IBF 2006 Calendar - Some thoughts

[Loh]

I think many of us are unaware of the reach of international badminton until we see this international calendar. Although badminton is gaining popularity worldwide, in financial terms, it is a poor cousin of tennis. Hence the IBF Council recently set out to work to make the game more popular with the sponsors.

You can add up all the year's prize monies provided by world badminton and still the total may not even come close to just one major event of a tennis grand slam. Forget about golf. So there's a lot of work to be done by the IBF to raise its financial profile. Badminton professionals are just not getting what they are worth by today's standards.

Unfortunately, badminton is perceived as a backyard (or even backward) game by the West for quite some time now. Just take a look at the prize monies and you'll find that the richest sponsors come mainly from the East.

All the 6* events are held in Asia: China, Hong Kong, Indonesia and South Korea. And only one Western nation, the strongest, Denmark, is 5* among the many in Asia: Singapore, Malaysia, Chinese Taipei, China and Japan.

Even the All England, as the birthplace of world badminton, is only a 4* event (had been 3* for a long time), despite enjoying such a long history and colourful tradition. Compare badminton to tennis in England and you will find the gap so enormous! What has England been doing? What has the West been doing?

No wonder badminton is dominated by the East and the longer the domination, the less will the West be willing to promote the game!

Yet, in terms of vote which equates power, the West is almost on par with the East and certainly some less badminton powerful countries from the West are getting more votes than their Asian cousins if you have read Taneepak's recent post on IBF votes. In other words, their vote is worth more. A lopsided arrangement indeed and this inequality must be corrected to put every badminton-loving country on an equal footing so that each of them feels wanted as an equal partner to promote the game worldwide.

Here are the details which you can find from the IBF website:

IBF 2006 CALENDAR
(Major Events)

JANUARY

03-08 Swiss Open (Basel) 4* US$120,000
09-15 German Open (Mulheim) 3* US$80,000
17-22 All England Open (Birmingham) 4* US$125,000

FEBRUARY

09-12 Thomas & Uber Cups: Continental Stage: Oceania (Auckland, New Zealand)
13-18 Thomas & Uber Cups: Continental Stage: Pan America (Lima, Peru)
14-19 Thomas & Uber Cups: Continental Stage: Europe (Thessalonica, Greece)
15-19 Thomas & Uber Cups: Continental Stage: Asia (Jaipur, India)
20-22 Thomas & Uber continental Stage: Africa (Rose Hill, MRI)

Minor Events: Iran Fajar International, Austrian International, Mauritius International.

MARCH

01-05 Philippine Open (Manila) 4* US$120,000
07-12 China Masters (Chengdu) 6* US$250,000
16-25 Commonwealth Games (Melbourne, Australia)
28-02 Asian Badminton Championships (Johor Bahru, Malaysia) 4* US$125000

Minor Events: Croatian International, Swedish International, Dutch Open International, Cuban International, Romania International, Peru International, Finnish International.

APRIL

28-07 Yonex Thomas & Uber Cups Finals (Sendai/Tokyo, Japan)

Minor Events: Jakarta Satellite, European Mixed Team & Individual Championships, Canadian Open Masters, HCMC Vietnam Satellite, Portuguese Badminton Championships, Southern Pan American International, Thailand Satellite, Israel International,

MAY

31-04 Indonesia Open (Surabaya) 6* US$250,000

Minor Events: European Senior Championships, Spanish Open International, Hanoi Satellite.

JUNE

05-11 Aviva Open Singapore (Singapore) 5* US$ 170,000
13-18 Malaysia Open (Kuching, Sarawak) 5* US$ 150,000
20-25 Chinese Taipei Open (Taipei) 5* US$ 170,000
28-02 Vietnam Open (HCM City) 1* US$30,000
21-25 2006 Europe Cup (Rinconada-Seville, Spain)

Minor Events: French Open, Bahrain Satellite, Estonia International, Syria Satellite, North Harbour International (Auckland).

JULY

14-16 MVP Cup: Asia vs Europe (Manila, Philippines) US$100,000
19-23 Macau Open Championship (Macau) 4* US$120,000
25-30 Thailand Open (Bangkok) 4* US$120,000

Minor Events: Asian Junior Championships (Colombo, Sri Lanka), European Badminton University Championships (Lisbon), Central American and Caribbean Sports (Santo Domingo)

AUGUST

01-06 Equinox New Zealand Open (Auckland, NZL) 2* US$50,000
02-02 US Open (Los Angeles) 1*
22-27 Invitational World Cup (Beijing)
30-02 Yonex Sunrise Hong Kong Open (Hong Kong) 6* US$250,000

Minor Events: Nepal Satellite (Kathmandu), India Satellite, Milo Junior International ABC President Cup (Batam), Waikato International (Hamilton, NZL), Singapore Satellite.

SEPTEMBER

18-24 World Championship (Madrid, Spain) Note: WC used to be a biennial event but has been changed to annually this year.

Minor Events: Latvia International (Riga), Surabaya Satellite, Belgian International, Iran Satellite, Mongolian Satellite.

OCTOBER

03-08 China Open (Guangzhou) 5* US$170,000
10-15 Japan Open (Tokyo) 5* US$ 170,000
17-22 Yonex Korea Open (Seoul, S Korea) 6* US$250,000
24-29 Bitburger Open (Saarbruken, Germany) 1* US$30,000 Note: IBF has an International Training Centre here.
31-05 Denmark Open (Denmark) 5* US$170,000

Minor Events: Slovak International (Presov), Polish Open (Spala), Hungarian International (Budapest)

NOVEMBER

02-05 World Junior Team Championships (Incheon, S Korea)
06-11 World Junior Individual Championships (Incheon, S Korea)
07-12 Yonex Dutch Open International (Hertogenbosch, Nederlands) 2* US$50,000

Minor Events: Sri Lanka International Satellite (Colombo), Iceland Express International, Nowegian International, Malaysia Satellite (Alor Star), Scottish International (Glasgow)

DECEMBER

02-09 Asian Games (Doha, Qatar)
06-10 Bulgarian Open (Sofia) 1* US$ 30,000
12-17 Syed Modi Memorial India Open (Lucknow) 1* US$30,000
12-17 Greek Open (Thessalonki) 2* US$50,000

Minor Events: Irish International, Italian International

[tze yang]

I have to say the All England prize money is really dissapointing, to me it'll lose its prestigous nature in a few years if the prize money stays this way, it has been considered a "grand slam" kinda alongside world champs and olympics and at the rate its goin even the New Zealand Open would overtake it in a few years, and taufik no longer has interest in playing it(he skipped it twice already didnt he?)BE shld really do smth about it...sigh

[seven]

Yet, in terms of vote which equates power, the West is almost on par with the East and certainly some less badminton powerful countries from the West are getting more votes than their Asian cousins if you have read Taneepak's recent post on IBF votes. In other words, their vote is worth more. A lopsided arrangement indeed and this inequality must be corrected to put every badminton-loving country on an equal footing so that each of them feels wanted as an equal partner to promote the game worldwide.

In fact, if you look at IBF's publication : http://www.internationalbadminton.org/IBF%20Marketing%20and%20Development%20Review.pdf
you might see that though the East has better results, a lot of the biggest national federations are in the west.

And if you look at things, you'll realize that promoting the game will advantage the West, as young talented children will then go more often for badminton (rather than football or rugby as they do now), and East might lose its dominance in the game.

So if we are talking about pure results, asian countries have more interest in not promoting the game around the world, and things staying as they are.

About the calendar, the equivalence between stars and prize moneys needs urgently to be changed, so do the world ranking points that are attributed.
There are much too many equivalent tournaments nowadays.

[Loh]

In fact, if you look at IBF's publication : http://www.internationalbadminton.org/IBF%20Marketing%20and%20Development%20Review.pdf
you might see that though the East has better results, a lot of the biggest national federations are in the west.


Perhaps because of this, there are more registered players resulting in more votes for the individual countries. And maybe many of these federations have been established much earlier, considering that badminton has been dominated by the West, especially Europe, for long periods during its early history. As such their setups and facilities should be more superior and may be one reason why Europe has professional leaques while the East is lacking in this respect.

But the question is why with such a headstart and obvious advantages, many of the European federations are unable to increase the prize monies for their major international tournaments. Is it because they knew that their own players will not be able to compete with their Asian counterparts for the top spots? Then why work so hard to get sponsors?

And if you look at things, you'll realize that promoting the game will advantage the West, as young talented children will then go more often for badminton (rather than football or rugby as they do now), and East might lose its dominance in the game.

So if we are talking about pure results, asian countries have more interest in not promoting the game around the world, and things staying as they are.

I think this is a myopic and rather selfish approach and runs counter to what the IBF is trying to do to popularize the game and raise its standards. We must agree that generally, competition is good in the end and IBF certainly wants to capture a bigger market share for badminton than is presently the case in the West. Hopefully with a more solid base of badminton fans, more sponsors can be cajoled into promoting the game further. It will be a happy day indeed if sponsors themselves compete for a slice of the badminton action.

About the calendar, the equivalence between stars and prize moneys needs urgently to be changed, so do the world ranking points that are attributed. There are much too many equivalent tournaments nowadays

If the changes can lead to something positive and can benefit the national federations, the players, the badminton fraternity and the IBF, why not give it a go? Many organisations have to 'reinvent' themselves, make major or minor changes periodically, to stay in the competition and to remain relevant. In the end, it is the leadership which counts and whether they have the vision and gumption to make those changes.

But I don't think having too many tournaments is necessarily bad as they can cater to the different needs and requirements of the professional player who needs an income to survive. If the player is ambitious enough, he has to work harder and smarter to compete against the best for a much higher prize. ;)

[Simp84]

I think we need some black americans to play badminton on international circuit:p
They will definatly bring in new flavor into the sport, and moves that are
out of this world...
And then it will be perceive as cool sport rather than lame sport
Anyway, no popularity = less prize pool money...
thats the basic concept... so no matter how much u pump money into the competition... no popularity = cannot sustain such expansive tournament = hence the current status

[seven]

Perhaps because of this, there are more registered players resulting in more votes for the individual countries. And maybe many of these federations have been established much earlier, considering that badminton has been dominated by the West, especially Europe, for long periods during its early history. As such their setups and facilities should be more superior and may be one reason why Europe has professional leaques while the East is lacking in this respect.

In fact, badminton development in France (for example) is very recent and is constantly increasing.
Therefore there is a big lack of setups and facilities, a big lack of decent coaches, etc... and government help is very inferior to older established sports.
Same thing for sponsors which all go to football, rugby etc...


But the question is why with such a headstart and obvious advantages, many of the European federations are unable to increase the prize monies for their major international tournaments. Is it because they knew that their own players will not be able to compete with their Asian counterparts for the top spots? Then why work so hard to get sponsors?

The lack of good europeans competing at the highest level could be an explanation, but the general image of badminton, and the very "messy" pro circuit don't help it either... (plus scoring system changing every year or so doesn't help badminton looking serious... :rolleyes: )


And if you look at things, you'll realize that promoting the game will advantage the West, as young talented children will then go more often for badminton (rather than football or rugby as they do now), and East might lose its dominance in the game.

So if we are talking about pure results, asian countries have more interest in not promoting the game around the world, and things staying as they are.

I think this is a myopic and rather selfish approach and runs counter to what the IBF is trying to do to popularize the game and raise its standards. We must agree that generally, competition is good in the end and IBF certainly wants to capture a bigger market share for badminton than is presently the case in the West. Hopefully with a more solid base of badminton fans, more sponsors can be cajoled into promoting the game further. It will be a happy day indeed if sponsors themselves compete for a slice of the badminton action.

As I said, "if you are talking about pure results"!
Obviously this is a myopic and selfish approach, I agree completely, but you can't expect dominant national federations to not defend their dominance as they can...


