponsorship\", minimal barriers to entry, legible skill differences)</span></span>, the \"marginal\" professional will only earn subsistence wages.  And this guy, at about 500th in the world (2530 ELO), is clearly marginal.</p>","quotes":[],"subject":"iron law of economics"}