# Reducing financial risk for organizers

#### Samuel Baird

##### Member
Hello! I have created a discussion about this on the WCA forum but I would love to hear your thoughts and ideas about this subject here as well

As the current system stands there are a few things that can help reduce risk but many organizers don’t even know about them. I feel like there are a few things that can be done to help with the current situation. Below are some solutions to help help with this.

Solution #1: Organizer Education

The Organizer Guidelines that we are currently working on go over this a bit but I think we could create a whole document on things organizers can do to minimize risk. Currently, organizers can help reduce risk by organizing competitions through Regional Organizations and by using insurance but many organizers bear the full financial risk of organizing a competition without knowing what they are getting into.

Solution #2: An Organizer Safety Net

The idea behind this would be to create a WCA fund used as a safety net for organizers. Qualifications for getting money for the fund would need to be very well defined so that organizers could not abuse it (ex. asking for money when the organizer booked a venue that they knew they couldn’t pay for). I’m not sure how this could work with the WCA being a non-profit so I don’t know how viable it is.

Solution #3: Allow Organizers to Profit

Allowing organizers to make a profit acknowledges the risk involved in organizing competitions but also compensates organizers for bearing those risks as well as putting their time into competitions. This would also need to involve clear regulations to avoid organizers abusing the system. I think eligibility and avoid excessive registration fee inflation are the biggest points to address.

1. Eligibility - I think that a system where organizers must hit certain requirements before being eligible to make money makes sense to avoid any sloppy or rushed competitions. Requirements could include having Delegate(s) verify that the organizer has a history of organizing well-run competitions, requiring the organizer to organize a certain number of competitions, and having requirements for competitor numbers to be reached at competitions.
2. Avoiding excessive registration fees inflation - One major concern is that organizers could charge exorbitant registration fees to make money, but this can be fixed very easily while also giving organizers greater incentive to organizers to hold more competitions, to hold higher quality competitions and to get more people involved in cubing among other benefits. The easiest way to do this would be to set a limit on how much the organizer can make per competitor, for example, they can only make $.5 per competitor. Alternatively, a tiered system could be used, in which organizers are limited to how much money they can earn per competitor, and in order to earn more money per competitor they must hit certain requirements to make more money. An example of this system with only the requirement for competitor limits could look something like this: Max amount per competitorCompetitors attended$11-99
$1.25100-149$1.5150-199
$2200-249$2.5250-499
$5500-749$7.5750-999
\$101000+
More complex systems could include the number of rounds held, how many events are held, spectators attend, etc.

#### One Wheel

##### Member
The safety net and organizer education points are great, go for it. As far as profiting, I'm not sold on that point. When I organize a competition I do it as a service to the community (and myself as a part of that community). I don't like the idea of organizers budgeting profit in to a competition. I guess I don't have a really strong argument here, it just doesn't sit right with me. I would support delegates getting a stipend, and possibly paying organizers and staff of major championships, but not organizers of local competitions.

#### cuber314159

##### Member
I have little experience organising competitions (I was an organiser for one but it was cancelled due to COVID-19) but I do agree with most of these points, I'm not too sure about delegates profiting, I don't have a problem with the principle but I worry a situation will arise (like has in some cube store markets) where organisers are business people first, Cubers second as I don't think this will be good for the community.

#### ImmolatedMarmoset

##### Member
#1 and #2 are both really good ideas. Used in tandem, they could be very awesome. Here in New England we have a pretty robust organizing/delegating team with some left over fees just in case, but in places that are far less developed as a community that would be wonderful.

#### Zubin Park

##### Member
This is a pretty good idea!

#### Samuel Baird

##### Member
I have little experience organising competitions (I was an organiser for one but it was cancelled due to COVID-19) but I do agree with most of these points, I'm not too sure about delegates profiting, I don't have a problem with the principle but I worry a situation will arise (like has in some cube store markets) where organisers are business people first, Cubers second as I don't think this will be good for the community.
Well, by putting business first they also kind of have to put cubers first

#### Sub1Hour

##### Member
Well, by putting business first they also kind of have to put cubers first
I agree. I find it hard to see many people in the community taking advantage of profiting and not caring about the quality of the competitions. If anything competitions will have even more quality since organizing teams will have an incentive to hold a successful and quality competition.