Proposed Rule Changes that affect Amateur status?

[Alterration]

I haven’t seen this one, so pardon me if it’s somewhere else, but I just had this shared with my feed: https://www.adultammystrong.com/blog/2021-rule-change-proposals-that-could-affect-your-amateur-status?fbclid=IwAR08MC75t5NHEo_uSM0XcveCf-kpKbx-ccL1IOWa-l07cTNM0sQ-_x_A_uE

So, a quick read through this sounds like if I make any money in any way from my horses (including as a blogger, “influencer”, photographer, embroiderer, whatever) I’m no longer an amateur? I’ve never used my blog to generate income, but it seems like earning a few bucks from ads ought not to make me a pro (similarly with other social media)?

Am I reading this proposed rule change wrong?

[ghst13]

@Alterration

I haven’t seen this one, so pardon me if it’s somewhere else, but I just had this shared with my feed: https://www.adultammystrong.com/blog/2021-rule-change-proposals-that-could-affect-your-amateur-status?fbclid=IwAR08MC75t5NHEo_uSM0XcveCf-kpKbx-ccL1IOWa-l07cTNM0sQ-_x_A_uE

So, a quick read through this sounds like if I make any money in any way from my horses (including as a blogger, “influencer”, photographer, embroiderer, whatever) I’m no longer an amateur? I’ve never used my blog to generate income, but it seems like earning a few bucks from ads ought not to make me a pro (similarly with other social media)?

Am I reading this proposed rule change wrong?

I don’t believe that’s the intention. Businesses that provide services to horse people that don’t involve riding, training, instructing, etc are generally allowed. That would include photography, embroidery, an Etsy store, etc.

They are proposing explicitly calling out “influencers” in the same category as sponsored riders because the general “influencer” business model involves receiving products or services for free or reduced price in exchange for advertising, promoting, etc based on an influencer’s reputation.

I doubt they care if you make a few bucks off ads clicks on your blog. Also, you as long as you pay the public price for any product you might review or promote on your blog you should be okay because you aren’t receiving remuneration in the form of free or discounted products. You can say you love your saddle as long as the company didn’t give you a discount specifically for posting that you love the saddle.

[joiedevie99]

IMHO, it’s really not a rule change at all. It’s just making clear that sponsorships make you a professional even if you are promoting those products on social media, and not through older methods (like hanging a banner on your stall at a show).

“Accepts remuneration AND uses his name, photograph or other form of personal association as a horseperson in connection with any advertisement or social media channels or product/service for sale, including but not limited to apparel, equipment or property.”

If you get free breeches, in exchange for hanging their banner on your stall or posting a review on social media, you’re a pro. If you pay full price for those breeches, you can hang the banner and post on social media all you want and you’re still an ammy.

[Alterration]

@joiedevie99

If you get free breeches, in exchange for hanging their banner on your stall or posting a review on social media, you’re a pro.

Well, but this disqualifies a lot of bloggers, who may have a less than serious blog, but have definitely gotten free stuff in exchange for reviews. I’m not one of them, don’t get me wrong, but I know this was big in the past, and that people were often actively solicited if they had a popular site. Similarly, now, we (in marketing) look for people with followings, and those people don’t necessarily have to be “good” they just have to be interesting. There are loads of interesting horse people that I wouldn’t put in the pro category (if that makes any sense).

After thinking about it in greater detail, my issue overall is that I’m unsure anymore what the amateur rule is really protecting. The goal initially was to level the playing field a bit, but it increasingly seems like it’s reinforcing the pay to play status of the sport. I say this as someone who has one horse in full training and takes lessons, doesn’t earn any money in the industry - this isn’t sour grapes as I can pay for it NOW, in my 40s. But when I “look behind me” at promising young riders, their only options are to become pros if they want to stay in the sport. That doesn’t feel right.

Seems like we could find some sort of happy medium. Maybe the earning figure needs to be increased ($300/year is absolutely nothing in terms of earnings) or we need to figure out what really constitutes a pro in order to separate them skill-wise from the amateur.

And I know, if people were just honest about their status, we wouldn’t have so rules to close “loopholes” but here we are.

[dags]

This whole rule had me soured on USEF before the week even started and THEN the whole WEC debacle hit.

First, they haven’t bothered to define “social media influencer” before posting a rule change in which they state they are “unanimously” convinced those people should be classified as equine professionals. And that leaves a lot of grey area that could absolutely affect a smalltime blogger.

Second, this impacts accessibility to the sport. It may not further worsen it but it definitely does not improve it, and flies in the face of their recent PR spins about making this sport more accessible.

Someone pointed out that we are the only sport whose rules make it harder to be an amateur than a professional and that hit me. We are coming at this backwards & silly knee-jerk rulings like this, likely devised by a demographic that has no experience in the modern gig economy, are not helpful.

