World Beach Volleyball change can't be made without the Players
Players delegation : Hannes Brinkborg (SWE), Lauren
Fendrick (USA), Daniel Hupfer (AUT), Janne Kongshavn (NOR), Todd Rogers
(USA), Pedro Solberg (BRA), Maria Tsiartsiani (GRE), Marloes Wesselink
(NED) and Nadine Zumkehr (SUI) and FIVB Beach Volleyball Commission President Vicente Araujo and FIVB Beach
Volleyball Department Director Angelo Squeo
It's not easy to make change without the people who are concerned by that change !!! FIVB will try to give another strategy (started before) to grow the Beach Volleyball opportunities, but perhaps it was better to do it with the Players. That's why the players sent a message to the FIVB to be hear about the new system.
Find below the Players message and the FIVB feedback after the meeting.
Here the message from the players to the FIVB
Dear Mr. Graca, Mr. Araujo, and Mr. Squeo,
The players are confused as to why you would send out another version of the Technical Aspects, when we are scheduled to meet next week to discuss many of these very points? We hope you are open to hearing our concerns, as the players are strongly united.
The FIVB is a professional tour. It is an arena where professional beach volleyball athletes work and earn their livelihood. A ranking system already exists, so it is not right to change the rights of the athlete to play. It is unfair to NOT allow a player, who still has points, who worked for so many years and invested so much, to play when they rightfully earned their spot on tour. The points are not for the National Federation (NF), they are for the players and should belong to them! This MUST be respected and we can't accept anything less than this!
If the FIVB wants to have this system, a tour represented only by national teams (where the NF decides which players will play), they should create another league where you are not representing yourself but your country (like the Davis Cup in tennis). In this other league they could do whatever they want -- But NOT in the professional league like the FIVB.
Furthermore, there are several problems with this new point system and it does not achieve “growth in the sport” like the FIVB states. In fact, it makes the sport smaller limiting the tour potentially to the same 40 teams for the entire foreseeable future. There is no chance for new teams to gain access to events. The players would like to know how the FIVB thinks this point system grows the sport?
1) The first problem: this new point system retroactively changes the first tournament entry points to be 2012 “365 day points” instead of the “best 4 of last 5 tournament finishes” point system that was in place prior. There was no warning or phase out period for this first tournament entry point change. This change is completely unfair, unsporting and unheard of in sport. The athletes played last season under the impression that entry points were determined by your best 4 out of your last 5 tournaments. You must start the season the way you finish the season. It is the only fair way. Otherwise you arbitrarily reward teams who happened to participate in more tournaments. Teams would have attempted to play in more tournaments if they knew this would be introduced as the new entry point system.
2) The second problem: the proposed “phase-out” of 2012 points is not well thought out or logical. If a player plays in any of the first 5 “phase-out” tournaments and then gets injured or pregnant, the rule forces this player to forfeit their remaining 2012 points. AND, on the injury policy, the player must sit out for a whole year in order to take advantage of an injury policy?!? This makes no sense! Especially not in the proposed “phase-out” period. AND, the pregnancy policy is not detailed enough. For instance, must a player play within two years from conception or two years from birth? AND, this applies not only for injury, but for any reason if a player cannot play in the first 5 tournaments, then after that they have ZERO points. This is unbelievable! This is our job and the athletes have worked hard for their points, you CANNOT just take them away and wipe away all that money, time, and work put in by these athletes.
