Please find attached the proposed FIE Sr/Jr calendars, the approved ECC cadet calendar and a chart showing USFA/FIE and ECC potential conflicts, for the 2010 - 11 season.
While the USFA has not designated any international events, and there have been posts on this thread that no events will be designated to conflict with JOs, it appears likely that some designated junior, cadet and senior events may potentially conflict with national USFA events.
(There are only 8 junior world cups per weapon/gender, 2 of them are the weekends of the Nov. NAC and JOs.)
Last edited by teacup; 03-22-2010 at 08:31 PM.
Reason: uploaded corrected USFA/FIE/ECC calendar due to wrong Nov. NAC dates
Thanks to teacup for keeping us all posted about potential conflicts between the 2010-2011 USFA season now set in stone and the new calendars put together by the FIE.
What I find interesting is the approach the FIE has taken towards a structuring of a season calendar compared with what the USFA does.
FIE guiding principles
separate cadet, junior, and senior events/seasons
cadet (Euro) Sep-Feb: 8;
junior (FIE) Nov-Feb: 8;
senior (FIE) Feb-Jun: 8 (3 GP, 5 Sr.A and team)
separate six weapons circuits
reduce the number of competitions per weapon/class/season
distribute them evenly throughout the season with a break midway
no two events of same category/weapon space closer that two weeks.
While I believe the dates are set, the locations are not yet until the calendar will be released in early April at the FIE meeting in Baku.
These are major changes and ignoring them would be foolish. Trying to adapt our season to this new way of scheduling is advisable albeit it will not be an easy task. Why? Because the USFA sees tournaments in a different and unique way from anybody else: a way to make money by charging ever more and offering less for the experience of competing.
I am not saying this is good or bad, wrong or right, but the USFA lives out of mega tournaments and as such has a difficult time to change its modus operandi.
A question worth investigating is whether the model of big and bigger events brings economy of scale for the USFA or following a more FIE type model, of regularly spaced events separated in age groups and weapons, with tournaments of one kind or another going on all year around could make sense in terms of economics.
Or whether the USFA should not get involved in tournament organization and management and contract such to the various regions, just like the FIE does with its season and the various nation members.
An interesting problem I don't see the current leadership being that interested in anyhow for now but sooner or later the USFA may be forced to look outside of its own box.
I believe you are comparing apples and oranges, as they say. It is not reasonable to contrast the desires of an INTERNATIONAL sports federation with our DOMESTIC NGB, the USFA. They have totally different roles. Although we may learn some things from how the FIE works, the USFA must do what is best for fencing in our country.
Because the USFA sees tournaments in a different and unique way from anybody else: a way to make money by charging ever more and offering less for the experience of competing.
Do you have any specific examples of ways the USFA offers less for the experience of competing than it used to?
Do you have any specific examples of ways the USFA offers less for the experience of competing than it used to?
(emphasis added)
This is not the comparison I was making.
Let me take you one step at a time so you can understand the sentence I wrote and which you quoted.
I wrote (colors and emphasis added to help reading and comprehension):
"Because the USFA sees tournaments in a different and unique way from anybody else: a way to make money by charging ever more and offering less for the experience of competing."
My comparison is between USFA and anybody else (FFE, DFP, FIS... you get the picture?). When you compete at a USFA organized tournament you pay $120 for one event while other federations charge EU 10-15 and FIE events are EU 10 (junior), 20 (senior) and 60 (Grand Prix) and the experience is much more rewarding, including award protocol, medals, trophies and sundry gifts to the top finishers. You really don't need to travel over there, just check the photos of the award ceremonies including those of youths competitions...
Let me take you one step at a time so you can understand the sentence I wrote and which you quoted.
I wrote (colors and emphasis added to help reading and comprehension):
"Because the USFA sees tournaments in a different and unique way from anybody else: a way to make money by charging ever more and offering less for the experience of competing."