[MHM]

@Alterration

@joiedevie99

If you get free breeches, in exchange for hanging their banner on your stall or posting a review on social media, you’re a pro.

Seems like we could find some sort of happy medium. Maybe the earning figure needs to be increased ($300/year is absolutely nothing in terms of earnings) or we need to figure out what really constitutes a pro in order to separate them skill-wise from the amateur.

And I know, if people were just honest about their status, we wouldn’t have so rules to close “loopholes” but here we are.

Whenever there is a discussion of the amateur rule, people seem to forget the original purpose of it. The rule was not created to separate riders based on their ability at all, at least not based on their skill set. It was intended to provide a division where the “ladies who lunch” could show against other “ladies who lunch” without getting beaten by their trainers.

So the simplest way to make that distinction was to write the rule to exclude people who make a living from horses. In all the years since then, the rule has been tweaked many times as people found loopholes to exploit, including the famous bookkeeper loophole. But originally the rule was not designed to separate good riders from bad riders, per se. Just people who worked with horses for a living from people who did not.

There are amateurs who are fantastic riders, and amateurs who don’t know their leads or diagonals. But the amateur rule was never designed to separate them on that basis. Just on whether they made money from horses.

[dags]

@MHM

There are amateurs who are fantastic riders, and amateurs who don’t know their leads or diagonals. But the amateur rule was never designed to separate them on that basis. Just on whether they made money from horses.

Perhaps some have forgotten? But for others, that premise is the whole complaint.

[Alterration]

@MHM

It was intended to provide a division where the “ladies who lunch” could show against other “ladies who lunch” without getting beaten by their trainers.

But that’s still a skills issue (in theory) - again, not a terrific rule development and definitely not something that makes or keeps the sport accessible.

And I know the “ladies who lunch” are frequently the folks who get the free breeches, so that doesn’t seem to make any sense either.

I don’t know, the whole thing just seems so backward to me.

[Janet]

There are actully TWO CONTRADICTORY rule change proposls on “social media influencers”.

GR1306.3 Tracking #012-20, proposed by “Breeds/Disciplines”, adds “social medi influencer” to the list of things Amateurs ARE allowed to do (along with journalist, vet, groom, etc.)

Then GR1306.4 Tracking #031-20, proposed by USHJA, adds “Accepts remuneration” “for posts on any social media platform” to the list of thngs Amateurs ARE NOT allowed to do.

But neither defines it further.

[MHM]

@Alterration

@MHM

It was intended to provide a division where the “ladies who lunch” could show against other “ladies who lunch” without getting beaten by their trainers.

But that’s still a skills issue (in theory) - again, not a terrific rule development and definitely not something that makes or keeps the sport accessible.

And I know the “ladies who lunch” are frequently the folks who get the free breeches, so that doesn’t seem to make any sense either.

I don’t know, the whole thing just seems so backward to me.

But the rule was not designed to separate the ladies who lunch from each other in the amateur division based on their riding ability. Just from the professionals in the open divisions. And the amateurs could still enter the open divisions if they wanted to show against the professionals, as they still can to this day.

Certainly some of the amateurs who show in the Grand Prix classes could probably beat many of the professionals in the low hunter division if they felt like doing it.

I’m not saying it is right or wrong. Just providing a bit of historical context for those who may not be aware of it.

I will add that anyone who is a member of the USEF may propose a rule change. That does not mean that the proposal will be approved. Either as written, or in a revised version. It is just a jumping off point at the start of a discussion from someone who thought the rule needed to change. That is why there are often multiple variations of a similar rule change proposal, since they can be sent in by many different people who have the same basic idea in mind.

[Alterration]

@MHM

But the rule was not designed to separate the ladies who lunch from each other in the amateur division based on their riding ability. Just from the professionals in the open divisions. And the amateurs could still enter the open divisions if they wanted to show against the professionals, as they still can to this day.

Right, but the rule change does separate them then, if they get the free breeches, and puts them in with the pros.

I’m not saying there aren’t amateurs who couldn’t beat pros, there certainly are. If someone has enough disposable income (and talent) to have a string of horses, training every day, and lessons every day, they will likely beat little Susie down the street who teaches an up-down lesson or two in order to help fund her time at the barn and eventually get to a show or two.

What I’m saying is that the rule change proposal is flawed, doesn’t necessarily adhere to the “ladies who lunch” history because, let’s face it, the more wealth you have, the more people do give you free stuff, and the whole rule itself is rather silly because it doesn’t do either thing particularly well.

I DO want to find ways of making the sport more accessible and expanding the circumstances under which someone is a “pro” seems like the opposite of what we should be doing for the sport’s longevity.

[Alterration]

Thanks Janet - I hadn’t noticed that one in Breeds/Disciplines.

