Or, like every other country in the world, you could stop giving gigantic prizes to low rated players who beat other low rated players, and only the best players, like in every other sport, can win large prizes. 
Oh wait, thatâs a horrible thought! Never-mind. 
BPF
Still waiting to hear how such an event would be financed.
Trophy tournaments arenât that expensive.
In many areas of the country, the sites are. And thatâs part of the reason for these events â the site and other costs become a smaller portion of the EF. One can run inexpensive events if free/low cost sites are available.
This is one of the things that I have argued USCF should be working on at a National level. USCF should be at meetings and seminars, and provide speeches and other communication (flyers, mailings, website information) to/with national organizations (library groups, park district groups, college groups, etc.) to help them to understand the benefits of chess and why they should encourage low cost use of their facilities for chess.
For example, if we could convince colleges that a combined college/community chess club was beneficial to the college, this could be very important to the growth of chess clubs in the U.S.
Should we provide to colleges a limited number of free USCF memberships for 1 or 2 college chess club sponsors (per school) who run a college affiliate that meets some minimum level of participation requirement (minimum number of rated events for example.)
There are things we can do to try to make it easier for volunteers to grow grass roots chess.
This topic is a spinoff from âCCAâs New Cell Phone Policiesâ.
Trophy tournaments wonât provide the necessary capital via entry fees to subsidize the costs of the highest rated sections.
Nor will they provide the incentive for âlow-ratedâ players to travel and stay at a hotel using room nights to help the organizer offset the costs for the site.
I suspect Mr. Martinakâs comment was tongue-in-cheek. He just doesnât use emoticons. 
And because this trophy only tournament for amateurs did so wellâŚ
Good looking trophies arenât cheap.
Assume for the purposes of discussion that you have a 100 player event.
If the prizes are cash prizes, how many different prizes (place/class) are adequate?
If the prizes are trophies, how many different prizes (place/class) are adequate? Is it higher than the number of cash prizes?
Not if you make the trophies out of cake. Then you can split the prizes.
The best players in every other sport also helps generate enormous amounts of revenue for their teams, their leagues, or for individual sports such as tennis or golf, which chess would be more closely related to, they offer the attention of a large swath of competitive amateurs and general population / casual players with disposable income (and a lot of times non-disposable income but gets treated as disposable) to spend money on their goods.
Show me how the best chess players does thisâŚ
Kevin, keep in mind what happened to Marie Antoinette.
If Marie Antoinette had used tiebreaks, her players wouldnât have been in such a revolting mood.
Your display of historical knowledge means that you can go to the head of the class.
P.S. They havenât found historical proof that she said âlet them eat cake (brioche)â.
P.P.S. Getting back on topic, as long as the primary sources of revenue for a tournaments are entry fees (for prizes) and room nights (to defray venue costs), something is needed to draw a lot of players to cover those expenses.
A quick look shows that in 2012 the trophy tournament USAT-N had only 171 players
uschess.org/assets/msa_jooml ⌠1202196412
Take a look at the numbers playing at the 2013 Chicago Open (699 players, $100K prize fund), Chicago Class (268 players, $20K) and Midwest Class (243 players, $20K). They are all in the exact same hotel, the latter two tournaments were cheaper than the Chicago Open and yet those two had less of a turnout together than the Open did by itself. After reviewing that, please explain how you can finance the top sections of big events without giving significant prizes to the lower sections.
The US Championship does give big prizes to the top players without having lots of lower-rated players subsidizing them, but it does that based on sponsor generosity. Such generosity is not something that has been seen for many non-national-championship events.
Perhaps Ben was volunteering as a sponsor! 
I suspect most of the âgreat tournaments of Europeâ also derive the majority of their prize money from either sponsors or patrons.
The Tradewise Gibraltar Chess Festival lists over a dozen partners or sponsors on its website, not just the title sponsor. The Hastings International Chess Congress appears to have at least 5 sponsors/partners, including the borough council. Wijk aan Zee has Tata Steel as its title sponsor these days, but it looks like they have several other sponsors, and their website even solicits donations from other âfriends, patrons and sponsorsâ.
Add the London Chess Classic to this list. Were it not for the charity Chess in Schools and Communities footing the bill, combined with e2e4 and the ECF lending significant equipment and expertise, that event wouldnât exist.
Also, throw in the Bunratty Chess Festival. Gary OâGrady and Blackthorne Group are the patron saints for Irelandâs biggest chess congress.
I have been fortunate enough to make some friends in Europe the last 18 months. Many of them couldnât comprehend why players have to report their own scores, bring their own equipment or play two serious games a day - until I explained the financial realities of major Swisses in the US.
.
Yes Boyd.
Also still waiting to hear how it hurts any players of higher Elo when a group of weaker players compete together in a section wherein their entry fees are redistributed among themselves based on wins in their section.
Oh wait, the higher Elo players want the lower Elo players to subsidize the prizes of the higher Elo players. There is no Earthly reason why lower Elo players want to do that; even tho they know it happens too often.
Ben, I also dare presume that Garry Kasparov would scoff at giving larger prizes to the mere chess Masters who win so many tournaments in the USA, for mere chess tourists do not deserves such prizes.
.
I would rather not play at all in high stakes chess tournaments, than play in such where TDâs are not immediately available at all times during the games in progress! (Having to lug a lead weighted chess set with an electronic clock mechanism through airport security, while speaking with an accent, is also a deal-breaker)
With apologies to Patrick Henry,
Michael Langer
Austin, TX
Gene, what do you mean by larger? Larger than what?