UKC

The Flosport deal is now the third hugely unpopular decision by the IFSC in recent past. First there was the decision for the Olympic combined format, then the recent end of the 4+ rule and finally the introduction of the pay wall for watching IFSC world cups.

But underlining these there's a separate issue highlighted in the latest update to the petition* which is about transparency and accountability.

What seems to be clear is that almost no one knew about the Flosport deal in advance. Yet apparently this deal has been negotiated over the course of an entire year. None of the national bodies appear to support it. Even IFSC officials didn't seem to know about. Just a few weeks ago IFSC technical chappie Graeme Alderson completely denied my suggestion that we might have to pay to view in the future.

Finally Marco Scolaris has been president for 10 years, since the inception of the IFSC. This seems like an unhealthily long stint for the top spot. Shouldn't the presidency change on a more regular basis than this anyway? The IFSC is made up of 87 separate national bodies. Currently it doesn't seem to be working very democratically.

The IFSC Executive Board meet on Wednesday to discuss the Flosport's deal. It will be interesting to see what comes out of this.

Thoughts?


* https://www.change.org/p/cancel-the-ifsc-live-streaming-subscription-fees/u...

In reply to stp:

If the current BMC Exec are all forced to resign at the forthcoming AGM, perhaps Scolaris might be interested in being the new CEO.

In reply to stp:

I was unaware of the plans so sorry if you felt miss-led, it was not intentional. But I am not part of the Marketing/Communication dept or involved at the Board level so there was no reason for me to know.

Maybe though you should check a few facts eg the term of the IFSC Exec Board is 4 years, the most recent elections were held last month.

The Olympic format would be much less popular if it was Speed only, or Lead & Speed, or Boulder & Speed, which were the ONLY other alternatives on the table.

4 vs 4+ is being a bit hyped up, eg Eddie asked Katha Saurwein if she had felt pressured due to no '+' during the final in Swiss on Saturday, Eddie seemed disappointed when she said no. Also consider that IMHO Rei would not have done P4 in the final with 4+, he would have hung around and greased off. The lack of '+' did not affect any of the female boulders and MIGHT have affected men's P1 but then again that might have just been too hard, with a very hard start.

In reply to stp:
I agree that the Olympic format is a reasonable attempt to make the best of a bad job given what was on offer.

But the election a month ago was held in ignorance of that fact that critical secret negotiations about the future of the sport were going behind everybody's back. I can't see how he could retain anybody's trust or confidence now after ambushing everybody with the FloSports deal two days before the start of the season.

But perhaps the IFSC is in such dire financial straits that it's a poisoned chalice nobody would want to take from him?

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


Well I suppose that's my point. For no one to tell you seems like it must have been a secret. Being secretive and being democratic are at odds with one another.

I certainly didn't feel misled.

I did look at the IFSC web site. The board seems quite small (10 members) but all different nationalities which is great to see. Changing the board every 4 years seems like the right thing to do. But it doesn't seem to apply to the President if he's been there since 2007?

In reply to AlanLittle:

As Graeme is fond of pointing out, he was reelected unopposed at the recent AGM.

... engaged in critical secret negotiations about the future of the sport behind everybody's back. I can't see how he could retain anybody's trust or confidence now.

I haven't trusted him for some time now, but he keeps saying that he's doing everything in a completely altruistic way.
Do we believe him on other matters ?
I leave the decision to each person to take themselves.

In reply to AlanLittle:

I don't know about the finances. If they've been negotiating the deal for a year then it doesn't seem like it was totally urgent.

There are also a number of ways to raise money. Ask for donations (at the start of each Live stream). That's how Wikipedia seems to keep going. Individual membership like the BMC would be another. Advertising on the live stream would be a third (done in some US comps).

But who knows. It's all just speculation because so little info has come out.

In reply to stp:

If he steps down, has he lost the onsight?

In reply to stp:
Hard to see how the best way to fund a live stream is by a $20/month subscription when others have offered the same for less and got the cold shoulder. Letting everyone know a few days before the season kicks off seemed likely to get the reaction it received. The IFSC not exactly out there calming stormy waters and defending their decision to give the rights to a provider with a questionable record for customer service is it? Hiding in a shell scrape might seem a more accurate description. Although at least they haven't as yet implemented a paywall and did listen to the protests, although they would have needed a pretty thick skin over the weekend to do nothing. The fans don't seem to want the deal as it stands, the athletes don't want it, I doubt the athletes sponsors want it. A climb down and an apology would seem like a pre-requisite for him keeping a little respect and his position to me. Perhaps if he was prepared to explain the financial situation and ask for help from as wide a constituency as possible rather than demand dollars by proxy, people would feel more inclined to help rather than try and force him out?

In reply to stp:


Maybe this is the problem. If a majority of countries with votes don't have a lot of climbers but are hoping for money from IFSC to develop climbing in their area they might be more interested in bringing in money than p*ssing off people that watch the live streams.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


What does that mean?

In reply to aln:

Sorry I thought it was self explanatory. If the 4+ rule was still in place Rei would have probably taken his time but then consequently failed as the PU holds were very greasy - the fact that he had to get a shift on meant he didn't hang around on each hold (plus the fact he got a great foot position) and finished in time.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

The impression I got is that none of the federations got to vote on this.

As for the IFSC giving money to other countries I haven't heard about that. I thought money went the other way, ie. to the IFSC. On UKB someone said we give them £250,000!



ASFAIK the IFSC only deals with competition climbing, nothing to do with outdoor areas.

In reply to stp:

I dont think that person was being entirely serious............

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

The impression I got is that none of the federations got to vote on this.

As for the IFSC giving money to other countries I haven't heard about that. I thought money went the other way, ie. to the IFSC. On UKB someone said we give them £250,000!



ASFAIK the IFSC only deals with competition climbing, nothing to do with outdoor areas.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

The impression I got is that none of the federations got to vote on this.

As for the IFSC giving money to other countries I haven't heard about that. I thought money went the other way, ie. to the IFSC. On UKB someone said we give them £250,000!



ASFAIK the IFSC only deals with competition climbing, nothing to do with outdoor areas.

In reply to Ian W:


Yet I wondered. But how much, if anything, do we contribute to the IFSC?


Meantime I see my faulty internet connection has reposted the same thing 3 times. Sorry 'bout that.

In reply to stp:

Apparently there are 87 federations. What happened with the Olympics and Football is the small/poor countries were voting for the incumbent office holders and the quid pro quo was money from the federation to 'develop the sport' in those countries. I didn't mean 'develop the sport' to mean 'developing crags', it could be supporting kids climbing clubs.

The most important issue isn't the overpriced pay per view it is the lack of transparency and consultation in the way decisions are taken and that really needs sorted before we build another FIFA / IOC on a smaller scale.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


It wasn't.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Both are important. But whilst the payment issue seems settled the transparency issue seems to have been completely ignored so far. I don't think the IFSC has even bothered to put out the press release about the payment issue that they said they were going to. Very poor show.

In reply to fred99:


And as I delight in pointing out Sepp Blatter was re-elected four times. Model of probity....

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

The Olympic format would be much less popular if it was Speed only, or Lead & Speed, or Boulder & Speed, which were the ONLY other alternatives on the table.

Hi Graeme,

Why exactly where they the options on the table when its universally understood that speed is the lesser of the 3 disciplines?

I was also under the impression that one of the stipulations of continued inclusion in the Olympics was the participation of the top athletes in the sport. With the inclusion on speed we have already had many of these people declare their intention to stay away. I believe this has been the issue for golf for many years (previous to its re-introduction last year).

In reply to La benya:

Well, for a 'climber' it might be assumed as a fairly lightweight discipline (but then again if its so bloody easy why aren't 'good climbers' good at it ) but for a TV audience it is dead easily understood, doesn't have'boring bits' and is easy to fit into a time-slot. I can see why it was seen as a shoe-in. Do you watch the 100m sprint or the marathon? And which gets the bigger audience?

