"We feel pretty confident that the USOC will take care of the athletes, which is first and foremost," Cathy Zagunis said. "There is a problem and it's been ongoing. It's nothing new. I've been with fencing for more than 10 years. For the last six years, even previous to Athens, we struggled with this delay in receiving reimbursements and funding that's due to the athletes."
Massik said Cathy Zagunis might have exaggerated.
"The vast majority of all the funds that we owe or have owed, we are within the 30-day window of payment," Massik said."
so, for those of you that are owed money is this true?
__________________
"who do you think you are?"
"Do you think by making someone a knight, you make them a better fighter?"
"Yes"
The United States Olympic Committee will coordinate and oversee USA Fencing's High Performance Program for the 2008 Olympic Games and will supervise and guarantee the funding for athletes, coaches and programs leading up the Games.
The Olympic athletes and their supporting organization will get the money and organization they need. This takes away the High Performance organization from the USFA's domain.
Quote:
The USOC and USA Fencing will develop and implement the long-term solution for the NGB after the Games in Beijing.
The USOC is going to keep the High Performance group until and unless they're sure that the USFA can handle it.
My understanding of this is that there has not been any decision made right now, and the USOC isn't going to do anything until after the Olympics. (I think they're annoyed enough at having to run the High Performance Group.) Their actions will depend on what they find out happened with the High Performance Group. If there was fraud or really horrible mismanagement, I bet they wipe the slate clean and start over. If it was just incompetence, then it'll be a political battle to convince the USOC that the USFA is fixing things sufficiently.
But in one thing I'm certain, it's all about the money. The USOC won't look at how we run NACs, referee development, youth participation, online registration, etc.. They're looking to make sure that their money has the correct oversight and is being used responsibly.
I think the Italian Federation went out of business a few times and had to be reformed. They seem to have survived pretty well...I am sure we will be OK.
No, the Italian Fencing Federation (FIS) did not go out of business once nor a few times. The Italian Olympic Committee (CONI) did.
CONI (equivalent to the USOC) contributes substantially to all federations each year and the federations program their operations accordingly. Since these contributions have diminished over the years, the federations are forced to save where they can and to become more efficient and entrepreneurial. Ditto for the fencing clubs in Italy which receive financial support from the FIS according to the competitive results of their members (the system is geared to promote elite competitive fencing, so better and more results yield greater financial support from the federation). However, because of tight money these contributions are getting smaller.
What precipitated the financial crisis at CONI?
In the past (10+ years ago) the majority of revenues for CONI came from a percent of the Totocalcio revenues. This was an inexpensive and extremely popular way to bet on the outcome of 13 soccer matches every week during the soccer season. This easy system produced quite a bit of "free" money to be used for some some pet projects, including supporting sports through CONI, and the flow of cash coming in was rather constant. The result was that CONI was swimming in money and so did the federations, in particular those that were producing stellar results as was and remains the case for the Italian Fencing Federation.
The crisis came when CONI did not realize the wind was changing. Totocalcio became much less popular but Enalotto (a kind of national lottery) turned out to be the "in" game to bet, in particular when it became Superenalotto because it offered the chance to win much larger amounts of money, albeit less frequently. CONI at the time did not understand this market change so it stuck with Totocalcio, did not switch or pursue this new source of funds, and with time Totocalcio's revenues faded away because it was not popular any longer.
When CONI found itself broke, the Italian Government intervened to support the sport activities. Now the government gives a certain amount of money I believe every 4 years to CONI and then CONI provides services and distributes funds to the various sport federations according to their results, number of members, etc., and CONI keeps a close tab on these metrics.
As a result all federations receive less money now than in the past, but the FIS, because of its track record, is one that is helped the most both if compared with other Italian sport federations or other national fencing federations. Specifically this year, the FIS receives from CONI EU 5.355 million out of a total of EU 140.379 million for all federations, placing fencing at #7 from the top. In order from top down there are swimming, track & field, volleyball, winter sports, basketball, cycling, and fencing.
It should be said also that the current FIS president, Giorgio Scarso, the first fencing maestro at the helm of the federation who is now concluding his first quad as leader (he is likely to be reelected for another quad), is working incessantly to raise the image, support the athletes (elite and youths), and find new sponsors in the private sector. The results of Italian fencers are paramount for his success in keeping the federation alive and well.
Clearly we have a different system in the US, but in the end it requires to have leaders and administrators who know what to do and who work together towards agreed goals. Success of the elite/high performance program is or should be of primary concern for everyone.
I really suspect that whatever the USOC does will have little to no effect on us "rank and file" fencers. Let's b e blunt, they really don't care about us, they care about Olympic level athletes. So go ahead and get your memberships and plan on going to whatever events you were going to.
