First, $5000 is way too low a limit - it's a drop in the bucket compared to the current "must not exceed dance-related expenses" limit.
$5000 was an arbitrary number for the purpose of illustrating a point, but since you mention it, I don't agree with "must not exceed dance-related expenses rule", either. (Besides, many competitive pros even have expenses greater than their dance-related income).
The second is your assumption that top amateurs want to turn pro, and that pros are necessarily better than amateurs. There are in fact a lot of people out there who are very good, could be of service doing some teaching, etc - but who have no desire to give up their non-dancing careers.
Nobody says they have to give up their non-dancing carrers. There is nothing in my definition (nor anybody else's that has voiced an opinion here) stipulating that a professional must only receive income from dancing, and not from anything else. I'm merely suggesting that if a person wishes to spend a considerable amount of time and make a considerable amount of money from his dancing, he take the designation of professional. I could care less what he does with his non-dancing time.
And, as it happens, there are many pros who must supplement their teaching income with other types of work. Some make more money from their non-dancing work than they do from their dancing. It seems a bit odd to me that such people can't call themselves amateurs (actually, they are technically allowed to if they want to jump through some embarrassing hoops -- see below).
I do not make the assumption that ALL top amateurs want to turn pro. The only assumption I make, which is a perfectly fair one, is that there are some amateurs out there who want to make money with their dancing, which I interpret as wanting to turn pro. The solution I offered only applies to these people -- not to all amateurs across the board. But to those who do want to make money with their dancing, it's perfectly fair to assume that they want to turn pro... they do want to turn pro! They just don't want to be labeled as such. They want all of the perks, but not the title. If such people have their way, literally the only thing separating them from the pros will be the word we use to describe them. How does the expression go? "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..."
I've heard the argument many times before that pro and amateur are not levels of dancing, and that there is nothing in the definition of amateur that suggests such. And while it's wonderful in theory, the reality is that professional is a level above amateur. And so it should be... professionals spend a majority of their time, energy, and resources perfecting their skill, while amateurs are those who have dancing as a hobby, secondary to their regular trade or line of work.
Furthermore, when an amateur couple has reached the absolute top of the competitive circuit and has nowhere left to go, what do they do? More often than not, they turn pro. And by most, this is considered a step up to the next level. When was the last time you heard of a professional couple reaching the top, and then "graduating" to the amateur circuit? Actually, when a pro wants to revert to amateur status, it is considered by most a step down (hence the word "revert"), and is frowned upon by a large portion of the community. So much so, in fact, that one must actually petition the governing bodies to obtain permission to do so.
Still don't agree? Then answer this: Why is there such a reluctance on the part of these money-making amateurs to adopt the professional label? If the only thing separating a pro from a money-making amateur is the label itself, why put up such a fight to maintain the label of amateur? I'll give you a hint: The only people who show such reluctance are those who are actively competing. That's right -- when you call yourself a pro, you have to compete against other pros. And to many amateurs at such a level, that means giving up your status as the big fish in the little pond. They know quite well that a finalist amateur might become no more than a semi- or quarter-finalist as a pro... maybe less.
So in spite of any dictionary definition you may read, to say that amateur and professional are not considered levels of dancing to some degree is an idealistic fantasy. And to stick to such a rigid interpretation of the word "amateur" does indeed beg the question: Why make a professional / amateur distinction at all?
Regards,
Jonathan
õ