There's a fair amount of controversy surrounding the issue of tournament prize support in the Vintage community lately, and some prominent figures have voiced notably strong feelings on the subject. Given that the Vintage tournament scene is starting to shift in some areas of the country that have been known to be strongholds of the Type One tournament scene (such as New England), I thought this issue deserved special attention.

The central question is, "Do tournament organizers have an obligation to devote 100% of expected attendance revenue to a guaranteed prize structure?" Most people reading this article will immediately arrive at an answer that seems, to them, beyond dispute. Tournament organizers may answer the question by saying that they provide a valuable service to the community by taking the trouble to sponsor events, and they shouldn't also be expected to risk financial losses from a guaranteed prize structure. On the other hand, players might respond by saying that a T.O. is not just an ordinary business entity, but a part of a community; one that they depend on for revenue and market share. In this article, I propose that both of these positions has merit, and the Vintage community needs to become less extreme in its expectations of tournament sponsors and players alike if the tournament scene is to survive long-term. I also include a small list of suggestions for T.O.'s and players alike to consider in the planning of future events.

As alluded to earlier, one can look at the issue from two perspectives: a player, or a tournament organizer. What people sometimes forget is that both of these perspectives are important, since without either of the above groups, tournaments won't happen. If players consistently demand a T.O. provide hundreds of dollars in guaranteed prize support, many organizers will see running tournaments as an unacceptable risk and stop sponsoring events. On the other hand, if stores charge $25 a head for the chance to win a single Mox, players may not think the investment of time and money is worth it and will stop attending the store's events. Therefore, the Vintage community would do well to avoid extremes in its expectations of tournament prize structures. To further support this idea, I present two case examples:

1. Lenox Sportcards & Games.
This T.O. offered several hundreds of dollars in a guaranteed prize structure, only to get about a dozen attendees. After two or three more tries with similar results, he discontinued tournaments.

Compare this example with:

2. The Gathering, on Cape Cod
This T.O. offered cash prizes depending on attendance. While tournaments at this location did well initially, players eventually grew disappointed with the payouts and attendance gradually dwindled until this venue stopped holding events altogether.

As these examples further establish, neither of the two extremes will allow a tournament venue to have much long-term success. While I will state upfront that I have zero experience with organizing tournaments, I still think I can offer a few suggestions to find a happy medium.

First, tournament organizers should state upfront what their formula is for devising prize support. T.O.'s like Your Move Games, Mykeatog, and relative newcomer Samite Healer have all stated up front that every dollar they take in will go towards prize support. This sort of strategy builds player confidence and gets the respect of the community, but might seem less appealing to a venue hoping to make a profit from attendance fees themselves. On the other hand, venues like Myriad Games have taken a different approach to prize support, but have explicitly disclosed it, and the rationale behind it, to the community. By stating upfront how and why the prize structure is determined, players will feel less blindsided when they don't come home with that Italian Mana Drain they were hoping to get for third place, and will know exactly what they're getting themselves into before investing their time in an event.

Second, tournament organizers can negotiate and obtain feedback from the community while planning an event. Ben Kowal, as the former Hadley T.O., and Jeff Anand, mentioned above, have used this strategy. Doing this will allow players more of a say in the prize structure and make them feel less slighted by a prize they might consider too small. Additionally, the opportunity to play for a prize they helped design might make a player more willing to attend an event. The Beanie Exchange has recently adopted this approach, as well.

Third, and this should probably go without saying, both players and tournament organizers should be responsive to complaints from the other group. If a store runs an event only to have players complain about the prize support, the store should either readjust the prizes for next time or at least publicly state the reasons why the prize structure could not be any more generous. Similarly, players should only resort to boycotting venues as a last resort when they consider the prize structure less than ideal. Instead, players should first directly communicate to the T.O., whether publicly or privately, what their problems are with a tournament's prize support and why they think it's inappropriate. T.O.'s can't hear what players don't say, and if enough players send these sorts of messages, a T.O. should be significantly more willing to reapportion prizes, when they see the percentage of the market they're missing out on. This is especially true with store owners who organize tournaments, as they are frequently less involved with the Vintage community and have fewer opportunities to hear player feedback. Refusing to communicate openly and honestly will only build frustrations that may drive people out of the Vintage tournament scene, and that hurts everyone in the long term.

Finally, and this applies to every form of debate and discourse, on every subject, opposing sides need to become more receptive to the other's point of view. Responding to a T.O.'s statement of reasons behind their prize structure with a capitalized, profanity-laden tirade does nothing but make the speaker's own argument look less credible. At the same time, a local player should use more tact and fewer personal insults when defending their home store's chosen prize structure, because taking an aggressively hostile tone will only serve to alienate players who are already upset with how that particular venue does business.

At the end of the day, we are a community, and we're all in this together. I urge everyone reading this article to remember that the next time the voice their thoughts on this issue, so that Vintage tournaments remain a regular event for a long time to come.

--Chris "Demonic Attorney" Browne
TMD Vintage Adept