a. Take the following possible scenarios and abuses under your proposed new point system:
i. 1st Example: Imagine: Latvia has 4 Good Players.Their Federation wants to have 4 teams on the World Tour so each of them plays with a new player with zero points for the First 5 tournaments (the individual players have enough points so they all can play). After the 5 tournaments - they can play in their old partnerships - so Latvia now has 4 Spots for probably the whole season (and the next year) because they worked together at the beginning first 5 tournaments. If 5 countries do the same - 20 Spots are already taken by just 5 nations
ii. 2nd Example: Imagine teams below rank 40. They start the season with about 1,200 technical points and 650 traditional entry points (4 out of 5). They cannot get into the first tournament (only 40 teams, 24 into the main draw, 2 host country, 2 wild cards, 4 from the qualifier). Nor can they get into the second tournament because according to the schedule posted, the first tournament entries will be the same for the second because they are within -21 days. This team then loses 20% of their points through no fault of their own and they now for have 1000 points to try to enter the third tournament, but by losing 1/5 of your total 365 day points it is impossible for any of the teams who do not make it into the first tournament to make it in any of the first 5 unless there is an injury or withdrawal. Thus, teams 40 and below will have ZERO points by the 6th tournament and they will never be able to play in an FIVB event again! Continental tour events do not have enough points to get anyone into a tournament. If a team gets the maximum number of Continental points (4-1st place finishes) they can win the maximum of 640 points per year. Because you are counting every single tournament finish for entry points, finishing 33rd in only 8 Grand Slams gives 640 points and finishing 25th in 9 Open events gives you 675. So, as you can see with your new entry points, new teams or teams who are only eligible to start playing Continental tours will not be able to pass teams who simply show up and lose in tournaments. Technically, teams need not even play. They could show up and forfeit and hold onto a spot in the tournament. This is even more true because some Continental tours have only 3 Continental tournaments total and others only allow 1 team per country. Thus, with this new system here will only be the same 40 teams competing on the World Tour for the foreseeable future. How does this “Grow the sport?”
iii. 3rd Example: Imagine a team ranked 6th in the world from last season. They have about 4,000 365 points and 2,000 traditional entry points. They play in the first tournament and one player gets injured in the first match. They are forced to forfeit and take a 25th. The next tournament, the player is still injured but the team choses to enter the tournament and forfeit to take the 25th points rather than lose 20% of their 2012 points. They do this same thing for the next 3 tournaments because they are forced to by these rules that do not make logical sense.
iv. 4th Example: Teams from countries who have more than 4 teams who could enter tournaments. These teams will be encouraged to play every single event to block teams 5,6,7 from entering tournaments. Poor finishes by the some teams, good finishes by other teams, and the country quota matches before the tournament is what used to create the appropriate movement under the previous system. Under the new system bad finishes are rewarded because those teams just keep adding points no matter what. Why do you want to reward bad finishes??
3) The third problem: A system that solely adds points for every single tournament in a calendar year is dangerous for the players and we will not stand for this. This system also does not “grow the sport.” It encourages the above (3rdexample) where an injured team enters tournaments solely to add points. Additionally, a poor finish does not hurt a team, so there will not be movement out of the main draw and out of the qualifier. This will create a stagnant tour with the same teams and the same rankings all year with minimal movement in the rankings.
So the athletes propose:
1) the prior system for entry points (best 4 out of your last 5 tournaments) be the entry point system. If a Continental or National tour event improves your entry points then it will count for as one of your best 4 out of 5. Continental events will not lower a player’s entry points only improve.
a. It rewards good recent finishes and it allows for movement between the qualifier and main draw.
b. This is the system that “grows the sport” and allows for teams to break into the main draw.
c. Since the FIVB is worried about having 3 different ranking systems, then also use this entry point as seeding points.
2) The prior system of a team’s points being the basis for entering a tournament, not the whim of the Federations.
a. This is a professional sport we play and this is the athletes’ livelihood that you are messing with.
The players are strongly united and firmly stand against both of these points.
We understand in making the rules that staff cannot always see the players’ point of view and that it is our job to be vocal about things that do not make sense. We hope we have made the inconsistencies and unfairness clear to you and that you can review our arguments and respond to these statements soon.
We also expect that the release of the Handbook will be delayed until after the players’ meeting and that the Handbook will reflect the joint decisions that will hopefully come about.
Thank you for your time.
Dear Mr. Graca, Mr. Araujo, and Mr. Squeo,
The players are confused as to why you would send out another version of the Technical Aspects, when we are scheduled to meet next week to discuss many of these very points? We hope you are open to hearing our concerns, as the players are strongly united.
The FIVB is a professional tour. It is an arena where professional beach volleyball athletes work and earn their livelihood. A ranking system already exists, so it is not right to change the rights of the athlete to play. It is unfair to NOT allow a player, who still has points, who worked for so many years and invested so much, to play when they rightfully earned their spot on tour. The points are not for the National Federation (NF), they are for the players and should belong to them! This MUST be respected and we can't accept anything less than this!