It’s certainly making it trickier to be even associated with horses in any way and not find yourself needing to show as a pro just to follow the letter of the law.

[IPEsq]

The way the proposed rule is written, it doesn’t limit the social media activity to sponsorship type reviews because of the “OR” in there.

Accepts remuneration AND uses his name, photograph or other form of personal association as a
horseperson in connection with any advertisement or social media channels or product/service for sale, including but not limited to apparel, equipment or property.

It just basically says if you call out the fact you’re a horseperson on your social media and you get any money, then you are a pro. There are a lot of famous people in this sport. Some of them do not hide the fact that they have horses / ride on social media. If any of them make any money from their social media, even if they aren’t sponsored/don’t have product review posts related to horse things, then they are a pro under this rule. That would include people like the Olsen sisters, Kaley Cuoco (I think she’s still an ammy right?).

The entire problem with the amateur rule is that it has nothing to do with skill. It only has to do with whether there’s a market for your services, even if very small or lower level, and you accept remuneration for it. You can be a 2’6" level rider teaching up-downers part time and a pro.

There’s a horse sales market related to having some good riding amateurs showing the horses. The rule was to stop those people from being employees of the barn or the barn’s customers that gave them catch rides. It gave clients a division to show in at a high level without competing against their trainers. It never said those clients couldn’t be good riders or have 5 horses of their own or have no job and all the time in the world to ride their string of horses.

The rule does make it hard for working adults to make a few extra bucks using some of their horse skills or affiliation with horses that may have nothing to do with their riding/training skills (like grooming). This proposed change goes even farther into the realm of not relevant to horse training.

[MHM]

@IPEsq

The rule does make it hard for working adults to make a few extra bucks using some of their horse skills or affiliation with horses that may have nothing to do with their riding/training skills (like grooming). This proposed change goes even farther into the realm of not relevant to horse training.

The current rule does not prevent an amateur from working as a groom (or braider, or vet, or whatever), as long as they do not also ride or teach or train for payment. Or for someone who pays them to groom or braid or whatever.

For those who may be unaware, the amateur rules got much more convoluted on the subject after an “amateur” was employed by a barn as a bookkeeper, but actually spent all day riding the horses instead of keeping books. I don’t know if she actually did any bookkeeping at all, but that was her official title for payroll purposes.

I’ve said this before, but my mother showed in her youth many years ago, and the rulebook in those days was a fraction of the size it is now. But as people kept thinking of new ways to work around the rules, the organization had to keep adding new rules to close all those loopholes. And now we have the rulebook that is at least the size of a salt block, if anyone ever bothered to print out the whole thing anymore.

[Janet]

@MHM

I will add that anyone who is a member of the USEF may propose a rule change. That does not mean that the proposal will be approved.

Yes. but both of theses were proposed by USEF Affiliates or Committees, whihc increases the chance of being approved.

[IPEsq]

@MHM

@IPEsq

The rule does make it hard for working adults to make a few extra bucks using some of their horse skills or affiliation with horses that may have nothing to do with their riding/training skills (like grooming). This proposed change goes even farther into the realm of not relevant to horse training.

The current rule does not prevent an amateur from working as a groom (or braider, or vet, or whatever), as long as they do not also ride or teach or train for payment. Or for someone who pays them to groom or braid or whatever.

Remember that many normal groom tasks are considered “training”. Like longeing.

[ladyj79]

@IPEsq

Remember that many normal groom tasks are considered “training”. Like longeing.

Yeah that’s what I came to say. It would be for all intents impossible to be a professional groom and not be considered a pro under USEF amateur rules. Which I have no problem with.

[MHM]

What normal groom tasks are considered training, other than lunging? That’s the only one I know of, which does seem a bit over the top to me. But I don’t know of any others.

There are grooms who ride in some cases, but that’s not a job requirement for every groom, by a long shot.

[joiedevie99]

@MHM

What normal groom tasks are considered training, other than lunging? That’s the only one I know of, which does seem a bit over the top to me. But I don’t know of any others.

I agree. I’ve known event grooms who were expected to do trot sets and conditioning rides, although I haven’t seen that in other disciplines.

[Hej]

Just to play the devil’s advocate here: the majority of professionals who list or thank sponsors on their social media or websites are not receiving cash from their sponsoring companies. They are given the products the company makes (tack, clothing, feed, supplements, horse care products, etc.) and in return are talking those products up in their interviews and media.

The current USEF rule is that an amateur may not use their image or name to promote any horse related product unless they own the company (which is why it was fine for Charlotte Jorst to appear in Kastel Denmark ads before she turned pro). Before this rule was written there were not a few amateurs who got lots free products and had banners for those products up at every show on their stalls.

As I read it, this rule change simply closes a loophole big enough to drive a four in hand through.