Pawns get to play upto 20 games. They can play in only a single tournament at a time.

Rooks get to create fellowships and start tournaments.
They get to play 1,000,000 games and join 1,000,000 tournaments.

The Knight cannot create even a single fellowship or tournament.
The Knight can play upto 50 games - only 2½ times as many games as a Pawn.
The Knight can participate in only ONE tournament at a time per game type. [In theory that's over 70 tournaments but for a Knight who only plays one type of game that means only one tournament - same as a Pawn. Or if they play two games types, only twice what a Pawn is allowed]

Yet the fee for a Knight is over 60% of the Rook's.
Is this fair?

I'm going to join a tournament to see if I can win a Rook membership. With 125 players it so far and another month before it starts, the chance of several snails and turtles playing is extremely high. So this tournament could last, what, a year?

That means that for the next year, perhaps, I will be unable to play games in any another tournament because I'll mostly be waiting for others to play their games.

The Knight gets on the order of twice what a Pawn gets.
The Rook gets everything possible.

The Pawn pays nothing.
Yet the fee for a Knight is over 60% of the Rook's.
How can this be fair?

I suggest, at the least, that Knights should have a higher limit on games and tournaments. And not per game type but overall. A player who wishes only to play chess variations, or line games, or backgammon types should not be penalised because of that choice.