@fwh2026 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/pK5VeZBH)
> In the pre-information age sure, the federations were needed to support the game. But I know all kinds of good players who have no interest in what the federations have to offer. The federations are a lot about the money, lions share of the costs are born by the average player, while the lions share of the spoils go to the elite players. So many average players don't give a damn about the mone...
That's fine. If you are one of those players that "don't give a damn" about the federations, then great. But you'll never get an official rating. Maybe you don't care. Whatever. BUT:
I choose to support my federation because I play real, OTB chess . Usually membership is required into the country of origin federation to play OTB and obtain a rating. Call it whatever. That has NOT changed and is NOT a "pre-information age" thing. Not sure where you got that idea from. It's clearly not a "were needed to support the game" thing; its a "still needed to support the game" thing for OTB play. As for the costs borne by "the average player", membership is a choice. Don't join. your reward is no official rating - IF you want to play sanctioned OTB, you will need to.
Name a good player you know of that plays OTB, has a federation rating/FIDE rating, and never became a member of said federation. AFAIK, no such animal. Whether you personally like it or not, does not matter. Your LiChess friends have unoffical ratings if unfederated and are not considered valid for OTB play. If they have federation/FIDE ratings, they got it by paying for their federation membership and participated in a santioned tournament. That is how the real world works in Chess.
The economics are a different question and I somewhat agree with you. Federations are business entities trying to turn a profit. You can silently rage against them by simply not joining. I got zero issue with it. You do the same when you purchase
ANYTHING - if you do not like the price, you go somewhere else, or go without.