The Myth that Scholastic Players are subsidized by Adult Players

I see a lot of griping on the newsgroups and elsewhere that scholastic players are being subsidized. Calls are made for raising the dues of scholastic players so that they will pay their "fair share".

I would like to know where these ideas come from and the figures on which they are based. I can find no basis for these claims. If anything, scholastic players pay too much, not too little.

Here are a few figures from the latest USCF financial statements:

12 months ended May 98 10 months ended Mar 99

Regular members	886,794	714,207
multi-year		166,081	142,696

Youth - One Year $156,165 $138,327 Youth - Multi Year $11,846 $14,017

Scholastic $242,020 $201,609 Multi-year 10,067 10,776

Youth members are age 19 and under. They pay $17 per year and receive Chess Life. Scholastic members are age 14 and under. They pay $12 per year and do not receive Chess Life but receive School Mates instead. School Mates is essentially a pamphlet which comes out only 6 times a year.

As can be seen, Scholastic memberships brought in $252,097 last year, plus scholastic members also order through the catalog and spend money on books and equipment.

Scholastic members receive essentially nothing for their $12, because School Mates does not amount to much and presumably pays for itself with the advertising it contains.

Therefore, I fail to understand why anybody says that scholastic members are subsidized.

I could see how some might say that Youth members are subsidized because Youth members get Chess Life and pay $23 less per year while receiving the same benefits as regular members. However, nobody seems to be complaining about that. They complain about the scholastic members.

Could somebody explain the reason for this?

Sam Sloan

Here are links:
Sam Sloan's Chess Page

My Home Page

Contact address - please send e-mail to the following address: