USOC - Stay or Go?

[ToddL]

Most of the controls, concerns, and lately the debates in our sport are directly or indirectly due to requirements from USOC. Since waterskiing will never be in the Olympics, should USAWS/AWSA stay affiliated or go?

[klindy]

@ToddL can you please list the reasons you think USAWSWS is affiliated with USOPC? And then why they are not compelling enough to remain affiliated?

 

Surely there are more reasons than just the money.

[Horton]

@klindy at this point I think it is only the money

[klindy]

@Horton so if that’s really the case, what were the reasons to be affiliated with the USOPC initially?

[ToddL]

@klindy - can you tell me any compelling reasons to remain affiliated with USOC excluding the money? No towed water sport will every be in the Olympics. That should be the end of the discussion.

[JackQ]

Wrestling an original sport from the Greek's was dropped from the Olympics. Having the IOC including skiing in Olympics is a pipe dream and a waste of energy and resources. When it was a demonstration sport and never picked up the Olympic dream died.

[klindy]

@ToddL yes, I will list several compelling reasons. But I’m trying to get to some level of understanding on where things stand right now.

 

Perhaps another associated question — why do we need or want ANY kind of association or organization relative to “waterskiing” (towed water sports)? What is the purpose of USAWSWS?

 

Incidentally, I agree. Thinking waterskiing will ever be included in the olympics is a pipe dream and highly likely never going to happen.

[Horton]

@klindy 50 years ago we were in the Olympics ( once as a demonstration sport ) For decades after it was the dream of leadership to become a main stream Olympic sport.

 

Read the first post here

https://www.ballofspray.com/forum#/discussion/22850/the-rise-and-fall-of-water-skiing/p1

[Horton]

go back in time and walk away... now i believe we need the $

[ral]

And the Pan Am games are not of interest for USA skiers?

[ral]

@JackQ , Gymnastics???

[Horton]

@ral The Pan Am games are for an elite few. The vast majority of the membership will never be able to attend.

[Than_Bogan]

@Horton True but kinda irrelevant, no? Only a tiny few go to the Olympics in any sport. Or are you arguing that that's a waste of money for those other sports as well?

[ForrestGump]

Not only will the vast majority never be able to attend Pan Ams.......... they just don't care.

 

Than, the Olympics is not just an event. It is a brand that is recognized worldwide for what it is. If you polled 100,000 people in the US if they knew what the pan am games are and you'd have like 3 that did.

 

[ral]

@Horton , correct.

 

Proportionally, much more difficult for e.g. athletics, where an even larger vast majority will never be able to attend. I do not see that as a reason for USATF to sever ties with the USOC.

 

I see many posts suggesting USAWS should leave IWWF, and now a majority vote stating it should leave USOC and, by extension, the IOC. I struggle to understand why.

 

 

[ral]

Furthermore, I see only @Luzz and I, both foreign AWSA members (so cannot even participate in USA Nationals), believe AWSA should stay affiliated with USOC.

 

Edit: Poll got more votes, so the above changed.

 

@ForrestGump , if you polled the same 100,000, how many would know what are the 3 waterski events?

[klindy]

Question I posed are still unanswered — 1) why do people think USAWSWS ARE affiliated with USOPC (so far the answers are a) Olympic pipe dream and b) money; and 2) why have any organization at all (what’s the purpose of USAWSWS)?

 

Surely there are more reasons people think we are associated with USOPC, right?

 

There are several reasons we are affiliated with USOPC. I’m trying to understand what the people perceive or understand.

 

I also find it interesting that two foreign members see value with the affiliation with USOPC. As @ral said very few in ANY sport participate in the Olympic or Pan Am Games (an related Olympic event). So why would any sport stay affiliated if it only benefits an extremely small number of members?

[Horton]

@ral

20 plus years ago when a sport did have representation in the Olympics the benefits to the whole sport could have been gigantic. The exposure could have been huge. In the modern era the Olympics is far less important and the Pan Am games is only important to those who participate.

 

In the current era I have no idea why a sport that does not actually participate in the Olympics would want to be associated with the Olympic movement.

 

I am unaware of any personal benefit. I believe that almost every AWSA member would say the same.

[ski6jones]

To @klindy question my poorly researched answer to the benefit question has to do with NGBs and International competition. Wouldn't we lose the ability to compete Internationally without that affiliation? As others have pointed out, if the cost of that privilege is what's being inflicted on us now by USAWS (sorry, still can't type that last WS) then I couldn't care less.

[ral]

@Horton , as @ski6jones points out, being disconnected from the rest of the waterski world and not being able to compete in e.g. PanAms and Worlds would be the result.

 

Discussing if that has or not a personal benefit for each and every member might derail very quickly in a political discussion.

[JackQ]

@ral typo, wrestling not gymnastics, don’t know what I was thinking.

[Jody_Seal]

@ski6jones .

 

Actually the answer to your question is no it does not affect the ability to ski on a world level. Iwwsf does not really care who or what entity for a national federation to send athletes to the world stage just that there is a iwwsf recognized entity from that nationality that is verifying the legitimacy of competitions with in that federation. I too asked that question.

 

Coming out of the recent world championships that question was asked of iwwsf leaders .

There is a movement afoot to either break away from USAWS Or the ability of a secondary /or other organization that ultimately will be recognized by the world overseers of this sport.

 

Whether or not a secondary affiliated national federation can be recognized by iwwsf, i don't think has been approached yet.

 

 

 

[skibackwards]

$$$$ If it is about the $$$$ to belong to the USOC then "how much is it"? Then decide if that amount is worth it. If not, get out. The Olympics will never happen.

[Horton]

@ral if 99% of the membership will never compete internationally why would we care about access to international events?

[jayski]

@Horton unlike the USA some countries NGO's funding comes from their governments and is based on achievements at world events...medals=$$$$

[ral]

@Horton , but most in this forum at least watch the Worlds.

 

You do not care about USA athletes competing internationally, and world and Pan Am tournaments being held in the USA? Do you feel that competitive kid skiers mostly get motivated by skiing with dad and mom, not by trying to get to the National teams and represent USA in international tournaments?

 

I know you care about all the above, so I am struggling to see where you are coming from in this thread.

 

For USA Waterski to fulfill its mission of organizing ans governing the sport of competitive waterskiing, it needs to be affiliated to USOC and IWWF.

 

@Jody_Seal , I do not know who in IWWF you asked the question to, but Federations affiliated to the IWWF need to be recognized by the respective country OC.

 

You cannot deny how tightly related IWWF is to the IOC:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[lpskier]

If AWSA broke away from USAWSWS and USOCPC, are you sure that the insurance carrier for the new NGB would not require Safe Sport and back ground checks? If risk mitigation is driving USOCPC, risk mitigation will certainly drive an insurance carrier. And if that’s the case, the we have a new NGB, the same requirements and we’re short $50k in funding per year.

[Horton]

@ral National teams are not on the radar of most AWSA skiers. Nobody cares except the few that compete in those events.

[ETskier]

For the 2% who care about international skiing, you may keep your IOC NGBs, IWWF, whatever. The rest of us will do our own thing like AWSA used to do long ago. Any of the 2% can join us in the fun.

[Golfguy]

Disassociate the AWSA from USOC and form a new BOD for the newly separated AWAS who's first job it is to scour the documents and eliminate what doesn't work. Set up new mission statement, and funding mechanisms.

[ToddL]

It seems clear to me that what the elite world competitors need is radically different from what the national competitors need. As a result, we have competing values, resources, and needs. Clearly, it is too difficult to sustain both under a single organization. Why must they be so tightly connected? Maybe USAWS needs to have a more distinct org structure Pro vs. Non-Pro. Imagine if all of the non-world members left. Could the elite survive? Could the non-Pro survive without the elite? Probably no on both counts. But, they sure seem to have very different needs. Possibly, they should be separate but complementary entities. Just a brainstorm idea for now, but this current way of working isn't on a sustainable path.

[ski6jones]

Don't forget USAWS represents other sports disciplines. What they've implemented is one size fits all.

[lpskier]

@ToddL Doesn't every kid dream about becoming a pro? Don’t many adults dream about making Senior Worlds? You don’t want to be a dream stealer, do you?

[ToddL]

@lpskier - I couldn't tell... was your "sarcasm font" on or off?

[lpskier]

@ToddL Off.

[LeonL]

@skibackwards I'm not sure from your wording "$$$$ to belong" what you mean. The $$$$ come in , not out. Still not worth it my viewpoint. AWSA managed to get by before any USAWS or USOC involvement.

[ALPJr]

moved to met last year thread…

[A_B]

Maybe I am looking at this too simplistically, but the AWSA is a club that skiers pay to belong to with a set of rules that run tournaments to be fair for all within the USA.

If a handful of skiers want to compete on an International level, can't they just join the IWWF or whatever, submit to SS baloney to be a member of a "woke" globalist organization if that is what is required for them?

 

The USAWSA is poking Sasquatch by ramming SS down club members' throats, for whatever reason, and it really doesn't matter why. Just because "other sports do it" doesn't mean we all jump off the cliff. I would never make a good foot soldier. You go storm the machine gun nest at the top of the hill.

 

Time to get back to basics of why we need a governing body in this ski club we call AWSA. Focus on providing good value to members and growing the sport from coast to coast.

[lpskier]

@A_B As long as your new organization isn’t going to sanction any tournaments, you’re good to go!

[A_B]

It appears that the majority of the membership is served by amateur events and the thin top layer benefits from anything related to Worlds, Pan Am, or Olympics. I would venture a guess that most of the majority have no aspirations to ski in anything other than domestic amateur events. That is the target demographic in my opinion. Any and all mandates due to the top layer imposed on the majority will be hard to swallow for most, no matter how you spin it...

 

 

 

[klindy]

So @A_B then waterski R&D, boat development, Promo programs (what’s left of them), waterski webcasts, Team development are all things that can be dropped? Remember it’s international tournaments (Worlds, PanAms, PanAm Games) at all levels (U14 thru 65+). It’s more than just Open skiers.

[ALPJr]

I’m in, welcome 2022 ski season!

[A_B]

@klindy there is a limited amount of team skiers and then some top one event individuals that benefit from those. How many divided by the total membership? A fraction?

 

R&D? Deliver a boat that the market wants. Some buy on looks some on performance and other on utility. Competition between manufacturers to sell in the various market segments determines R&D and what the market will absorb. Not sure what you were inferring on no R&D.

 

Team skiers sell skis by hitting the road and demoing them at various sites and helping skiers see gains in performance.

I’m not sure that would change.

 

The popularity of the Big Dawg proved top amateurs could make an interesting tournament.

 

Technological advances normally mean cost savings in most businesses but not for a tournament ski boat.

 

Wouldn’t you say the prices on new ski boats have shrunk the new boat demand to the point of perfect inelasticity and only the minority of skiers get a new boat because of chasing a National title or on promo programs or run ski schools and get a new boat as an asset every year?

That demand is fairly fixed. It seems the used boat market is as hot as ever so many more buy in that space.

 

All I am saying is that if you subject 98% of the membership to mandates driven by International and World organizations that don’t benefit the 98%, then maybe there needs to be an assessment made as to what side the bread gets buttered on.