You are quite right that USOC does not care about "rank & file" fencers but that does not mean that they should not. You cannot look at Olympic level athletes in a vaccuum - they came from somewhere. As a team mate said last night, you need an awful lot of milk to make cream. The care and feeding of youth programs, NAC attendence and growth of the sport overall is what has helped fuel, and pay for, the Olympic success.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swordsen
the only thing I'd really like to see come out of all this mess is getting an ED who is a professional. He doesn't need to be or to have ever been a fencer. He needs to be someone who has experience running a large NPO. He (or she) needs to be fund raiser.
Let's try looking outside our own little gene pool for a change.
Yes we need a professional and yes they don't have to be a fencer. But just getting a fundraiser is highly limiting given the nature of the change that has to happen culturally at the USFA. What the USFA needs is an experienced non-profit professional with fundraising in thier background. The new ED has to effect significant governance and structural changes across the organization. You need to find someone with a breath of experience who has led organizations in this type of growth step. If you find an individual with this experience, I promise you they have asked for money.
Ultimately, this is never an easy transition for any organization, much less one with as much history as the USFA and that has shown consistent and signficant resistance to change.
__________________
Once you can accept the universe as matter expanding into nothing that is something, wearing stripes with plaid comes easy. ~ Albert Einstein
I wonder if other dogs think poodles are members of a weird religious cult. ~ Rita Rudner
The USOC won't look at how we run NACs, referee development, youth participation, online registration, etc.. They're looking to make sure that their money has the correct oversight and is being used responsibly.
Actually, if they are stepping in to 'help' they will be looking at everything, not just how the olympians are being handled. It wiil start there but then spread to likely every other aspect US Fencing deals with. Now, that doesn't mean they will conentrate on these others issues to help make them better but when they truely see what is going on and the mere fact they needed to stap in will very likely mean they look at everything this group and officer and employees have done, or not done, and decide what they need to do to help.
Also, after reading all these articles it seems more likely their involvement will not end with the closing ceremonies in China. The articles have the feel more of 'here is why we are stepping in' more than 'here is all we care about'.
Actually, if they are stepping in to 'help' they will be looking at everything, not just how the olympians are being handled. It wiil start there but then spread to likely every other aspect US Fencing deals with. Now, that doesn't mean they will conentrate on these others issues to help make them better but when they truely see what is going on and the mere fact they needed to stap in will very likely mean they look at everything this group and officer and employees have done, or not done, and decide what they need to do to help.
Also, after reading all these articles it seems more likely their involvement will not end with the closing ceremonies in China. The articles have the feel more of 'here is why we are stepping in' more than 'here is all we care about'.
Why do you think the USOC analysis will go further than making sure the money goes to where it needs to, and that the Olympians (and near-Olympians) are being treated appropriately? I would be (possibly pleasantly) surprised if they had any desire to do so.
Why do you believe they have the bandwidth and resources to do a organization wide analysis, and then aid the implementation?
I'm not asking in disbelief, but to fill my gaps in knowledge.
Why do you think the USOC analysis will go further than making sure the money goes to where it needs to, and that the Olympians (and near-Olympians) are being treated appropriately? I would be (possibly pleasantly) surprised if they had any desire to do so.
Why do you believe they have the bandwidth and resources to do a organization wide analysis, and then aid the implementation?
I'm not asking in disbelief, but to fill my gaps in knowledge.
To paraphrase someone else, nothing happens in a vacuum, especially when it comes to the spending of US Fencing. I believe it will begin with 'why aren't the olympians being taken care of' and move to other areas, it has to. Why do you believe it won't? They don't want to do this at all and certainly don't want to do this again, they will review everything and, if need be, set policies in place to ensure this doesn't happen again and the only way to do that is see how they are handling everything else and why mishandling everything else led to the problem with the olympians. I doubt they will, for instance, force the new officers and employees use askfred for national event registration, down peet, but if they see oppotunities in NAC registration to help save funds to make sure the elites are taken care of they very likely will.
This is not them stepping in to make sure our olympians have plane tickets for China, this is to make sure they have plane tickets and needed support to go to China and every other world level event they want ro need to in the future. In other words, they will teach these folks how to fish not hand them one.
They don't want to do this at all and certainly don't want to do this again, they will review everything and, if need be, set policies in place to ensure this doesn't happen again and the only way to do that is see how they are handling everything else and why mishandling everything else led to the problem with the olympians.
I think this is the salient point; if they just take care of the immediate needs of the Olympians (which I definitely imagine is the current focus) then they'll be dealing with the same problem for the next quad.
To paraphrase someone else, nothing happens in a vacuum, especially when it comes to the spending of US Fencing. I believe it will begin with 'why aren't the olympians being taken care of' and move to other areas, it has to. Why do you believe it won't?
That's a lot of faith in a large organization. Good luck with that.
Linear Mode
