UKH

The IFSC finds itself yet again locked into a furious battle with the climbing community, this time over the live streaming of World Cup competitions. But is the IFSC right to charge viewers, and is there any truth to this rather bizarre phrase ‘a wider audience’, that they claim to be appealing to?...

https://www.roperunnerclimbing.com/single-post/2017/04/11/Live-Streaming-De...

In reply to Binigo:

I have tried to establish some kind of contact with IFSC. It was with regards to the last lead competition in Kranj. My experience from this try:
I wanted to go there and watch the competition live. It was going to be my first IFSC lead event (as a spectator) so I didn't know much about the "organizational" details. As you can expect I didn't want to book a flight ticket to Slovenia and be there for a weekend just to understand that there are no tickets for example. Well, there was 0 information that I could find prior to the event (and damn I searched a lot). So I thought, I write them in facebook. Just a simple question together with a bit of background - are there going to be tickets on sale and when exactly is the event going to be. No answer.

I still cannot understand what kind of people are running this "international federation". One thing I am certain though - they have no idea about climbing, nor climbers' interests, nor business... What I can do and will do - try my best not to support this joke in any kind of way! It's a disgrace as a climbing related organization, it's disgrace as any kind of organization!

In reply to Binigo:

Is it just me who's thinking of comparisons with FIFA ?

In reply to Doug:

Absolutely! The big debate (at least at a legislative level) at the moment wrt both FIFA and the FA in this country is whether they are able to self-regulate. The short answer seems to be no!!! I sense the IFSC is heading resolutely down the same path...

In reply to Binigo:

Remind me, which other furious battles are you referring to?

In reply to Ian W:

The most relevant to this topic would be the changes to the 4min rule at international competitions, and their (admittedly joint with IOC) handling of Olympic format.

Both of these are serious issues in their own right, and I'm not about to completely decry the IFSC on either of them, because I think in some respects they've made the right call. If you read the post, you'll see that I do refer to the fact that possibly the IFSC is right to introduce fees, but that the manner and quantity are unprecedented.

What links all three issues is a lack of communication or connection between the IFSC and the international climbing community.

In reply to Binigo:

Why should the IFSC communicate with the climbing community? They communicate through the various national bodies. I believe all international bodies were asked about the Olympic format by the IFSC and no agreement could be reached. If they hadn't gone for the 3 event format then the most likely event would have been speed which would be even worse.
8dreams- if you wanted to go to Kranj you might have been better getting in touch with the BMC or going to the event website.

In reply to Scott K:


Because when there are 87 national bodies and you give a country with pretty much no climbing base as many votes as a country like France or Austria with a massive climbing base you make really bad decisions. They need to communicate with the climbing community to figure out what their customers want. If they don't the focus will shift to 'unofficial' comps which are streamed for free and the sponsors will tell the athletes to go to the events with an audience.

In reply to Scott K:

Yeah, there's validity to that argument, up to a point. They're not obliged to consult the grassroots on every major decision - that's why they're an executive. And I'd always defend people making hard decisions other people don't want to make.

But on livestreaming - why were athletes themselves so unaware? Why were federations such as (I believe) Canada and Poland publicly criticising the decision? You have to assume the IFSC didn't consult. You can't get away from the fact they messed up badly here.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Definitely an intriguing angle which hasn't been properly considered! I was interested to see that the Climbing Hangar used it to bring people in, so there could be a lot of unintended consequences of a big move like this.

In reply to Binigo:

Not sure I would put the timing change in the same category as the Flosports issue - we used this 4 min dead rule in the recent youth open, and it didnt make so much difference; it does reduce the suspense of the last shit or bust attempt, and there may be a better solution; someone somewhere on here suggested 4+ but limited to 5, so a last attempt could be made but with a definite limit on time, but similar changes have been made in the past to at least try new things. Its easily reversible, with no real problem; it was tried, it didnt work, do omething else.
The olympic format was an ioc thing. the ifsc asked member federations for their preferred event as only 1 medal was up for grabs; the most popular option was lead, so he ifsc went with this suggestion, but the ioc said that the compbined event would be their much preferred option. They STRONGLY suggested this would be best. So either go with that or severely risk not being at the party at all. Maybe the event can be modified in the future if it doesnt work. Again, it can easily be changed.
The Flosports thing, if it has been under negotiation for some time outflanks these on the cockup front by a long way.
This has way deeper implications for the ifsc comps, and everyone associated with them. Your last point about communication is key here; with communication, the deal could have been modified / cancelled etc before any contractual obligations were made. I'd prefer to wait until the meeting with the ifsc / flosprts has taken place, but it isnt going to be an easy day.......

In reply to Binigo:


Again looking to the States - it's interesting FloSports don't show the US Nationals, instead showing some more "one-off" events like DarkHorse, SoiLL and a DWS comp.

With the success of other international comps like La Sportiva Legends Only, Adidas Rockstars getting great coverage, I can see this being a definite area to expand on.

Also of note on these, especially the Rockstars - that's a global brand sponsoring a bouldering event. Red Bull sponsor a number of climbers, Ashima now has sponsorship for Coca-Cola. So big brands ARE interested in funding climbing.

Though the difference in cost between a one-off event such as these and a world series is pretty large, at least it shows willing and it would be interesting to know why these brands aren't speaking to the IFSC.

Look at IFSC bouldering sponsors; Kailas (anyone?), Entreprises and two other unknown (to me) climbing hold manufacturers. Then individual sponsors for some (all?) of the events, though often tied in with other things - GoPro Games in Vail for example.

Again, referencing the US Nationals - problems were sponsored by brands; even individual holds I seem to remember - like a GoPro jug or somesuch. The US are better than most when it comes to advertising and product-placement, and it was nicely done, not overly intrusive and had some "normal" adverts at change-over times too.

I can well believe that a three year deal with IFSC will see a massive rise in one-off events, possibly even a rival series with a headline sponsor, which would steal climbers away from the IFSC, or at least reduce the number of people doing the full circuit.

I guess the obvious suggestion is "if companies were interested, they'd have sponsored it by now", so maybe the desire isn't there. But if FloSports have been in the frame for a year, that would be pretty off-putting to any potential sponsors.

In reply to Binigo:

I totally agree with you that they should speak to the athletes. I'm sure they (the IFSC) would make an argument that it is commercially sensitive but they definitely could have spoken to their athlete reps in a broad sense without giving particulars.

In reply to Ian W:


Yep, this is largely my take on the ifsc/ioc interaction. I think the problem is that it demonstrates a lack of understanding of the sport of climbing (as opposed to sport climbing(!)) by the ioc and this is something the ifsc could have taken action to mitigate.

I totally agree with you that the right course of action is to engage with the current format and then seek to change it down the line.

In reply to Scott K:

Yep - their executive panel/board includes McColl, so there is at least a nod to athlete representation. You would think they would have taken their needs/thoughts into account earlier in the process (especially considering how much easier it would be to consult with them than with spectators/consumers)

In reply to Binigo:

You have to wonder if McColl knew about this being part of the executive board. If not does it imply none of the executive board knew also?

McColl's name heads the list of climbers who have spoken out against the decision. There's a good and critical open letter from the Athlete's Commission from yesterday.

http://onbouldering.com/the-climbers-speak-open-letter-from-the-athletes-co...

In reply to stp:

http://www.ifsc-climbing.org/index.php/news/item/918-ifsc-official-statemen...

Well then! Glad they got someone to spell check it...

In reply to Binigo:

I'm dissapointed, not one suggestion for a vote of no confidence.