Is US Fencing going bankrupt?

[Mr Epee]

Greg,

Thank you very much for taking the time to inform and educate.

[Jason]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

Greg,

Thank you very much for taking the time to inform and educate.

Well, you've certainly become a polite, helpful member of this internet forum...

Who are you, impostor???!!!???

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by Jason

Well, you've certainly become a polite, helpful member of this internet forum...

Who are you, impostor???!!!???

Feint-disengage, my friend. Feint-disengage.

Some people just don't understand this sport.

Word.

[bunbury]

Originally Posted by JEC

Now, there were 1723 fencer participants at the NAC-D in Atlanta with 166 participants from Canada (9.6%), the largest group of the 184 fencers under "foreign". I cherish their participation and would like to see actually greater international participation, but should the CFF contribute financially for providing an opportunity to develop their fencers, particularly youth and junior. Although, clearly their presence improves our own fencers, but we are still losing money with NAC's.

If anything, the foreign fencers are the best to have, as they give money and will see little back from it. A USFA fencer will see their money being spent for the USFA, while a foreign fencer will be taking outside money and putting into our system. It does make some sense to charge the int'l a little bit more, as they don't pay USFA dues, but they are making quite a trip to begin with.

[larkmaj]

Originally Posted by bunbury

If anything, the foreign fencers are the best to have, as they give money and will see little back from it. A USFA fencer will see their money being spent for the USFA, while a foreign fencer will be taking outside money and putting into our system. It does make some sense to charge the int'l a little bit more, as they don't pay USFA dues, but they are making quite a trip to begin with.

This would only be true if the NACs were consistently MAKING money. In this case a portion of the registration fees would go to things other than the NACs. If the NACs were LOSING money, as has been the case, where does the difference come from? The money lost comes from other fundraising endeavers, notably our dues.

This means we are paying for our tournaments twice, once with our registration fees, and again with our membership fees. Foreign competitors are only paying once, with their registration fees. This means they are paying less than we are to participate in the tournament.

[veeco]

On the other hand, those foreign competitors are usually better than the average competitor at the NAC. They are making a larger investment in coming (because they have to pay more money to come, so they are only going to come if they are sure that they will perform well.

They are therefore providing better competition, which can lead to better fencing opportunities (and tougher opponents) for local competitors. This in turn makes US fencers better competitors.

The USFA already has some of the highest tournament fees that I have encountered in the fencing world (and I have participated in fencing competitions in over 5 countries). Raising the entry fee for foreigners isn't going to make those tournaments more challenging, but on the contrary, it's going to make them less difficult.

When I started fencing, in cadet and junior events in France, foreign competitors didn't have to pay an entry fee, because it was too complicated for them to exchange currencies just to pay the entry fee. That all disappeared when the Euro became common currency, but we did have very strong foreign fencers come, as a result of it. I remember a cadet tournament we fenced in some remote town in the middle of nowhere in France, where the whole Polish team came about, in addition to a few Italians, Germans, Hungarians, that we usually had at these events. The reason they came? It was cheap to get a hotel in that desolate area, they didn't have to pay an entry fee, and the trip was just a relatively short
(and cheap) trip by bus from Poland.

[FoilyDeath]

Anything out of Canada is beside the point. Most foreigners can't be bothered to enter NACs because you have to fight your way through the rating system, and there is no defined procedure for people without a rating entering NACs, especially Div1.

[KD5MDK]

There is a very clearly defined system laid out in the Operations Manual.

[FoilyDeath]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

There is a very clearly defined system laid out in the Operations Manual.

Thanks for pointing that out! I actually had no idea. Seems a bit rash though...You get a C for being on a world cadet or junior team? Although it does state than foreign fencers get the lowest possible rating for Div1 NAC.

[KD5MDK]

Actually, that's not absolutely ridiculous. When the Junior Pan Ams were in San Antonio the Mexican Junior Team was staying with some prominent Hispanic fencing families in our area and I went down to do a little bouting. I'd have rated them as good Cs, maybe weak Bs, in sabre. Given when you're assigning a classification equivalent you want to be reasonably conservative, that's not too far off. Of course, if you're a Junior or Cadet who also happens to be doing crazy well at Seniors and the Junior World Champs, that's another matter.

[teacup]

I don't think the way to increase revenue for the USFA is to keep increasing entry fees. It won't help encourage and strengthen the sport.

It is getting to the point where for some US fencers, it may be more worthwhile to attend a fencing tournament in Europe, than a domestic NAC.