About the calendar, the equivalence between stars and prize moneys needs urgently to be changed, so do the world ranking points that are attributed. There are much too many equivalent tournaments nowadays

If the changes can lead to something positive and can benefit the national federations, the players, the badminton fraternity and the IBF, why not give it a go? Many organisations have to 'reinvent' themselves, make major or minor changes periodically, to stay in the competition and to remain relevant. In the end, it is the leadership which counts and whether they have the vision and gumption to make those changes.

But I don't think having too many tournaments is necessarily bad as they can cater to the different needs and requirements of the professional player who needs an income to survive. If the player is ambitious enough, he has to work harder and smarter to compete against the best for a much higher prize. ;)

Too many tournaments is certainly not bad, too many equivalent tournaments without any top ones is bad.
Currently, the only tournament which (just about) all the good players enter is the All England Open.

IBF has been going on about "Superseries" for more than ten years now, but without ever doing anything concrete about it, probably for political reasons. (everyone wants to be part of it)

The minimum action would be to reexamine the stars scale with higher prizes.

I think now IBF should wake up, stop internal political fights, and start really promoting badminton.

[yannie]

OCTOBER

03-08 China Open (Guangzhou) 5* US$170,000
10-15 Japan Open (Tokyo) 5* US$ 170,000
17-22 Yonex Korea Open (Seoul, S Korea) 6* US$250,000
24-29 Bitburger Open (Saarbruken, Germany) 1* US$30,000 Note: IBF has an International Training Centre here.
31-05 Denmark Open (Denmark) 5* US$170,000



Sigh... Again, the players will choose China/Japan/Korea above Denmark Open. :crying:

[Loh]

Too many tournaments is certainly not bad, too many equivalent tournaments without any top ones is bad.
Currently, the only tournament which (just about) all the good players enter is the All England Open.

The minimum action would be to reexamine the stars scale with higher prizes.


Can you elaborate on 'equivalent' tournaments? Do you mean that there are too many current IBF Grand Prix events like the AE, Denmark Open, China Open, Indonesia Open, etc? How different do you want them to be? These events are bread and butter to the professional. As you know they are different from the TC, UC, WC, Sudirman Cup and Olympics.

What do you mean by "re-examining the star scales" ? Are you suggesting that the better ranked stars (you must also agree that the current World Ranking sytem, although good as a guide, is not perfect) should have a separate tournament with a much higher prize money? Of course now we do have invitationals like the Masters.

[Loh]

Sigh... Again, the players will choose China/Japan/Korea above Denmark Open. :crying:

Maybe the IBF can coordinate with the national badminton associations/federations to come out with a more 'agreeable' world badminton schedule, with events carrying attractive prize monies (like the 6* Opens) being better spaced out and not clumped together as in the month of October. Players will be thoroughly exhausted having to play in so many events within a relatively short time, with hardly any rest in between.

But the organizers need to take into account the individual country's own timetable and plans/assignments, their relationship to other national sports to avoid clashes, the geographical distances and the weather (playing in Winter may not suit some players and spectators, esp those vistiors from overseas). So it is not as easy as it seems. ;)

[seven]

Can you elaborate on 'equivalent' tournaments?

I should have maybe said "too many tournaments of equivalent importance"


Do you mean that there are too many current IBF Grand Prix events like the AE, Denmark Open, China Open, Indonesia Open, etc? How different do you want them to be?

Yes, there are too many 4, 5 and 6 stars events, which have approximately the same importance.
Resulting in none of them filling up their entries correctly, except All England because of its "historical" importance....


These events are bread and butter to the professional. As you know they are different from the TC, UC, WC, Sudirman Cup and Olympics.

Yes, this is why prize money must be increased!


What do you mean by "re-examining the star scales" ? Are you suggesting that the better ranked stars (you must also agree that the current World Ranking sytem, although good as a guide, is not perfect) should have a separate tournament with a much higher prize money? Of course now we do have invitationals like the Masters.

As I thought you would know, the current stars are attributed directly in function of total prize money.

The current scale is :
30.000 $ => 1 star
50.000 $ => 2 stars
80.000 $ => 3 stars
120.000 $ => 4 stars
170.000 $ => 5 stars
250.000 $ => 6 stars

5 and 6 stars events were rather rare a few years ago, but they are getting more and more common with there being more money in badminton.

Reexamining the scale would give for example :
50.000 $ => 1 star
90.000 $ => 2 stars
150.000 $ => 3 stars
250.000 $ => 4 stars
400.000 $ => 5 stars
600.000 $ => 6 stars

[seven]

Maybe the IBF can coordinate with the national badminton associations/federations to come out with a more 'agreeable' world badminton schedule, with events carrying attractive prize monies (like the 6* Opens) being better spaced out and not clumped together as in the month of October. Players will be thoroughly exhausted having to play in so many events within a relatively short time, with hardly any rest in between.

But the organizers need to take into account the individual country's own timetable and plans/assignments, their relationship to other national sports to avoid clashes, the geographical distances and the weather (playing in Winter may not suit some players and spectators, esp those vistiors from overseas). So it is not as easy as it seems. ;)

If instead of having four equivalent Opens in a row, there were two "major" ones and two "minor" (or one major and three minor), you would be sure to get all the best players in the major ones.
(and the second to best players in the minor ones)

[seven]

Other changes needed : the world ranking points.

Currently the winner of an event wins :

600 points for a 7* event
540 for a 6* event
480 for a 5* event
420 for a 4* event
360 for a 3* event
300 for a 2* event
240 for a 1* event
180 for an A grade event
120 for a B grade event

This scale could be changed to :
600 points for a 7* event
520 for a 6* event
440 for a 5* event
360 for a 4* event
280 for a 3* event
200 for a 2* event
120 for a 1* event
90 for an A grade event
60 for a B grade event


And the other players get points as follow :
runner up get 85% of winner's points
semi-finalist gets 70%
quarter => 55%
last 16 => 40%
last 32 => 25%
last 64 => 10%
last 128 => 5%
last 256 => 2%
last 512 => 1%
last 1024 => 0.5%

The scale should give more importance to winners, for example :
runner-up => 80 %
semi-finalist => 60 %
quarter-finalist => 40 %
last 16 => 20 %
last 32 => 10%
last 64 => 5%
etc

These are only examples of what could be done of course... (not THE solution)

[Chai]

How popular do you want Badminton to be? It could never be as big as Tennis as a spectator sport; there are many reasons....example could you stage a badminton tournement in glorious summer weeks in open air like Roland Garos or Wimbledon ?

I believe Badminton has been progressing steadily in term of popularity and general public awareness, I know in France it is closed to 100 OOO registered players and the number is increasing as it is stated by FFBA.

Do I really care about the prize money? All England is always THE Tournement even it has 1 star prize money.....

[badMania]

01-05 Mar Phillipine Open 2006 4*
07-12 Mar AVIVA-COCSO China Masters 2006 6*

28-02 Apr Asian Badminton Championships 2006 4*
28-04 May Thomas & Uber Cup Finals 2006 7*

31-04 June Djarum Indonesia Open 2006 6*
05-11 June Aviva Singapore Open 2006 5*
13-18 June Malaysia Open 2006 4*
20-25 June Chinese Taipei Open 2006 5*

28-02 July Yonex Vietnam Open 2006 1*
14-16 July MVP Cup: Asia vs Europe
19-23 July Macau Open 2006 4*
25-30 July Thailand Open 2006 3*
25-30 July Invitational World Cup

01-06 Aug Equinox New Zealand Open 2006 2*
02-08 Aug US Open 2006 1*
22-27 Aug Yonex Korea Open 2006 6*

28-02 Sep Yonex Sunrise Hong-Kong Open 2006 6*
18-24 Sep World Championships 2006 7*

10-15 Oct Japan Open 2006 5*
17-22 Oct China Open 2006 5*
24-29 Oct Bitburger Open 2006 1*

31-05 Nov Denmark Open 2006 5*
07-12 Nov Yonex Dutch Open 2006 2*

02-09 Dec Asian Games 2006
06-10 Dec Bulgaria Open 2006 1*
12-17 Dec Greek Open 2006 2*
12-17 Dec Syed Modi Memorial Open 2006 1*

[cxytdn]

The "star" is just for individuals, not for teams. TUC finals should be "See Regs" as well as Invitational World Cup 2006.

[badMania]

The "star" is just for individuals, not for teams. TUC finals should be "See Regs" as well as Invitational World Cup 2006.

Opps...a slight mistake there :cool:
Yup....I think you don't get ranking points for the World Cup 2006 and MVP Cup since they are both invitational tournaments. However, player does earn ranking points by playing in Thomas (& Uber) Cup as well as Sudirman Cup.

[Loh]

How popular do you want Badminton to be? It could never be as big as Tennis as a spectator sport; there are many reasons....example could you stage a badminton tournement in glorious summer weeks in open air like Roland Garos or Wimbledon ?

I believe Badminton has been progressing steadily in term of popularity and general public awareness, I know in France it is closed to 100 OOO registered players and the number is increasing as it is stated by FFBA.

Do I really care about the prize money? All England is always THE Tournement even it has 1 star prize money.....

Thank goodness we have such a great variety of sports to cater to a multitude of interests. And there are always new ones coming into the scene to attact new followers. Some sports can slowly die off but could re-emerge again after some time. Some people may like the open-air, sunny atmosphere of Roland Garos, others may prefer the aircon comfort of a brand new, hi-tec indoor stadium.

So I wouldn't completely rule out badminton as being unable to compete with tennis for all time. Much depends on the leadership and how they sell or market their ideas and products to turn things around to thier advantage. Now that is why we have the IBF to tackle such issues and to popularize badminton worldwide.

In Singapore, both tennis and squash can't compete with badminton. The question is how is it so. Why is this not the case in many European countries where tennis reigns supreme? Will the situation remain the same forever?

To the professionals, the prize money is important. How many top-class pros would want to enter a one-star tournament? The prize money should commensurate with the status of the tournament. If the All-England degenerates to a 1* tournament, how many world-class players will want to participate? Without such participants, would people continue to show up in great numbers to support. Will sponsors feel it profitable to finance such tourneys as well? You will then have to change your mind about going to watch the matches! :(

[taneepak]

I think the prize money of the various Open Championships reflects on the management quality of the different national federations. No body is going to give you money. You have to work for it. If the AE were to lose one star every two years they should fire the whole English federation. :D If less well off countries like Indonesia and Malaysia can run their national federations and still stay in the black, despite paying out much high prize money, then I don't understand why the West cannot do better.

[hcyong]

My own impression is that there is more prize money in badminton now than ever before. Most of the growth is in Asia of course. Unfortunately, it is still rather slow in Europe. However, a good sign is that many small events are springing up in unlikely places, especially in Europe. Anyway, there is no use comparing prize money with tennis. Since the beginning, we were never in it.

I think the problem is not with the events. It is with the players. There are so many events now and not enough players. In tennis, players would normally play in events in run-ups to major events. In badminton, players tend to train at home and all the schedule seems geared towards the few major events in the year.

[Cheung]

They moved the HK Open dates :mad:

I'd already booked my annual leave for the original date and unless I have a huge stroke of luck, I won't get to attend lots of the matches this year. :mad:

[Cheung]

I think the prize money of the various Open Championships reflects on the management quality of the different national federations. No body is going to give you money. You have to work for it. If the AE were to lose one star every two years they should fire the whole English federation. :D If less well off countries like Indonesia and Malaysia can run their national federations and still stay in the black, despite paying out much high prize money, then I don't understand why the West cannot do better.
How deliberately provocative!!:) ;) You are trying to crete an argument. tut tut.

[taneepak]

How deliberately provocative!!:) ;) You are trying to crete an argument. tut tut.

My intent here is to throw out some thought-provoking ideas that will require drastic actions to stop the slide in the prestige of the various Open Championships in the West. Even the Philippines can now come up with a 4 star tournament, the same as the AE. The AE was the mecca and soul of badminton. Now it is just a 4 star event, living on its past glories. But it cannot live on like this forever. The German Open is a 3 star event, which is not consistent with its IBF 5 votes. Sometimes it is good to think outside the box and get some non-badminton players into the national badminton bodies. What they can bring may surprise you.

[Loh]

My intent here is to throw out some thought-provoking ideas that will require drastic actions to stop the slide in the prestige of the various Open Championships in the West. Even the Philippines can now come up with a 4 star tournament, the same as the AE. The AE was the mecca and soul of badminton. Now it is just a 4 star event, living on its past glories. But it cannot live on like this forever. The German Open is a 3 star event, which is not consistent with its IBF 5 votes. Sometimes it is good to think outside the box and get some non-badminton players into the national badminton bodies. What they can bring may surprise you.

I must say I tend to agree with Taneepak on this one. :D

It seems apparent to me that the less financially weathly Asian countries, as compared to the West, are more motivated to working harder to bring in the sponsors. The inaugural Philippines Open is a 4* event, despite the fact that she has no existing player that can take the few top prizes. However it is on par with the oldest tornament and most 'prestigious' AE in terms of prize money, which is what the professional is training hard for - to earn as much as possible during their short career.

Badminton professionals have been 'short-changed' compared to their tennis counterparts. I don't think they did not train as hard or are as deserving enough as the tennis pros. But, unfortunately, the leadership in world badminton has lagged far behind for many years and is unable to provide a good platform for our beloved badminton professionals. Now the 'new' IBF has the unenviable task of picking up the pieces and making a charge forward. There will be many hurdles before them, they will stumble here and there but, if they are strong enough, they will pick themselves up and make progress along the way. As real badminton fans, we should support them.

And as pointed out, there is no level playing field as far as votes go! Now if countries who bring in more revenue have less voice, where is the logic, the 'democracy' and how long can this last? :confused:

[seven]

Whatever the prize money, All England is still the highest reputation tournament after the IBF events (World champs, Olympics, Thomas/Uber/Sudirman Cup) and I beleive it will probably stay so for quite a while.

Now there is something you need to understand :
1. Badminton doesn't have the same profile in Europe as in Asia, so it is very hard to find sponsors
2. Many sports "eat" all the sponsorship money in Europe, especially football.

Finding sponsors has nothing to do with quality of management, as sponsors will sponsor events if they think they can make money from it, they don't mind if the federation is well managed.
For example, they will put loads of money to sponsor football clubs, because they know that their image will help them sell and make money, though most of the big football clubs are managed in a catastrophic way!

Though obviously badminton rules changing every two years and IBF being run as it is, doesn't encourage potential sponsors to invest in badminton, so surely the very bad management of IBF does have an effect undirectly... :rolleyes:

I must say that if the votes at IBF were linked to who can get the most money for their Open (therefore gets the most stars), it would be ridiculously anti-democratic!! (yes, even worse than it is now!)

[bdbc74]

And as pointed out, there is no level playing field as far as votes go! Now if countries who bring in more revenue have less voice, where is the logic, the 'democracy' and how long can this last? :confused:[/QUOTE]

In principle (in the most theory) democracy is about "one man, one vote" and not about that the rich have more to say or to vote. :rolleyes:
The IBF system (good or bad) is roughly orientated to the officially registered player numbers since it is not so easy to calculate the total player numbers.
According to IBFs Marketing and Development Review(2001) http://www.worldbadminton.net/IBF%20Marketing%20and%20Development%20Review.pdf
there are for example in Denmark 123231 registered players an circa 800000 total players and in Indonesia 120000 registered players and circa 500000 total players, so both have 5 votes.

[Loh]

And as pointed out, there is no level playing field as far as votes go! Now if countries who bring in more revenue have less voice, where is the logic, the 'democracy' and how long can this last? :confused:

In principle (in the most theory) democracy is about "one man, one vote" and not about that the rich have more to say or to vote. :rolleyes:
The IBF system (good or bad) is roughly orientated to the officially registered player numbers since it is not so easy to calculate the total player numbers.
According to IBFs Marketing and Development Review(2001) http://www.worldbadminton.net/IBF%20Marketing%20and%20Development%20Review.pdf
there are for example in Denmark 123231 registered players an circa 800000 total players and in Indonesia 120000 registered players and circa 500000 total players, so both have 5 votes.[/QUOTE]

Actually I subscribe to the "one-country-one-vote" system irrespective of the country's size, wealth, abilities, resources, etc. Maybe I'm influenced by the fact that my own country is so tiny, yet we still have an equal say in the UN in terms of votes.

I brought out the fact that if even a relatively new, small or less wealthy country can work hard to bring in more revenue in terms of prize money, yet this country is not treated as an equal in terms of vote - not that the number of votes should be based on prize money. Of course the other member countries can make valuable contributions too, not necessarily in the form of prize monies.

My contention is that IBF should treat all its members as equals, just like in the UN. This is to make them feel a welcomed equal partner in the organization devoted to promoting world badminton. If you discriminate a new member from the very start by saying "because you are a small country with so few 'registered' badminton players, you will be entitled to one vote only" (whereas some countries have up to 5 votes, ie, 5 times more say in voting rights). This is not the kind of democracy that one looks forward to. A 'one-vote' country may feel small with this kind of treatment and this may hamper its development and contribution to the world body.

Of course, even on the question of 'registered members', there remain dissatisfaction and disagreement over the definition and how it is counted. A country with a huge badminton playing population may not have the means to register their players or the players themselves never register with so-called clubs for various reasons. So the term 'registered' means nothing to them and they will not be counted and the member country will not get its rightful number of votes.

Because of the likely discrepancies, IBF's current voting system is flawed and should be dispensed with. A more democratic, one-country-one-vote system should be adopted instead. If we want to promote badminton to the world, why treat those countries who are partners in action as second-class as far as important decisions are concerned? Please treat them as equal partners. :rolleyes:

[Loh]

Whatever the prize money, All England is still the highest reputation tournament after the IBF events (World champs, Olympics, Thomas/Uber/Sudirman Cup) and I beleive it will probably stay so for quite a while.


