The Economics of Organized Play

From the title I was expecting something more interesting, but this is more an article about the economics of organising Magic: The Gathering tournaments from the point of view of someone who wants to profit and doesn't actually like Magic that much.

Like, this bit has a pretty strong implicit opinion on the value of a tournament:

   The opportunity cost of not being able to spend that money elsewhere is significant, so it's not enough for a large event to break even; the TO has to profit at least as much as they could have by investing that money into something else.

Only towards the end there appears an admission that most people involved are there because they think it is fun to play Magic, but there's never any serious discussion about the value of this enjoyment, which is what I really was hoping the title was implying.

In my opinion, this misses the point that cheap, year-round, exciting, and well-covered tournament play is one of the best advertisements for Magic that Wizards could possibly invest in. That was the whole reason the Pro Tour existed to begin with: Homelands was bad, and everyone knew it was bad, but when there were people playing New York Type 2 with a minimum of 5 Homelands cards in their decks, it got people excited about it.

Per MaRo: "The whole point of the Pro Tour is that it's a marketing vehicle. We want to be aspirational, but we were also trying to get them to focus on what the latest sets were going to be." [1]

With Secret Lair, unbelievably expensive Commander Masters packs (yes, even accounting for inflation), and the whole 001/001 Ring situation, Wizards is raking in the dough. They should subsidize these events extremely heavily.

1: https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/feature/oral-history-first...

For some reason the page freezes every time I try to click a link/footnote (Chrome, Android). Only solution is to close the whole tab and reopen it :(

EDIT: Toggling the "Desktop site" option in Chrome totally fixes the link problem. Odd.

If players are complaining about the cost of a conference and the conference organisers are not trying to hide an exorbitant profit (like it seems they aren’t in this case) then why not just be transparent about the cost of the conference down to the $750 trash cans? Seems simple enough to me. They can even add a blurb that research was conducted to ensure that all qualifying conference centres were the of a similar cost.