For example compare the costs of attending an event in the European Cadet Circuit vs a domestic cadet NAC.

The entry fee for a cadet event in Europe is $15.00 vs $100.00 in the US.

Airfares during the winter, between some US cities are comparable with round trip fares from the US to Europe.

Even with the high Euro, many hotels have prices less than US hotels most with breakfast included. Recently we paid $120.00 for a German hotel vs $159.00 for the Hilton in Charlotte, no breakfast included.

Also since European events are always scheduled on weekends, even with the further travel time, sometimes the same or fewer school/work days are missed when compared to attending a domestic tournament having the event scheduled on a Monday or Friday.

The Cadet circuit in Europe consists of four sets of pools, with repachage at 64 and again at 32 on the second day vs a NAC with one set of pools and repachage at 32. So for about the same cost fencers get two days of fencing, unless of course they are knocked out, vs a one day event at a domestic event.

[counterattack]

Originally Posted by teacup

For example compare the costs of attending an event in the European Cadet Circuit vs a domestic cadet NAC.

The entry fee for a cadet event in Europe is $15.00 vs $100.00 in the US.
.

And do you think this $15 covers the actual costs? Or do you think it is subsidized? My suspicion is that unless they don't have to pay for their venue, equipment, or refs that that has to be subsisdized. I think the current fee structure in the USFA is good. Like most things, I feel it is spendthirft behavior that causes the problems. Hopefully Greg D and fluidfencer and others like them can slow down the spending and get us "back in the black" without any other major changes.

[teacup]

Originally Posted by counterattack

And do you think this $15 covers the actual costs? Or do you think it is subsidized? My suspicion is that unless they don't have to pay for their venue, equipment, or refs that that has to be subsisdized. I think the current fee structure in the USFA is good. Like most things, I feel it is spendthirft behavior that causes the problems. Hopefully Greg D and fluidfencer and others like them can slow down the spending and get us "back in the black" without any other major changes.

I don't know if they are subsidized or not but you are correct things are run differently. I speculate that their events do not cost nearly what US events do, nor do fencers pay the same expenses. So even if they are subsidized by running things differently the costs are reduced.

This is mainly achieved by only doing one weapon at a time because:

- smaller venues such as sports facilities, sometimes actual fencing venues, are used. Therefore unlike in the US they are not paying to ship strips and rent HUGE convention centres.

- fewer refs are needed and yes perhaps some are volunteers, again this cuts down on costs

- less equipment needs to be shipped

- times and events are posted months in advance

- events last two days over the weekend rather than four days, so it may be easer to find volunteers.

By holding more single weapon events regionally and/or nationally, perhaps the USFA could save money and even be able hold more events.

Major changes may be necessary and in fact make the whole situation not only better financially but better for the development of the sport.

[KD5MDK]

The European Cadet tournaments (like World Cups) require the attending countries to bring referees, the cost of which is split among the attendees (in the British case I believe).
The USFA pays for the referees to our international tournaments out of the FOC budget, which was something like 85k for that line item this year.

[teacup]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

The European Cadet tournaments (like World Cups) require the attending countries to bring referees, the cost of which is split among the attendees (in the British case I believe).
The USFA pays for the referees to our international tournaments out of the FOC budget, which was something like 85k for that line item this year.

So theoretically if there was a US cadet circuit, similar to the European system or the SYC system, are you suggesting to save costs the divisions or sections should be required to bring referees?

If so that is a good suggestion to save costs.

Keeping down costs especially for the younger beginning fencers is a great way to encourage participation in the sport as well as offering strong fencing developmental opportunities.

[oso97]

Originally Posted by teacup

So theoretically if there was a US cadet circuit, similar to the European system or the SYC system, are you suggesting to save costs the divisions or sections should be required to bring referees?

If so that is a good suggestion to save costs.

Keeping down costs especially for the younger beginning fencers is a great way to encourage participation in the sport as well as offering strong fencing developmental opportunities.

Perhaps, but you still have to PAY for those referees some how. Travel, lodging, honorarium... You can't completely shift the financial burden onto the Sections/Divisions, there simply aren't the funds there to pay for them!

[teacup]

Originally Posted by oso97

Perhaps, but you still have to PAY for those referees some how. Travel, lodging, honorarium... You can't completely shift the financial burden onto the Sections/Divisions, there simply aren't the funds there to pay for them!

Of course not! I wasn't suggesting that ALL events be done this way. What I am suggesting is that there are other ways to do things other than the current system.