Thursday, June 19, 2008

Poll Thursday - Acceptable tournament profit

Last week we can infer that the majority of people are concerned with the cost to quality of amenities at a tournament. This isn't a huge shock, and I think as we head forward and more tournaments are in supply, only the best cost to quality tournaments will be able to grow in size. This is with the exception of competition at tournaments, where the likes of big named teams draw other teams in. I wonder when big name teams will starting getting appearance fees as opposed to paying tournament fees. I'd guess about five years.

In relation to the cost to quality of a tournament , I thought I'd ask a follow up. What do you think is an acceptable amount of money for a tournament to make per team (poll right). This means a team pays X and the tournament makes a profit Y where Y < X, and your answers are in terms of Y/X as a percentage. I've put the options in percentage of tournament fee.



_dusty_ said...

TD's should be able to make as much as teams are willing to pay. If there are teams on the waiting list for Potlatch with the tournament fee set at $900, then there's obviously a market for high-end tournaments. Don't know what the DiscNW makes off of the tournament, but they deserve every penny of it.

The problem comes when you've got a jacked up tournament fee and amenities of disproportionate value. If the TD walked away with $4k and there wasn't enough water for Sunday, then you've got a problem *cough*Florida Winter Classic*cough*

Ulti-lover said...

It seems to me that tournaments in the US provide pitches, water, food, medical/physio etc all in the team fee. Some of the UK tournaments only provide pitches and showers although I suppose if people are willing to pay the (extortionate) £180 team fee that has become the average this year then perhaps TD's deserve to make so much money.

I've put in bids for tour next year with a £130 entry fee and should still get some profit on top... but I really do it for the sport. With no TD's there would be no tournaments.

I think that anyone making more than £750 in a weekend is making too much... and I've known a few who have made ten times that, hence why my entry fees are so low.

jdr said...

Rather than an acceptable percentage, the issue is more about transperency.

I'm more likely to go to a tournament where the TDs indicate clearly what you're getting at their tournament.

I'm even more likely when they can provide a rough budget (noting of course that things can change).

Its also desirable that TDs give some indication as to why they're looking to make a buck. Its good to see "we're fundraising to buy some marquees and a trailer" or "we want to pay for coaches for our juniors". Its also fair enough to say "we need to budget a profit to offset the risk of running the tournament". I even don't mind if they say "We're making a profit because we know people are willing to pay our price" because at least they're open and up front.

TDs being open and transparent on their budgeting means the rest of us can properly give them kudos and appreciation for their volunteer effort and love of the sport (if their profit is budgeted to be low), or demand more from them in terms of quality and service if their profit is high (even when its for 'good' reasons).

Farmer John said...

On tournament quality, I was much more impressed with the food arrangements at australian tournaments than at college tournaments in the US. Over there you generally got a proper lunch provided (bread and lunch meat and tomatoes and avocado) and of course water. Bagels, peanut butter and bananas is not nearly enough to sustain an entire team for a day, and you don't get a second food bag on sunday at most places. Not to mention that some people die from eating peanut butter.

I didn't see physios very often in Australia, but what's the point of a physio if they are only at 1 of 4 field sites like I've seen in the US?

I'm quite willing to pay extra to have some of those extra niceties.

Also, agreed with JDR. Transparency is a good thing to have for tournaments, especially those charging a larger then usual fee.

SIUltimate said...

Potlatch costs alot, but they don't make much money off of it Dusty. I believe they do offer transparency on the funds spent for Disc NW. I agree on the amenities, but it is really up to ultimate players themselves to up the ante.

If a tournament does not have good bang for the buck then it is up to teams to just stop attending. Being on just a mediocre college team, I prefer to fend for myself on food unless at a huge tourney and pay minimal fees.

parinella said...

I think the answer also depends on whether it's a free market tournament or if it's a series tournament. A Sectional Coordinator shouldn't be allowed to charge what the market can bear because it's not his tournament, he's just running it for the UPA (or insert national org here).

For this reason, the WUGC fee seems excessive ($360 CDN per person, plus $1000 team fee). I hear that WFDF is getting precious little of that, but why didn't they bargain harder to reduce the fee? My team is paying $11K entrance fee.

Twatson said...

Jim do you know if the team and player fee for WUGC is flat across all nations? Do areas like the North America, Australia, Japan and Europe pay more to cover the costs of teams from south american or asian etc? That might explain the sharper cost. The profit may also be going to CUPA/CFDA, alongside the Vancouver association. Perhaps we have to accept a significant profit reward to entice countries/cities to host WUGC and WUCC etc.

When qualification tournaments are run here in Australia, (Regionals, Sectionals, etc) there is a maximum profit percentage that can be taken. I think its between 12-20% but I cannot remember off the top of my head.