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Well we all know how incumbents have an advantage in such elections and how drift can lead to very real problems (sadly including corruption) in sporting bodies. Maybe he should see 4++++... isn't such a great idea for governance terms. A lot of organisations with better governance require a pause after a number of re-elected terms.

In reply to Andy Say:

There are plenty of sports which are celebrated for their complicated nature. Bouldering and Lead aren't complicated to watch, only the scoring is difficult to comprehend (sometimes). The Maddison springs to mind for complicated scoring, as does gymnastics. And fencing is an example of something basically pointless to watch as you cant see whats going on until the experts explain it/ the slow-mo is produced. All of which are immensely popular in the Olympics.

As for interesting to watch, surely that;s in the eye of the beholder? golf is immesurably dull, and yet, has significant viewing figures consistently.

In reply to La benya:


Its not seen as a lesser discipline in much of eastern europe / north america / france / italy etc etc where it has a much greater take up than in the UK.

In reply to Ian W:

That as may be, but taking the climbing world as a whole, it is far below the others.
that argument is much like suggesting that Futsal is more popular than football because of the take up in south america and parts of asia.

In reply to La benya:


Proof? Or just personal opinion?
And it isn't the 'climbing world' they want to grab

In reply to La benya:

Indeed, there is no getting away from the fact that lead and bouldering are globally more popular; however, there are equal status world cups and championships for all 3, so the IOC said that all 3 should be included in a combined event. What happens after 2020? who knows, but cdurrently that is the hand we have to play with ........

In reply to La benya:


No it isn't. Football is way more popular than futsal, even in the areas you quote; I'm just pointing out that speed is not universally looked on as the inferior discipline.

In reply to Ian W:


Not to mention speed is the only easily quantified and comparable discipline, that can hold an olympic record.

In reply to Ian W:

I disagree that the status of all 3 is equal. Speed is nowhere near the status of Lead or boulder. Most climbers couldn't even name a single speed climber. The number of viewers watching speed is also a good indication and the figures are a very different, often by a factor of 10.

I can see that whilst speed is more easily understood by non climbers, so what? I don't think we should be changing the sport so much just up the viewer ratings. Lead and bouldering are both very closely related to the sport in general. But there is no widely practised outdoor equivalent of speed. Because of this it will only ever be something practised by a very small minority.

In reply to stp:

Look, that is your 'perception'; albeit possibly shared with others. But for the ISFC, the governing body of 'sport climbing', they are equal. 'Combined' medals for been awarded for a while; its not new. Dave Barrans came 7th last year.


Most climbers couldn't tell you who won the lead competition last year or name a top woman boulderer apart from 'our Shauna'.


Don't worry: 'we're' not.

In reply to stp:


You might find plenty of people disagree if you post that on RussiaClimbing.com instead of UKClimbing.com

In reply to Andy Say:

I'm not sure why the IFSC's 'perception' is any more important than anyone else. The IFSC looks increasingly like it's just one person anyway. Status is surely simply the shared 'perception' of the whole community. And it's clear that Speed is the lesser discipline. That's not just my or La Benya's 'perception'. The Youtube stats unequivocally spell it out.

In reply to Andy Say:

I cant tell if you're playing devils advocate or are just being contrary for the sake of it.

Just because an observation might be subjective, doesn't mean it is immediately false. Some things don't require evidence of a structured nature to be proved. Are you suggesting that my statement is incorrect? go on then, wheres your proof?

In reply to stp:
As Andy said, we aren't. There is a fully accredited world cup series and world championships, at which medals are awarded for all 3 individual disciplines and for combined results. The 2020 olympics will only award medals for a combined competition. No fundamental changes are being made to the disciplines themselves. Of course outdoor speed climbing is a rare beast, as speed lends itself to competition better than outdoor recreational climbing, but in the indoor / "artificial surface" climbing world, it is relatively more significant.

But I would agree that overall, it is not at the same level as lead or boulder.

In reply to La benya:


Nope. I'm suggesting that your opinion is unproven. Unless you can prove it

In reply to Andy Say:

well thanks for your input anyway then