If the FIVB wants to have this system, a tour represented only by national teams (where the NF decides which players will play), they should create another league where you are not representing yourself but your country (like the Davis Cup in tennis). In this other league they could do whatever they want -- But NOT in the professional league like the FIVB.
Furthermore, there are several problems with this new point system and it does not achieve “growth in the sport” like the FIVB states. In fact, it makes the sport smaller limiting the tour potentially to the same 40 teams for the entire foreseeable future. There is no chance for new teams to gain access to events. The players would like to know how the FIVB thinks this point system grows the sport?
1) The first problem: this new point system retroactively changes the first tournament entry points to be 2012 “365 day points” instead of the “best 4 of last 5 tournament finishes” point system that was in place prior. There was no warning or phase out period for this first tournament entry point change. This change is completely unfair, unsporting and unheard of in sport. The athletes played last season under the impression that entry points were determined by your best 4 out of your last 5 tournaments. You must start the season the way you finish the season. It is the only fair way. Otherwise you arbitrarily reward teams who happened to participate in more tournaments. Teams would have attempted to play in more tournaments if they knew this would be introduced as the new entry point system.
2) The second problem: the proposed “phase-out” of 2012 points is not well thought out or logical. If a player plays in any of the first 5 “phase-out” tournaments and then gets injured or pregnant, the rule forces this player to forfeit their remaining 2012 points. AND, on the injury policy, the player must sit out for a whole year in order to take advantage of an injury policy?!? This makes no sense! Especially not in the proposed “phase-out” period. AND, the pregnancy policy is not detailed enough. For instance, must a player play within two years from conception or two years from birth? AND, this applies not only for injury, but for any reason if a player cannot play in the first 5 tournaments, then after that they have ZERO points. This is unbelievable! This is our job and the athletes have worked hard for their points, you CANNOT just take them away and wipe away all that money, time, and work put in by these athletes.
a. Take the following possible scenarios and abuses under your proposed new point system:
i. 1st Example: Imagine: Latvia has 4 Good Players.Their Federation wants to have 4 teams on the World Tour so each of them plays with a new player with zero points for the First 5 tournaments (the individual players have enough points so they all can play). After the 5 tournaments - they can play in their old partnerships - so Latvia now has 4 Spots for probably the whole season (and the next year) because they worked together at the beginning first 5 tournaments. If 5 countries do the same - 20 Spots are already taken by just 5 nations
ii. 2nd Example: Imagine teams below rank 40. They start the season with about 1,200 technical points and 650 traditional entry points (4 out of 5). They cannot get into the first tournament (only 40 teams, 24 into the main draw, 2 host country, 2 wild cards, 4 from the qualifier). Nor can they get into the second tournament because according to the schedule posted, the first tournament entries will be the same for the second because they are within -21 days. This team then loses 20% of their points through no fault of their own and they now for have 1000 points to try to enter the third tournament, but by losing 1/5 of your total 365 day points it is impossible for any of the teams who do not make it into the first tournament to make it in any of the first 5 unless there is an injury or withdrawal. Thus, teams 40 and below will have ZERO points by the 6th tournament and they will never be able to play in an FIVB event again! Continental tour events do not have enough points to get anyone into a tournament. If a team gets the maximum number of Continental points (4-1st place finishes) they can win the maximum of 640 points per year. Because you are counting every single tournament finish for entry points, finishing 33rd in only 8 Grand Slams gives 640 points and finishing 25th in 9 Open events gives you 675. So, as you can see with your new entry points, new teams or teams who are only eligible to start playing Continental tours will not be able to pass teams who simply show up and lose in tournaments. Technically, teams need not even play. They could show up and forfeit and hold onto a spot in the tournament. This is even more true because some Continental tours have only 3 Continental tournaments total and others only allow 1 team per country. Thus, with this new system here will only be the same 40 teams competing on the World Tour for the foreseeable future. How does this “Grow the sport?”