Of course AE is still prestigious but can it continue to remain so without improvement, without change, this remains to be seen, but I seriously doubt so as if others keep on improving the AE will face serious challenges. ;)


Now there is something you need to understand :
1. Badminton doesn't have the same profile in Europe as in Asia, so it is very hard to find sponsors
2. Many sports "eat" all the sponsorship money in Europe, especially football.

Finding sponsors has nothing to do with quality of management, as sponsors will sponsor events if they think they can make money from it, they don't mind if the federation is well managed.
For example, they will put loads of money to sponsor football clubs, because they know that their image will help them sell and make money, though most of the big football clubs are managed in a catastrophic way!

Frankly, I consider leadership and management as vital to the success of any organization. Leadership vision and the ability to formulated strategies, realistic goals, plans and successfully implementing them will make a lot of difference. The ability to influence those under your charge to help management realise its objectives is necessary. Team work

Football is perhaps the most successful sport in the world. But I don't think it came about overnight. Most things start from a modest beginning and I think football is no exception. It must have taken the leadership much time, resources and effort to bring football to its present level and this year's World Cup should be best, surpassing previous tournaments. It is a test of leadership qualities all round, involving all FIFA member countries.

World Badminton is no way near FIFA but the IBF can learn from them. From a small success, this can lead to bigger ones. IBF has to work hard and smart to capture a bigger world badminton fan base and continue to build on it before the sponsors are willing to come out in droves to support.

Though obviously badminton rules changing every two years and IBF being run as it is, doesn't encourage potential sponsors to invest in badminton, so surely the very bad management of IBF does have an effect undirectly... :rolleyes:


Of course this is how you feel but not the IBF Council. They thought otherwise. They have to make changes, presumably after some studies and survey, in order to satisfy the sponsors. But whether ultimately they are right or wrong is still left to be seen. I personally give them the benefit of the doubt as they have taken the time, effort and trouble to initiate the changes for a better outcome. I rather have the leadership working than one sleeping!


I must say that if the votes at IBF were linked to who can get the most money for their Open (therefore gets the most stars), it would be ridiculously anti-democratic!! (yes, even worse than it is now!)

This is not what I mean and I will be the last to link prize money with voting rights. A more detailed answer is shown in the above post.

Sorry I have to post my reponse in this 'truncated' manner as I don't know how to segregate them in an easier way as you did. :)

[seven]

I must say "one man one vote" is VERY different from "one country one vote".
I think a mix of the two is the best way to approach a democratical system.

Linking it to prize money on the Opens as Taneepak was suggesting (not you Loh), would be completely anti-democratic.
Plus it isn't the prize money on the Opens that finances IBF but the members (national federations), in function of their number of registered players.

About the All England, yes it does need more sponsors and I hope it will find more.
But you will never change its historical value and no other can catch up on that.
Though it is only a four star event, it is the only Open which still attracts all the best players in the world.

About sponsorship, I still maintain my point : it has nothing to do with management quality. Sponsor's objective is only to sell their products and make money.
If they think sponsoring an event will help them do so, they will sponsor it, if they think it won't help, they won't sponsor it. As simple as that!

[Loh]

.
About sponsorship, I still maintain my point : it has nothing to do with management quality. Sponsor's objective is only to sell their products and make money.
If they think sponsoring an event will help them do so, they will sponsor it, if they think it won't help, they won't sponsor it. As simple as that!

We have read of gigantic commercial organizations (like Enron in the US), which took years to build up, almost collapsing overnight just because the leadership failed to live up to expectations.

In Singapore, China Aviation Oil, a most impressive State-owned outfit headquartered in China but also listed in our local Stock Exchange and having almost a monopoly over the purchase and sale of aviation fuel lost more than its capital (I think probably around a billion Singapore dollars in all) through dabbling in derivatives or oil futures. They are now being rescued but the poor investors lost most of their own money. Why, because of poor management, the lack of transparency and checks and balances. Some members of the top management were found guilty and given sentences.

Coming back to the sports arena, just recently the entire leadership of our Singapore Rugby Union, had to resign because their financial management was poor and an employee was able to abscond with about S$300,000. A new leadership with proven track record is now in place and sponsors felt a great sigh of relief. But the new management will have a lot of work to do picking up the pieces and convincing sponsors once again that they should continue to support rugby in Singapore.

Therefore isn't leadership important? Good leadership and management can bring in more sponsors! ;)

[Cheung]

Coming back to the sports arena, just recently the entire leadership of our Singapore Rugby Union, had to resign because their financial management was poor and an employee was able to abscond with about S$300,000. A new leadership with proven track record is now in place and sponsors felt a great sigh of relief. But the new management will have a lot of work to do picking up the pieces and convincing sponsors once again that they should continue to support rugby in Singapore.

Therefore isn't leadership important? Good leadership and management can bring in more sponsors! ;)So more sponsorship for S'porean badminton?;) Hope so!

[Loh]

So more sponsorship for S'porean badminton?;) Hope so!

I think our SBA has been relatively successful in fund raising and they have quite wisely reserved funds for players welfare as well.

Maybe next year the Singapore Open prize money will be increased from the current 5 to 6 stars, thanks to Aviva which is also featured in this year's China Masters, I noticed.

We could see a dramatic change in the local badminton scene ever since the current leadership under the baton of a Minister took over and our players have been doing relatively well overseas. Unfortunately, Ronald Susilo suffered a serious Achilles tendon injury during the WC but he'll be featured in MD during this forthcomming Melbourne Commonwealth Games.

Our hope is that the SBA will not rest on its laurels and the forward momentum will be continued. A good performance at the MCG and the Uber Cup finals will ensure a better future. :D

[seven]

Loh, I think you didn't get my point about sponsors.

Obviously a catastrophic financial leadership will lead a federation to disappear.

But this has nothing to do with sponsorship : French federation is very well run financially, and has no financial problems at all.
But it doesn't attract sponsors because badminton's profile isn't high enough in France. (though this might change quite soon...)

