News Around the World
catalyst to get involved was the decision to drop the Tornado from the Olympics. Every four years the IOC produce a report on the various Olympic sports, and post-Athens they invited various bodies to comment on how they are going to develop their sport; and one of the comments made by ISAF was they were going to make the sport more attractive in the Olympic Games by introducing faster, more exciting boats. This report emerged, then a year later the Tornado was dropped! So there was a clear conflict. In response to this we tried to develop a strategy, putting a paper forward to implement an Olympic commission to provide and develop that kind of strategy – and the response was ‘great idea… you chair it.’
Looking at it from a business point of view, ISAF is generating 70 per cent of its revenue from the Olympic Games, so it makes sense to look at what the body that is paying you wants. So we went through what the IOC were looking for in terms of Olympic sports and what sailing was delivering and there were a number of areas where we needed to make some improvements, so this became the basis of the Olympic commission report in 2010. It was pleasing to see some recommendations filtering through in Weymouth with the support of LOCOG, such as the area on the Nothe and the approach to viewing areas (which I think the sport needs to embrace without compromising the competition). There is a long way to go there, and the challenge for ISAF now is to really implement the sailing World Cup so we get some profile and coverage for Olympic sailing other than once every four years. SH: You chaired the Olympic commission in 2010 and were heavily involved in those findings. You are getting up into a pretty rarified atmosphere there… PJ: I think we wanted to ensure there was a plan in place, and that ISAF’s decisions were as far as possible in line with that plan – so we didn’t have decisions made that were clearly in conflict, like the Tornado decision. So my objective was to at least docu- ment something that outlines a direction we can all commit to. Because it is ISAF there will always be political issues that impact this but the key for us was to put a plan in place and have a group to monitor it. ISAF is a submission-based organisation, so if you are one of the 130 members and fancy making a change you put a submission in. But if you are not careful these submissions are not tied to any kind of strategy, so the focus is about address- ing these submissions in isolation but not as part of an overall plan – and this was the area where we wanted to achieve. SH: What do you believe you did achieve? PJ: What did we achieve… I think a number of recommendations are being implemented. Certainly, the structure is moving forwards. But ISAF remains a political organisation and it isn’t necessarily well geared up to introducing a commercially based event – our key recommendation is that this work may need to be carried out by a separate group, at arm’s length from the body politic, that can act independently and quickly. SH: London 2012 was extraordinary successful for the Australian team. What were the key things to do post-Weymouth? PJ: Yes, it was very successful, but the key point to remember is we had, and still have, an extraordinary group of athletes and the challenge is to keep that momentum and the flow of new athletes going. This in a country with a strong sporting culture but plenty of competition for the hearts and minds of young sportsmen and women, so it is vital to ensure that what we have is attractive to that audience, with the support of the right management system, coaching and technical system that deliver at the highest level. SH: It is a completely different world from when you started in 1997… what do you take most pride in? PJ: I think sailing was seen in 1997 as something of a basket case, but is now recognised by governments at state and federal level as one of the leading sports in Australia. There is strong recognition of our athletes nationally, which helps our commercial and patrons’ programmes. The recognition we received particu- larly in 2012 was also a strong driver of our participation programmes. Young people are looking at sailing and saying that is something cool they want to do, taking in the culture and the way these athletes
18 SEAHORSE
represent themselves… that of course has nothing to do with me. But the most satisfying thing of all is how today sailing is positioned in the Australian sporting landscape. Blue Robinson
USA Chaos will result…
The ISAF executive’s submission to kill the Sailor Classification system has hit the one-design classes and events that use the code in the US like a tsunami, and is not leaving a positive impression of the sport’s governing body. Americans are notoriously hard to control anyway and always resist authority – the last president of US Sailing who advocated mandatory membership was lam- pooned mercilessly – but the acceptance of the system to define ‘professional’ and ‘amateur’ sailors has roots in the US going back over two decades.
It all started in California in the early-mid 1990s, when the competitive Schock 35 class was attracting the best local talent in the marine industry. Those owners who bought the most sails would receive the most attention and talent onboard, and so achieve the best results. The others cried foul and sought to impose a marine industry representative (MIR) restriction on competing teams. Meanwhile, on the east coast, and a little closer to the inter - national scene, the new Mumm 36s were becoming popular alter- natives to the slow and expensive IOR boats they were replacing. The problem was this new breed of boat responded well to trimming and helming talent, and the better your team the more you’d get in performance. So the best teams (such as those heading for the Admiral’s Cup) were starting to stack up with pro- level talent and the amateur teams were quickly being sidelined . As an attempt to keep up boat sales and interest among the more common amateur teams, a Corinthian Trophy was tried at class events, but this still failed to reinvigorate boat sales. So when the next design in the Farr product line was introduced – the revolutionary Mumm 30 – a marketing strategy was developed to make sure to not let the pros stem the anticipated rising tide of sales. One of the first US owners of a Mumm 30, Dave Irish, happened also to be president of US Sailing at the time, so he and Geoff Stagg at Farr International collaborated on devising a code that would define the category of sailor to be allowed to helm and/or crew on a Mumm 30. A code was developed based on the income source of the sailor, with the presumption that those who made any money at the game, either directly by being paid to race, through commission sales, or by being an unpaid product representative, had talent that the true amateur did not have, and thus needed to be identified and controlled. The intent was to limit the participation of MIRs to keep the playing field level in these newly emerging classes. Three types were identified: (1) Amateur sailor, no financial involve- ment; (2) Semi-pro sailor, typically an unpaid marine industry rep; and (3) Pro sailor, including those being paid to race and those making commissions on sales of equipment (such as sails) used to race. The Mumm 30 class rules then defined how many of each could be onboard, and who could steer in a race. Boat sales exploded, so other new classes including the Farr 40 adopted the rules, as did others of the same genre, and this became a staple feature of all new classes of boats under 45ft. Hundreds of boats were sold and thousands of sailors were classified by US Sailing. ISAF president Paul Henderson was pleased with the growth of this part of the sport, especially when they applied and received approval as new dues-paying international classes. But he did note a problem: the class rules on eligibility used a system defined and administered by US Sailing, who charged each appli- cant a $25 administration fee if they were members and $75 if they were not, which was hardly fair to non-US sailors. Thus was born an ISAF version of the system in 1998, which under the leadership of its first chairman Antony Matusch not only com- bined the ideas used in the US system, but melded them with the system used at Cork Week and amateur-only events in the UK, like the Commodores’ Cup. Matusch assembled a commission of race organisers, judges and sailors to act as selection reviewers
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74