It's odd and fascinating how chess people don't seem to think critically about chess
So if you haven't heard, Carlsen and Nepomniachtchi have somehow split the World Blitz Championship, a thing that was previously not possible under the rules.
This has set off a firestorm of outrage through the chess world, not helped by Carlsen joking at Nepo -- after they had already agreed to the joint championship and asked FIDE to bless it -- about how if FIDE refused, they could just "make short draws until they give up." People are mad that there's no single winner. People think Carlsen has an axe to grind against FIDE, or that his commercial interests have become misaligned with FIDE's interests. People think this is match fixing.
Frankly, I just think that the chess community needs to just come to the realization that intentional draws are a feature of chess, and tournament organizers need to stop running from it. Chess at a high level is drawish. High level players have tools to essentially offer intentional draws over the board. There's no evidence that Carlsen and Nepo actually intentionally drew any of their games; their games were actually competitive and closely matched, and just happened to be drawn.
But you gotta just design the damn tournament so it has an endpoint. There's a perfectly reasonable tool for this in Chess already, which is the Armageddon format; FIDE just refuses to use it. If Armageddon is too chaotic for a sober and vaunted event like the world blitz championship, you can just cut the sudden death off after a set number of rounds and give it to the higher seeded player (which, in this case, would have been Nepo).
Intentionally drawing to split a prize pool is a normal and expected thing in other games, like poker. Chess is a very objective game; it's on tournament organizers to give players objective reasons to compete. You can't praise people for eking out every little advantage that they can but then ask them to approach the tournament format itself with élan rather than analysis.