On the other hand, many big football clubs in Europe have very high debts and are in a very bad financial situation.
This doesn't stop them attracting loads of sponsors!

What interests these sponsors is not whether the club is healthy or not, but how much they can sell by associating their image with this high reputation club.

Did I make it clearer this time? :confused:

[Loh]

Loh, I think you didn't get my point about sponsors.

Obviously a catastrophic financial leadership will lead a federation to disappear.

But this has nothing to do with sponsorship : French federation is very well run financially, and has no financial problems at all.
But it doesn't attract sponsors because badminton's profile isn't high enough in France. (though this might change quite soon...)

On the other hand, many big football clubs in Europe have very high debts and are in a very bad financial situation.
This doesn't stop them attracting loads of sponsors!

What interests these sponsors is not whether the club is healthy or not, but how much they can sell by associating their image with this high reputation club.

Did I make it clearer this time? :confused:

Hi Seven, nice to hear from you again. :) It took you quite some time, probably you're being kept buzy.

Of course sponsors would like to know how much mileage they can get out of any transaction or project as you have said and they prefer to associate themselves with successful and high reputation clubs.

But clubs of good reputation, including not only in PR, etc but also in good financial management, do not just come about so easily. They have to work on those areas to achieve success. They need to have capable leaders and managers wiho are able to sell their services or products to the public in order to bring in the sponsors.

In the real example that I cited on our own Singapore Rugby Union, in fact the leadership was good but management was poor. They were able to attract very good sponsors and were able to organize grand events at regional or even international levels as a result. But when one of their employees stole about $300,000 (not an insignificant sum) and absconded, their leadership and management were a target of criticism and the sponsors were forced to adopt a wait-and-see attitude before putting more money into supporting their activities. The old SRU leadership acknowledged their shortcomings and resigned en bloc. Now there is a proven new leadership in place to ensure that the sponsors will continue to lend support.

Those football clubs that you cited having poor financial management will unlikely last long. If sponsors discover that their money is not going to the right channels, they will cut down or totally withdraw their sponsorship. It's a matter of time.

I will post separately how our Singapore Sports Council fund our locals National Sports Associations.

[hcyong]

Real Madrid will certainly last long, and its financial management can shame even the worst financial manager. But sponsors are lining up on their doorstep and Real Madrid remain one of the most popular sports team in the world.

It is difficult to imagine French badminton (or any badminton in the world) ever being that popular to attract the sinfully-abundant sponsorship money.

[seven]

Hi Seven, nice to hear from you again. :) It took you quite some time, probably you're being kept buzy.

Yes, I'm quite busy at the moment... Sorry for the slow replys! :o


In the real example that I cited on our own Singapore Rugby Union, in fact the leadership was good but management was poor. They were able to attract very good sponsors and were able to organize grand events at regional or even international levels as a result. But when one of their employees stole about $300,000 (not an insignificant sum) and absconded, their leadership and management were a target of criticism and the sponsors were forced to adopt a wait-and-see attitude before putting more money into supporting their activities. The old SRU leadership acknowledged their shortcomings and resigned en bloc. Now there is a proven new leadership in place to ensure that the sponsors will continue to lend support.

But how popular is rugby in Singapore?
Football may be completely corrupted (some may say it already is ;) ), sponsors will carry on pooring millions in it as it is so popular.


Those football clubs that you cited having poor financial management will unlikely last long. If sponsors discover that their money is not going to the right channels, they will cut down or totally withdraw their sponsorship. It's a matter of time.

The big majority of the major european clubs are in catastrophic financial situations with very high debts which get worse and worse.
But they do last long, and they do carry on receiving millions of sponsorship money. :rolleyes:

[Chai]

The intention of everyone in this forum is to see Badminton is maintaining and gaining its popularity as one of the main stream sports.

From my personal view the prize money is not the cause of getting Badminton to be popular but it is the effects of its popularity.

It is very pleasing to read that smaller economic Asian countries could stage IBF events and offer bigger prize money than All England; but I doubt if that reflects Asian badminton associations have better management team than England Badminton Association.

All England is always the benchmark for Badminton. Looking at All England for the past few years; we could see the continuing increase of prize money, TV coverage, live audience, participants and sponsorships. Badminton is doing fine and it is healthy and kicking still!

Sport has no frontier but regarding the voting, it should have certain link to the number of registered players. Just an example it does not make sense assuming US, who has 10,000 register players, and has equal votes as Singapore, assuming who has 100,000 registered players!

It is very interesting to note that Malaysian; Indonesian and Chinese national players are full time contract employee of their associations. I have read somewhere Malaysian players could keep 100% of the prize money (plus big bonus if you win All England!); whereas their Chinese or Indonesian counterparts will only keep certain percent of prize money!

[taneepak]

Sport has no frontier but regarding the voting, it should have certain link to the number of registered players. Just an example it does not make sense assuming US, who has 10,000 register players, and has equal votes as Singapore, assuming who has 100,000 registered players!

The reality is that the US has the max. 5 votes, Singapore 3. The UK has the most votes (10), which actually exceeds a country's allowable maximum votes. Its 10 votes come from England (4), Ireland (3), Scotland (2), and Wales (1), which was decided before China joined the IBF. The current voting system of the IBF is a little bit of the old (tradition) and a little of the new (progress).

[seven]

The reality is that the US has the max. 5 votes, Singapore 3. The UK has the most votes (10), which actually exceeds a country's allowable maximum votes. Its 10 votes come from England (4), Ireland (3), Scotland (2), and Wales (1), which was decided before China joined the IBF. The current voting system of the IBF is a little bit of the old (tradition) and a little of the new (progress).

First point : Ireland is certainly NOT part of UK. (you want to get flamed by the Irish??? :p)

Second point : Wales, Scotland and England each have a separate badminton association, and therefore vote separately.

So all this sounds like racist arguments to me.... :rolleyes:

[bdbc74]

The reality is that the US has the max. 5 votes, Singapore 3. .

