FIDE Picks Breast Implants as a Sponsor for Women's Chess

@Spring_Op33 said in #137:
> Yes, this article seems very negative and I wonder why ....?
> Absolutely amazing that women chess gets a new sponsor.
> Breast implants have helped many women - and for many this opportunity is only positive.
> I applaud new sponsors and in this way new sources of income and possibilities for women's chess
and ofc this makes them better at chess...

This is disappointing. What's next? Sponsorship by Pornhub or OnlyFans? How much money are we talking about, anyway? If it's USD 1 million, I think that kind of money could be raised by the top streamers and YouTubers in about a week just by asking their followers to chip in $100 so that FIDE can say "no thanks" to the breast-implant company. And what about the big American charitable foundations?

What's the problem with that? FIDE just found a sponsor for woman, so say "thanks, now he have money". But no, you wrote an article for no reason.

The more interesting question is why nobody else wanted to sponsor women's chess. Afterall you just simply pick the sponsor who offers you the most.

And sponsors only sponsor if they can hit their target group. Afterall sponsorship is advertisement.

Thus: why would they advertise in women's chess?

Money rots the soul. Magnus led the way with the bitcoin scam, now it's FIDE's turn. Western society has become morally void.

From footnote in the actual report:

Disclosure: I am/we are short ESTA. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Additional disclosure: The above content was written by Cannell Capital LLC. Cannell Capital LLC has sold but not yet purchased shares of Establishment Labs Holdings, Inc. Cannell Capital LLC may buy or sell shares of Establishment Labs Holdings, Inc.in the future. Cannell Capital LLC does not own shares of any competitor of Establishment Labs Holdings, Inc. This report is provided for informational purposes only. Any implied recommendation as to whether these shares should be sold or bought is explicitly withheld. Caveat emptor.

My Explanation: Basically this means that this investigation has been written by what is known as a short seller. This is where someone makes money if the value of the asset decreases so it is in their interests to make you think the company is bad. I'll also note that when the short report on 17th May 2019 was made the stock traded at $26.09 and it currently trades at $71.97 so if you had invested with them over the last 2 years or so you would have got a 175.8% return on investment. At around 20th March 2020 it hit a low of $11.66 at the same time as the Covid-19 crash so if short sellers cashed out then they doubled their money.

I'll also add that when someone makes a bear case it doesn't mean that the asset is bad but simply that it's overvalued. For example if people were selling a $1 coin for $1.20 then it is logical to be bearish on that trade as eventually the $1 coin will be worth $1 again but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the coin in question. In the same same way if it was selling at $0.80 then you could be bullish as it's undervalued and will eventually be worth $1 again.

It should be noted that Rosen Legal is well known for filing class action lawsuits (first one to file gets the lawsuit and the legal expenses) but they're not always successful and I can see no evidence that it was. SEC rules dictate that a company when communicating with investors has to be 100% truthful and not hide anything that can materially affect the investment. So once the amendment was filed with SEC I think the matter was probably closed.

If you want another report that praises them and disputes report posted on Lichess blog you can look at seekingalpha.com/article/4260654-fda-might-inadvertently-implanted-establishment-labs-next-hot-medtech-stock although in that case people writing it gain money if the price goes up so they're also not independent.

Summary: I've not investigated the company in depth so I can't say the company is great but the blog article is biased with author having a financial interest so I wouldn't trust it that much. I can agree that optics of having a breast implant company as a sponsor for women's chess isn't great although I don't know if people would prefer to have no sponsor instead.

Personal Disclosure: I hold no long or short position with ESTA. This is not intended as financial advice so any actions taken as a result of this aren't my responsibility i.e. Caveat emptor

EDIT: I noticed I took the date of second short report by Cannell as date. First short report was published on 10th April and share price dipped from $24.92 on 5th April to $22.01 on 12th April and by 26th April it had recovered to $26.44 so the concerns raised didn't affect the share price that much

What, is FIDE the Lord of Chess, the reigning monarch of the chess world, the highest that anyone in the chess world can go?

Now tell me, if that is indeed the case, why is FIDE having so much trouble finding a large sponsor such as Nike or United Airlines or The North Face or the Republican Party to fund their activities?

There is a distinctly fishy smell in the air here, and I'm sure some intrepid investigative journalist could no doubt pry loose the fascinating tale of just whose hands were reaching into whose pockets in order to make this deal possible.

I dont understand why women are asking for ,,more money in women chess,, while they are fully allowed to play in men tournaments? The feminsts are saying that men and women have the same potential , still they separate the chess game of men and women. This is total nonsense. If you want to play for same money as men, just play the same tournaments as them. You are allowed to do it . Why is that so hard to get?

So, what else is new with FIDE? LOL.

@RadiantDarkBlaze said in #111:
> You say this is "a situation where there are zero repercussions", but that's exactly the thing; women frequently face repercussions for so much as speaking out against societal and corporate misogyny. Women are denied opportunities to do things they want to do by organizations and even businesses which don't want to be associated with their "drama"; as aforementioned misogynistic organizations and businesses selfishly word it, to avoid facing up to their embedded and internalized misogyny in any way shape or form.
>
> The anonymous female players do indeed absolutely have valid points. They also have every right to their anonymity, and using that right is a perfectly reasonable choice on each of their parts. Lichess did good by granting them a chance for their voices to be heard while allowing them to retain the very real protection of anonymity.

I do appreciate the buzzwords and the woke talking points, but change doesn't come about by anonymity. Your type of attitude perpetuates this kind of situation, whether you're aware of it or not; I'd much rather incentivize women to speak out whenever they perceive injustice, like I wish all people would. As for repercussions, I'd bet not a single person who was quoted is going to have even a hint of push-back.

Either way, this is all besides the point and it's ultimately a matter of personal values. I wouldn't accept anonymous quotes in an article I disagreed with, nor will I accept them when they align with my views; we should all strive to do better, especially when reporting/journalism is at such a critical point in history.