NDCA Rule Rescinded: No more amateurs in Pro/am events
- Thread starter DanceMentor
- Start date
Riplash
Member
I think Fascination hit the nail on the head here. I think the problem is how different factions define professional. In some ways anybody who has done a hobby long enough could receive compensation for it somehow. I don't believe that receiving 10 bucks for winning a competition (or even $1000) necessarily makes you a pro. But under NCAA rules that would make you a pro. This topic always came up when I was involved with different sporting clubs at school. I don't have the answers to define the differences between pro or am, but if I would have take up dancing earlier, or have been a slightly better runner, some people would have complained about the little amount of money (5 to 10 dollars) I won at tiny dance events, or tiny races in the middle of nowhere and would have called me a pro.
I think some but not all people gradually get more and more involved in something and yes they are getting paid for it, but at what point are they a pro? The Answer to the last part is the important answer.
-Rip
DanceMentor
Administrator
Being an amateur, when the January ruling came down, my first reaction was curiosity. Had I lived in a city where there were very few other amateur competitors against me, it would have enhanced my ability to participate in more events. I can remember times when there was either 0 or 1 other couple against us. Or worse, we would be put on the floor with another amateur couple that was much lower level or a different age group. So a couple like us just wanting more ways to compete I could understand the benefit.
On the other hand, as Larinda stated, if you are running a business in dancing and competing as an amateur, it does seem apparent that there needs to be a clearer line where people need to turn pro. I totally get that.
I also see where even a couple like us wanting to have a chance to compete through pro-am because there were no other ams entered would be problematic to the pros. Fortunately, we moved to a city where there are lots of other amateur couple now, so that won't be even a consideration regardless of the status of the rule.
Here is a further quote from the NDCA in response to a clarification request:
On the other hand, as Larinda stated, if you are running a business in dancing and competing as an amateur, it does seem apparent that there needs to be a clearer line where people need to turn pro. I totally get that.
I also see where even a couple like us wanting to have a chance to compete through pro-am because there were no other ams entered would be problematic to the pros. Fortunately, we moved to a city where there are lots of other amateur couple now, so that won't be even a consideration regardless of the status of the rule.
Here is a further quote from the NDCA in response to a clarification request:
nucat78
Active Member
How about this: If one accepts compensation in any form, including honorariums and / or travel expenses, for teaching or dance hosting, one is a professional. That excludes prize money, raffles, auctions, and lotteries.
I do not agree that one should be allowed to teach three nights each week for cash and then compete in an am-am event, "registration" notwithstanding.
But this is not my fight, so...
I do not agree that one should be allowed to teach three nights each week for cash and then compete in an am-am event, "registration" notwithstanding.
But this is not my fight, so...
Warren J. Dew
Forum Master
This seems to happen a lot with NDCA rules changes. I wonder if there's a way to get feedback on changes like this before they go into effect, or if it's just inevitable that most people won't pay attention to changes until after they see the results.
DanceMentor
Administrator
What makes this tricky is the amateurs over in Europe have much greater freedoms to finance their dancing and win titles. Already, amateurs in the US are far behind their European counterparts, so I understand the desire to find ways to finance their dancing so they can travel, receive training, and compete with the dancers in Europe for World titles.
That said, it get complicated as we also have to consider the Pro-am business in the US. Pro-am is what finances a huge majority of all comps in the US and when you start messing with that, expect MAJOR problems.
I understand much about both sides of the issue, but I wouldn't want to be the one to decide what is best as there are pitfalls no matter how you proceed. I like this latest change as it helps to keep the pro-ams more separated from the Ams, but it still leaves some perplexing problems.
Warren J. Dew
Forum Master
I believe that's what usually happens. My question is, how much difference would it make if registrants got notice, say, a month before the meeting - or if they had a rule saying that rules changes had to pass in two consecutive meetings. You saw the implications immediately, as the other thread attests, but it sounds like most people didn't understand them until they started seeing the effects at competitions.
tanya_the_dancer
Well-Known Member
Same here. Although, it doesn't eliminate a situation where only 1/2 of a high-level couple teaches (i.e. a married couple where both are good dancers, but only one of them teaches and has students to compete pro-am with).
tanya_the_dancer
Well-Known Member
But wouldn't you still lose those guys regardless? With high-level guys being so rare, and am-am competitions being considerably less expensive and plentiful in your area, and without restrictions on am-am & teaching, at some point wouldn't the guys be drawn to that anyway (especially younger ones, like cantski)?
Your argument that restrictions are irrelevant appears to depend on your premise that there aren't restrictions. Am I misunderstanding?
basicarita
Member
tanya_the_dancer
Well-Known Member
USA Dance reduced restrictions on teaching a while ago, to put high-level US amateurs in better position to compete with their european counterparts, who already have a lot of opportunities to finance their dancing with dancing. NDCA has done same thing wrt its am-am events as well around the same time and I suppose for the same reason. But then its powers-that-be attempted to remove the restriction on pro side of pro-am (so that am guys can compete with their students as pro halves of pro-am events and then still be able to compete in am-am events with their partners - I guess the intention, again, was to give US amateurs another opportunity to finance their dancing with dancing) and I guess it didn't go down that well because more people got access to the pie.
Adding: pro-am competing is already a more expensive option so if I were a sufficiently advanced guy living in a populous area, like the greater NYC or Boston, with lots of am-am competitions to choose from (I am neither of these - a girl living in the middle of nowhere), I would not be very inclined to compete pro-am to begin with, regardless of whether I am allowed to also pretend to be a pro in a pro-am event or not.
I'm glad someone important and knowledgeable is as confused as I am.
I'm not important. Just a person with an opinion.
:-DI do not think it is silly to have a division for am (pro)-am competition couples. That actually gives some room for AMs to make money instead of directly competing with professionals.
They close one door, but cannot close everything. They should open one door to make it smoother.
nucat78
Active Member
Would you advocate a limit on the amount an Am-pro could make teaching / performing to keep Am-pro status? But ppl cheat on their income tax returns, so I suspect some would lie about their dance income to USAD, etc. as well...