My comparison is between USFA and anybody else (FFE, DFP, FIS... you get the picture?). When you compete at a USFA organized tournament you pay $120 for one event while other federations charge EU 10-15 and FIE events are EU 10 (junior), 20 (senior) and 60 (Grand Prix) and the experience is much more rewarding, including award protocol, medals, trophies and sundry gifts to the top finishers. You really don't need to travel over there, just check the photos of the award ceremonies including those of youths competitions...
Did I make my point clear enough this time?
I believe there are cultural differences at work here. Simply put, if I sit down for dinner at a restaurant in France, Italy or Germany, the table is mine for the entire evening. Not so here in the US, where I am rushed out to make room for the next person.
Please note that many of your comparisons between, if you insist, the FIE member federations and the USFA, highlight major historical, political, economic and cultural differences. The fact is that the contrasts may have little practical value for the USFA at this time.
I still have yet to see a financial breakdown of the tournament costs and income from EU or FIE events. It's been hinted that, in fact, the EU/FIE tournaments in which a member pays 10, 20 or 60 Euros to enter does not rely on the entry fees to cover costs, but those costs are covered by the Federation itself (or some other government body). This is in line with the stories I hear from friends who trained in European clubs in which dues were very low because government sports organizations subsidized the running the clubs (note that I'm talking of the non-communist countries).
If this is truly the case, is it fair to compare subsidized entry fees with non-subsidized fees?
Baku (AZE), April 1st 2010
Summary of the 2010 General Assembly decisions
92 member federations were present or represented.
The following points have been approved:
1) 2009 Executive Committee Annual Report
2) 2008/2009 Financial Report
3) Auditors Report
4) Approval of the accounts and quietus to the Executive Committee and the Auditors
5) 2009/2010 modified Budget and 2010/2011 budget
6) Ernst and Young's mandate has been renewed for one year
7) Modification of the entry fees for the Junior, Senior and Grand Prix competitions (application in 2010/2011)
8) Jordan confirmed the organisation of the 2011 J/C World Championships on the shores of the Dead Sea.
9) The following candidates have been approved:
- 2012 J/C World Championships: Moscow (RUS)
- 2012 Team World Championships (Women's sabre, Men's epee): Kiev (UKR)
10) Project of qualification criteria for the 2012 Olympics
The qualification criteria for the 2012 Olympics (presented as an annex to the 1-10 informationletter) have been adopted without modification. They will be submitted to the IOC Executive Commission, which will eventually adapt them before their approval. Calendar meeting
The new 2010/2011 calendar, as well as the Executive Committee's urgent decisions have been explained and discussed. Several modifications of dates and places have been requested. The final version of this calendar will be submitted to the approval of the Executive Committee.
Interesting to note the Cadets are still in the World Championships through 2012.
I thought there had been a big push in Europe to remove them.
You are right, both France and Germany wanted to remove the cadet events but the General Assembly voted against the motion. With 134 members having the right to vote even if all Euros get together on something this does not guarantee it will pass.
You are right, both France and Germany wanted to remove the cadet events but the General Assembly voted against the motion. With 134 members having the right to vote even if all Euros get together on something this does not guarantee it will pass.
Are you sure it was actually voted on or was it decided in a back room
and implicitly confirmed during a vote to set Junior/Cadet Championships cities?
Is there a place to see all the motions that were voted on and votes counts?
...
Good thing USFA had representatives there who provided timely reporting.
Are you sure it was actually voted on or was it decided in a back room
and implicitly confirmed during a vote to set Junior/Cadet Championships cities?
Is there a place to see all the motions that were voted on and votes counts?
...
Good thing USFA had representatives there who provided timely reporting.
.
I was not there but I read the motions before and have not seen the complete minutes of the general assembly. They should be coming out before the summer.
Of course the USFA rep could enlighten us all or maybe he feels it is prudent not to say anything until the minutes are published.
Originally Posted by KD5MDK 
