So?
Having kids and a mortgage is a choice. You're WILLING to have a smaller mortgage in exchange for being able to play paintball. You could give up paintball and move into a nicer house, right? You're an example of the point. not a counter example.
I'm not trying sar that all people are very likely at all to play, but that there is no set level of income where someone suddenly becomes "able" to play. It's a scale, from Bill Gates, who only has to worry about what he wants to spend his time on, to a family of 8 living below the poverty line. Obviously, at the right end of that scale, paintball just isn't a choice people are likely to make (the could still go blow the months grocery money on a day at the field, but they'd be dumb.) But there's no point on that scale where you have able vs. not able. Someone making $25k a year who REALLY loves paintball may structure the rest of their lives to allow them to play and be "able" to while someone else making $60k may put priority on house/car/family/savings/whatever and insist that they're not "able" to afford paintball. They *ARE* able, they're just not willing. That's now supply and demand works: You can't simply expect that given two people, the person with more money will be the one who will get the product. It's the person who is willing to spend the most money ON THAT PRODUCT that gets it. Ability has almost NOTHING to do with it - there are plenty of $30k wage earners out there who would buy a case of paint that $1mil income earners wouldn't drop a dime on.
To go back to the more direct example, you can't tell me that someone who is able to pay $1750 for a tournament likely suddenly becomes unable at $2000. At $1750, we've established that the person has a good chunk of disposable income, and it's not likely that ALL of it is going to paintball - so the question is whether they want to reallocate some more of that income to paintball, or if they'd rather maintain some other activities.
Another point to be made is that even if the $250 did go past a person's disposable income, it's *STILL* a matter of WILLING, and not able, because said person still has the option of working more hours, getting a second job, getting their team to organize fund raisers, or doing any manner of other things to come up with the extra cash. It's just a matter of whether they're willing to put in the extra work and time. Is more workand time worth continued attendence to them?
Again, the main point that may have been forgotten is this:
If prices are raised, teams will NOT suddenly become unable to afford to play. Some teams will simply become unwilling to pay the additional expense, which is exactly what you're going for: Limitting the attendence a bit to the people who want to play more based on their willingness to commit resources (money AND time) to playing. We *ALREADY* do this - there are plenty of people out there who WOULD play NPPL/PSP if it cost $1000 instead of $1750, but arn't willing to pay the extra expense to pay now. You're just adjusting the prie point, and I submit that all the bitching about teams not "able" to pay the extra is really bitching about NPPL/PSP demanding more of a commitment than they're willing to make and not wanting to be "excluded from the glory" or whatever. No one has to play NPPL/PSP - plenty of other tournament options out there. People need to realize that playing in the top league is NOT some sort of freaking entitlement. You can play there when you're willing to pony up what it takes to do so - and that may (and should) mean paying more money (or at least be contributing more effort - picking up their own trash would save the league having to pay someone else to do it, it's the simple things) to allow for quality events in quality facilities if you have any expectation of outside industry sponsorship or television broadcast.
Players can keep demanding more without being willing to contribute more, but it simply ain't going to happen.
And as for who I "clearly" am, while I don't have a mortgage, I do have rent, car payments, insurance, all the utilities, and everything else a self-supporting person with a good credit rating has. You should know better than making the "You clearly..." argument without actually having some clarity.
- Chris
