If chess were an Olympic sport, money would be available, partly through the government. Kirsan has been pushing that for several years. But, with money comes other problems as seen in several other national sport governing bodies.
The big problem is that chess is not a spectator sport but is largely paid for by the players, not sponsors or paying crowds. We can enjoy games by better players to marvel at their technique or learn from them and watch poorer players wondering “will he see that …”. If I didn’t play the game, it would take a lot of work just to catch on and would wonder what happened when a player lost to queenside pressure or a tactical shot when his king could live for another 20 or 30 moves.
Contrast that with golf or tennis where the object can be figured out in just a few minutes of watching. Just my $.02.
Government funding of chess was tried in the Soviet Union. What more needs be said?
I generally agree with your points. However, there are ways to make chess interesting as a spectator sport, or a least more spectator friendly. That said, I’m not at all in favor of having chess become an Olympic sport. It will mean chess players can’t imbibe alcohol which will stop many colorful players from competing. 
Somehow they turned poker into a spectator sport…
Maybe what we need is a chess-based reality show… 
Yes, and they dominated the world in chess.
Government funding of chess doesn’t imply that you have to have gulags, classify Jews as a separate nationality, or kill off free enterprise.
There is probably not as much ‘government money’ involved in funding Olympic sports as people think, I don’t believe that the USOC gets any, I think it exists mostly on donations, sponsorships and media rights fees. (There was quite a bit of speculation that the USOC’s insistence on taking a big bite of media fees from US media even for Olympics held outside the USA, was a factor in why Chicago didn’t get the 2016 Summer Games.)
Not all Olympic sports are major spectator sports. As one of the NCAA’s commercials used to say: Quick–name any of the world’s top 10 water polo players.
For the players, an additional problem may be the FIDE website which seems to have each player’s rated games posted, starting from a few years ago. Not only do the players lack intellectual property rights to the games, but FIDE makes sure that everyone can grab them all conveniently for free.
(FIDE’s approach is helpful though for the development of theory, so it’s like science. And if chess is a science, we are probably OK with government funding of science. Hey, whatever works …)
The free enterprise model could work better for professional players if gambling on results were allowed; then it becomes like horse racing. But short of that, free enterprise isn’t the solution for everything, and professional chess is one of those things that it doesn’t work well for.
We already have one. It’s called Polgar vs. USCF, et al.
Now, if we could just get some cable network to show it and get the advertising money funneled into chess, you’d be on to something.
Foxwoods? Didn’t foreign players win prizes there? Is there any guarantee that U.S. players would benefit from U.S. government support?
BTW, I never knew why Foxwoods closed down on us. I had supposed it was the decision of the host venue.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Foxwoods wasn’t able to make all of their semi-annual interest payment last month.
I got the impression from Bill that the chess tournament was no longer welcome there.
Are the above related? Hmmm?
In some other context, I recall reading that hotels were not thrilled with conventions that didn’t spend much on alcoholic beverages. Maybe also not with people whose idea of gambling is to get two pawns and attacking chances for a minor piece.
How true! 
Chess just isn’t inherently very commercial.