As it stands right now, FIDE does not have any minimum Elo rating requirement for arbiters. In fact, there's no test to check whether one can play chess or not before being awarded a FIDE arbiter-related titles.
It seems clear to me that a minimum rating is required for an arbiter to do their job properly but what are the arguments for and against requiring a minimum over-the-board rating for arbiters?
In the pre-2014 FIDE Laws of Chess article 10 said this:
Article 10: Quickplay Finish
10.1 A ‘quickplay finish’ is the phase of a game when all the (remaining) moves must be made in a limited time.
10.2 If the player, having the move, has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall summon the arbiter and may stop the clocks. (See Article 6.12.b)
a. If the arbiter agrees the opponent is making no effort to win the game by normal means, or that it is not possible to win by normal means, then he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he shall postpone his decision or reject the claim.
b. If the arbiter postpones his decision, the opponent may be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue, if possible in the presence of an arbiter. The arbiter shall declare the final result later in the game or as soon as possible after a flag has fallen. He shall declare the game drawn if he agrees that the final position cannot be won by normal means, or that the opponent was not making sufficient attempts to win by normal means.
c. If the arbiter has rejected the claim, the opponent shall be awarded two extra minutes time.
d. The decision of the arbiter shall be final relating to (a), (b) and (c).
In the 2014 to 2017 FIDE Laws of Chess this moved to Appendix G and was expanded.
Appendix G. Quickplay Finishes
G.1 A ‘quickplay finish’ is the phase of a game when all the remaining moves must be completed in a finite time.
G.2 Before the start of an event it shall be announced whether this Appendix shall apply or not.
G.3. This Appendix shall only apply to standard play and rapidplay games without increment and not to blitz games.
G.4 If the player having the move has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may request that a time delay or cumulative time of an extra five seconds be introduced for both players, if possible. This constitutes the offer of a draw. If refused, and the arbiter agrees to the request, the clocks shall then be set with the extra time; the opponent shall be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue.
G.5 If Article G.4 does not apply and the player having the move has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall summon the arbiter and may stop the chessclock (see Article 6.12 b). He may claim on the basis that his opponent cannot win by normal means, and/or that his opponent has been making no effort to win by normal means
If the arbiter agrees that the opponent cannot win by normal means, or that the opponent has been making no effort to win the game by normal means, he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he shall postpone his decision or reject the claim. If the arbiter postpones his decision, the opponent may be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue, if possible, in the presence of an arbiter. The arbiter shall declare the final result later in the game or as soon as possible after the flag of either player has fallen. He shall declare the game drawn if he agrees that the opponent of the player whose flag has fallen cannot win by normal means, or that he was not making sufficient attempts to win by normal means. If the arbiter has rejected the claim, the opponent shall be awarded two extra minutes.
The movement from the main articles to an appendix is significant and this trend continued in 2017 and the latest version of the rules. In the latest version of the FIDE Laws of Chess it has moved to a new section "Guidelines".
It is not too dissimilar to the 2014-2017 version so I won't repeat it.
There are two key points:
No. A good arbiter needs to know the Laws of Chess, but that's about it. There's no need to refer to tactics or openings or strategy when you're arbitering. After all, the days of adjudication are over.
I've heard that there are a lot of arbiters with titles that aren't good arbiters, but that wouldn't be solved with imposing a minimum rating. In fact, such a minimum would end up excluding good arbiters who don't even play (my country's only active International Arbiter doesn't compete at all, she has no rating, but she does a great job at being an arbiter).
As far as I know, one of the best, Carol Jarecki, did not even play chess. https://arbiters.fide.com/news/6256