iii. 3rd Example: Imagine a team ranked 6th in the world from last season. They have about 4,000 365 points and 2,000 traditional entry points. They play in the first tournament and one player gets injured in the first match. They are forced to forfeit and take a 25th. The next tournament, the player is still injured but the team choses to enter the tournament and forfeit to take the 25th points rather than lose 20% of their 2012 points. They do this same thing for the next 3 tournaments because they are forced to by these rules that do not make logical sense.
iv. 4th Example: Teams from countries who have more than 4 teams who could enter tournaments. These teams will be encouraged to play every single event to block teams 5,6,7 from entering tournaments. Poor finishes by the some teams, good finishes by other teams, and the country quota matches before the tournament is what used to create the appropriate movement under the previous system. Under the new system bad finishes are rewarded because those teams just keep adding points no matter what. Why do you want to reward bad finishes??
3) The third problem: A system that solely adds points for every single tournament in a calendar year is dangerous for the players and we will not stand for this. This system also does not “grow the sport.” It encourages the above (3rdexample) where an injured team enters tournaments solely to add points. Additionally, a poor finish does not hurt a team, so there will not be movement out of the main draw and out of the qualifier. This will create a stagnant tour with the same teams and the same rankings all year with minimal movement in the rankings.
So the athletes propose:
1) the prior system for entry points (best 4 out of your last 5 tournaments) be the entry point system. If a Continental or National tour event improves your entry points then it will count for as one of your best 4 out of 5. Continental events will not lower a player’s entry points only improve.
a. It rewards good recent finishes and it allows for movement between the qualifier and main draw.
b. This is the system that “grows the sport” and allows for teams to break into the main draw.
c. Since the FIVB is worried about having 3 different ranking systems, then also use this entry point as seeding points.
2) The prior system of a team’s points being the basis for entering a tournament, not the whim of the Federations.
a. This is a professional sport we play and this is the athletes’ livelihood that you are messing with.
The players are strongly united and firmly stand against both of these points.
We understand in making the rules that staff cannot always see the players’ point of view and that it is our job to be vocal about things that do not make sense. We hope we have made the inconsistencies and unfairness clear to you and that you can review our arguments and respond to these statements soon.
We also expect that the release of the Handbook will be delayed until after the players’ meeting and that the Handbook will reflect the joint decisions that will hopefully come about.
Thank you for your time.
And here the press release from the FIVB about this message and after a meeting with the Beach Volleyball players delegation
The International Volleyball Federation (FIVB)
welcomed a beach volleyball player delegation to its headquarters in
Lausanne, Switzerland on Thursday to review and discuss the FIVB’s
modernised global beach volleyball strategy put in place for the Olympic
period 2013-2016.
Following the direction of FIVB President Dr. Ary S. Graça F° for increased transparency, democracy and fairness towards players, FIVB Beach Volleyball Commission President Vicente Araujo and FIVB Beach Volleyball Department Director Angelo Squeo explained to the delegation, which included nine players - Hannes Brinkborg (SWE), Lauren Fendrick (USA), Daniel Hupfer (AUT), Janne Kongshavn (NOR), Todd Rogers (USA), Pedro Solberg (BRA), Maria Tsiartsiani (GRE), Marloes Wesselink (NED) and Nadine Zumkehr (SUI) - the technical aspects of the new FIVB beach volleyball philosophy and its goals, namely:
To grow the sport worldwide;
To increase the number of participating national federations;
To increase the role of the confederations;
To increase the importance of all levels of events;
To increase the number of promoters;
To create more opportunities for players to play;
To allow new teams and new countries to enter the World Tour easily;
To ensure high quality events without over burdening promoters.
“The FIVB has developed a long-term strategy which is focused on beach volleyball sustainability and extensive growth and of course the athletes are crucial to the future of our sport so we are very grateful for their participation in today’s meeting and their willingness to improve beach volleyball in all parts of the world,” Mr Araujo said. “The meeting provided an excellent opportunity for discussion between the FIVB and players, enabling open dialogue on the recommendations and concerns of the players and input from both sides on how we can maximise beach volleyball's potential across all areas for the betterment of the sport and its participants.”