Strange: USA has 5 votes? Could you give a source for that?

Then they must have more than 50.000 registered players! 2000 they had have just about 7000.

[Radium]

First point : Ireland is certainly NOT part of UK. (you want to get flamed by the Irish??? :p)

Second point : Wales, Scotland and England each have a separate badminton association, and therefore vote separately.

So all this sounds like racist arguments to me.... :rolleyes:

Im sure he meant to say Northern Island :o ....however, Ireland getting 3 votes is a little strange. If anyone watched the Commonwealth games, they would have seen that there was very little competition from any of the other UK countries to England. In fact, Jersey's womens singles player, Morgan, was far more of a challenge to Tracy Hallam than any other UK country.

PS totally agree with bdbc74, no basis for USA votes. Maybe they get angry if they dont get it there way :mad:

[Cheung]

First point : Ireland is certainly NOT part of UK. (you want to get flamed by the Irish??? :p)

Second point : Wales, Scotland and England each have a separate badminton association, and therefore vote separately.

So all this sounds like racist arguments to me.... :rolleyes:Seven, this is actually a very old argument. Many people before taneepak have pointed out this out (not on BF) and is not restricted to badminton. The UK atheletes in the Olympics actually compete under a UK flag. I don't think racism is a basis for this particular point.

Football is another example of seperation. Some people in UK do discuss about a combined team. Such a team could potentially be world beaters rather than perenial losers!

[seven]

Seven, this is actually a very old argument. Many people before taneepak have pointed out this out (not on BF) and is not restricted to badminton. The UK atheletes in the Olympics actually compete under a UK flag. I don't think racism is a basis for this particular point.

Football is another example of seperation. Some people in UK do discuss about a combined team. Such a team could potentially be world beaters rather than perenial losers!

I talk about racism because Taneepak is constantly attacking the number of votes european - or occidental - badminton federations have. (whether UK or not)

He seems to want badminton to be an all-asian affair (which it almost already is) which would obviously be very bad for its olympic status and its development. (IBF has already sufficiently made a fool of itself in front of IOC)

I don't think it is very good either to defend the - very capitalist - idea that the richest federations should get the most votes, rather than votes being given depending on their number of players.

[taneepak]

I talk about racism because Taneepak is constantly attacking the number of votes european - or occidental - badminton federations have. (whether UK or not)

He seems to want badminton to be an all-asian affair (which it almost already is) which would obviously be very bad for its olympic status and its development. (IBF has already sufficiently made a fool of itself in front of IOC)

I don't think it is very good either to defend the - very capitalist - idea that the richest federations should get the most votes, rather than votes being given depending on their number of players.

No, I am not trying to defend anything, neither do I want badminton to be an all-Asian affair, nor am I advocating that the richest federations should get the most votes.
The facts are that the IBF started off with the centre of power concentrated in just one country, England, then the UK, even during the periods when badminton was completely dominated by Indonesia, Denmark and Malaysia. There were also procedural rules that effectively made the votes of Malaysia and Indonesia totally useless at that time. Even with the entry of China and the emergence of Korea the voting rights were still too one sided. Today's voting rights are still not fair. They are a compromise, keeping some of the old 'unfair' voting rights and allowing some concessions to third world countries new to badminton to have one vote.
Now what is so unfair about letting everyone know the actual votes each country has? I think it is good to know about the history of the IBF and why the votes are what they are. At least it explains the 'political' nature of the IBF.

[taneepak]

Im sure he meant to say Northern Island :o ....however, Ireland getting 3 votes is a little strange. If anyone watched the Commonwealth games, they would have seen that there was very little competition from any of the other UK countries to England. In fact, Jersey's womens singles player, Morgan, was far more of a challenge to Tracy Hallam than any other UK country.

PS totally agree with bdbc74, no basis for USA votes. Maybe they get angry if they dont get it there way :mad:

The USA was a great badminton nation in the 1950s, reaching the qualifying finals and even the Challenge round. As the new preident of the IBF says, the IBF retains a bit of the old tradition.

[taneepak]

Im sure he meant to say Northern Island :o ....however, Ireland getting 3 votes is a little strange. If anyone watched the Commonwealth games, they would have seen that there was very little competition from any of the other UK countries to England. In fact, Jersey's womens singles player, Morgan, was far more of a challenge to Tracy Hallam than any other UK country.

Ireland should thank their Plunkett-Dillon, who led a 'rebellion' of Ireland, Scotland, and Wales against the English, in the early years of the IBF for their privileged votes. Again it is a political compromise to retain a little of the old traditions.
BTW, the founding members were the 4 Home Countries, England, Ireland, Wales, Scotland, and Denmark, Canada, Netherlands, New Zealand and France. With the exception of New Zealand the founding countries either retain or increase their voting rights. NZ was probably too far away and the procedural rule that no proxy vote was allowed did not help.

[seven]

What is all this crap about rebellion against the English??? :confused:
Ireland is NOT even in the UK!!

Scotland and Wales have separate federations, which as Cheung pointed out, means they have a weaker team (for TUC and SC for ex) than if it were UK.

These countries simply have votes related to their number of (registered) players, same as the others.

[taneepak]

The founding members were England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland (then known as the Home Countries), Denmark, Canada, France, New Zealand, Netherlands. The first IBF had 13 members in the Executive Committee, seven were English, four from the other 'Home Countries', and only two came from outside the UK. That was in 1934.
India was the first outside county to join, in 1935.

[taneepak]

You can get a glympse of how the IBF operated in the early 1960s by visiting the Professional Players forum and look for a thread 'Dr. Oon Chong Teik : The Memoirs of an Extraordinary Sportsman'. Or you can go directly to www. viweb.freehosting.net/OonCT.htm and scroll down to the piece 'On the IBF Council'. The situation before 1960 was no better. Or if you have an old copy of the Guinness Book of Badminton, you will find interesting reading about the 'gang of 3' from the 'Home Countries' rebelling and demanding to be 'given the Key'. England caved in but still managed to have more seats on the Council than the rest of the world plus the 3 rebels combined.