I'm a professional dance teacher. In my lifetime I have received money and other forms of compensation for doing a great many things, including playing or writing music, photography, art, programming, teaching, helping people with their computer problems, taking care of friends' children, running an errand, selling items through ebay, and more. However, I don't beleive my having received compensation qualifies me as a professional musician, photographer, artist, programmer, teacher, computer technician, day care worker, gopher, or salesman. There is much more to the definition of professional, in my opinion, than simply having received some form of compensation.
On the other hand, I've seen amateurs who spend most of their day practicing at the dance studio, winning scholarship money at competitions and, now with the more relaxed USABDA rules, even teaching a few lessons... which makes me start to wonder what criteria are left to set them apart from me.
I do understand the frustration of many top U.S. competitive amateurs. Ballroom dancing lacks the corporate sponsorship opportunities of most other sports. You can't make a living competing as an amateur, and so you must find a source of income elsewhere, which takes time away from your dancing. It's a bit of a catch 22.
Still, although I do understand the frustration, that doesn't change my answer to any amateur who would make such arguments: If you want to make a living with your dancing, turn pro. If you don't want to turn pro, then make money some other way.
In the end, it doesn't bother me to see amateurs taking home a bit of "scholarship" money here and there. As I said, simply receiving compensation for doing something does not qualify someone as a professional. It takes more than that. If you're making enough money to actually make a living, that's where I would draw the line.
But there's more to the definition than just money. I think time plays a role, too. For example: A trophy housewife who spends 8 hours per day taking dance lessons financed by her rich husband may be able to get away with entering competitions as an amateur, but it wouldn't sit well with me. If her life's work is based on dancing -- if she spends a great majority of her time perfecting dancing as a skill -- then I can't imagine considering her an amateur, even if the money comes from another source.
For all the reasons mentioned above, I do not support allowing amateurs to teach dancing as a source of income. Teaching provides enough income from which one can make a living. So if they want to teach and therefore make a living, they should turn pro. A little scholarship money here and there is ok, but there should be a limit on the amount. And that limit should be designated based on an amount which makes it impossible to make a living purely by competing.
Jonathan
