# Buettner and Turlov Spar on FIDE's Money Problem. Rosenstein Goes Missing.
Jan Henric Buettner and Timur Turlov went after each other's vision for FIDE's finances during the presidential debate, exposing a fundamental rift in how the next leader should fund chess. The fight over money matters because FIDE runs on a threadbare budget, bleeding dependence on oligarchs and crypto billionaires who come and go. One of these three men wins the election, and whichever way the money flows will reshape professional chess for years.
Buettner pushed for FIDE to wean itself off reliance on single wealthy backers. His argument: the organization needs structural independence, diversified revenue streams, and sustainable income that doesn't evaporate when a patron gets bored or faces sanctions. He wants FIDE to stand on its own feet through tournament licensing, rating fees, corporate partnerships, and legitimate sponsorship deals. It's the pitch of someone who thinks FIDE's current model is fragile and embarrassing.
Turlov took the opposite stance. He argues that wealthy benefactors have been chess's lifeblood. Without billionaires willing to pump millions into tournaments, training camps, and development programs, the elite game dries up fast. His line: don't reject the money. Harness it. Build relationships with serious backers who have skin in the game and actually care about chess growing. Turlov's own involvement in major tournaments and his stake in how FIDE operates colors his view here. He benefits from the current ecosystem.
The tension between these two visions cuts to the heart of modern chess politics. Buettner represents the reformist impulse. Turlov represents continuity with the status quo, but status quo isn't working when you're answering to Russian oligarchs one day and crypto princes the next.
The third candidate, Wadim Rosenstein, apparently dropped out of the debate midway through. He disconnected. That says something about the energy and organization behind his campaign. If you can't stay online for a presidential debate in 2025, you're not the steady hand FIDE needs.
What matters next is how voters, mainly federation presidents and delegates, respond to these competing frameworks. FIDE's income problem is real. The organization chronically underfunds women's chess, development programs in poor federations, and domestic infrastructure. The World Championship itself lurches from one funding crisis to the next. Giri's title defense against Gukesh in 2024 happened because sponsors stepped in. That's not a model. That's a survival strategy.
Buettner's route demands work. Building corporate partnerships takes years and yields less glamorous returns than a single $20 million check from a Dubai real estate mogul. But it's politically cleaner and more resilient. You're not held hostage by one person's whims.
Turlov's route is faster and proven to work in the short term. It's also why FIDE keeps scraping along, beholden to whoever has deep pockets this year.
The delegates voting in FIDE's election will decide whether chess's governing body stays a creature of patronage or becomes a real institution. That's not just a budget debate. That's the difference between chess growing on solid ground or always standing on borrowed time.