"We are very appreciative to the FIVB for making this meeting happen and in particular Mr Araujo and Mr Squeo for listening to and considering the players thoughts and comments," 2007 world and 2008 Olympic champion Rogers said. "I am also very appreciative to all the players who gave input and in particular the players that were able to make this meeting. Without question positive progress was made and I believe we are moving in the right direction. We all want what is best for beach volleyball and these kinds of discussions are very important for the different constituency groups to be able to discuss how that can be accomplished moving forward."
Thursday’s meeting followed an intensive four month evaluation process of the FIVB’s new beach volleyball philosophy starting with the Beach Volleyball Commission in November and two rounds of feedback between the FIVB and national federations and members.
It also continued the strong tradition of involving athletes in the consultation process with player representation on the FIVB Commissions going back 20 years.
One of the key parts of the new philosophy in 2013 has seen the launch of the FIVB Beach Volleyball World Tour featuring the FIVB Beach Volleyball World Championships in Stare Jablonki, Poland and 11 Grand Slams, the most ever in FIVB history, starting in April and finishing in November.
A total of eight FIVB Beach Volleyball Open competitions are also scheduled – but are not part of the World Tour - to provide the chance to up and coming players to play with the format of all tournaments; FIVB World Championships, FIVB World Tour Grand Slam or an FIVB Open all the same, featuring pool play followed by single elimination knockout rounds.
Following the direction of FIVB President Dr. Ary S. Graça F° for increased transparency, democracy and fairness towards players, FIVB Beach Volleyball Commission President Vicente Araujo and FIVB Beach Volleyball Department Director Angelo Squeo explained to the delegation, which included nine players - Hannes Brinkborg (SWE), Lauren Fendrick (USA), Daniel Hupfer (AUT), Janne Kongshavn (NOR), Todd Rogers (USA), Pedro Solberg (BRA), Maria Tsiartsiani (GRE), Marloes Wesselink (NED) and Nadine Zumkehr (SUI) - the technical aspects of the new FIVB beach volleyball philosophy and its goals, namely:
To grow the sport worldwide;
To increase the number of participating national federations;
To increase the role of the confederations;
To increase the importance of all levels of events;
To increase the number of promoters;
To create more opportunities for players to play;
To allow new teams and new countries to enter the World Tour easily;
To ensure high quality events without over burdening promoters.
“The FIVB has developed a long-term strategy which is focused on beach volleyball sustainability and extensive growth and of course the athletes are crucial to the future of our sport so we are very grateful for their participation in today’s meeting and their willingness to improve beach volleyball in all parts of the world,” Mr Araujo said. “The meeting provided an excellent opportunity for discussion between the FIVB and players, enabling open dialogue on the recommendations and concerns of the players and input from both sides on how we can maximise beach volleyball's potential across all areas for the betterment of the sport and its participants.”
"We are very appreciative to the FIVB for making this meeting happen and in particular Mr Araujo and Mr Squeo for listening to and considering the players thoughts and comments," 2007 world and 2008 Olympic champion Rogers said. "I am also very appreciative to all the players who gave input and in particular the players that were able to make this meeting. Without question positive progress was made and I believe we are moving in the right direction. We all want what is best for beach volleyball and these kinds of discussions are very important for the different constituency groups to be able to discuss how that can be accomplished moving forward."
Thursday’s meeting followed an intensive four month evaluation process of the FIVB’s new beach volleyball philosophy starting with the Beach Volleyball Commission in November and two rounds of feedback between the FIVB and national federations and members.
It also continued the strong tradition of involving athletes in the consultation process with player representation on the FIVB Commissions going back 20 years.
One of the key parts of the new philosophy in 2013 has seen the launch of the FIVB Beach Volleyball World Tour featuring the FIVB Beach Volleyball World Championships in Stare Jablonki, Poland and 11 Grand Slams, the most ever in FIVB history, starting in April and finishing in November.
A total of eight FIVB Beach Volleyball Open competitions are also scheduled – but are not part of the World Tour - to provide the chance to up and coming players to play with the format of all tournaments; FIVB World Championships, FIVB World Tour Grand Slam or an FIVB Open all the same, featuring pool play followed by single elimination knockout rounds.
Comments
Post a Comment