IBF 2006 Calendar - Some thoughts

Discussion in '2006 Tournaments' started by Loh, Feb 12, 2006.

  1. Cheung

    Cheung Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    21,081
    Likes Received:
    2,867
    Occupation:
    wannabe badminton phototaker
    Location:
    Outside the box
    How deliberately provocative!!:) ;) You are trying to crete an argument. tut tut.
     
  2. taneepak

    taneepak Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,526
    Likes Received:
    22
    Occupation:
    Designing and producing quality feather shuttlecoc
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    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.
     
  3. Loh

    Loh Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Messages:
    16,670
    Likes Received:
    871
    Occupation:
    Stock Broker
    Location:
    Singapore Also Can
    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:
     
  4. seven

    seven New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Computing Engineer
    Location:
    Toulouse, France
    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!)
     
  5. bdbc74

    bdbc74 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2005
    Messages:
    195
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Bonn
    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 Marketing and Development Review.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.
     
  6. Loh

    Loh Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Messages:
    16,670
    Likes Received:
    871
    Occupation:
    Stock Broker
    Location:
    Singapore Also Can
    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 Marketing and Development Review.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:
     
  7. Loh

    Loh Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Messages:
    16,670
    Likes Received:
    871
    Occupation:
    Stock Broker
    Location:
    Singapore Also Can
    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. :)
     
  8. seven

    seven New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Computing Engineer
    Location:
    Toulouse, France
    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!
     
  9. Loh

    Loh Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Messages:
    16,670
    Likes Received:
    871
    Occupation:
    Stock Broker
    Location:
    Singapore Also Can
    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! ;)
     
  10. Cheung

    Cheung Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    21,081
    Likes Received:
    2,867
    Occupation:
    wannabe badminton phototaker
    Location:
    Outside the box
    So more sponsorship for S'porean badminton?;) Hope so!
     
  11. Loh

    Loh Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Messages:
    16,670
    Likes Received:
    871
    Occupation:
    Stock Broker
    Location:
    Singapore Also Can
    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
     
  12. seven

    seven New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Computing Engineer
    Location:
    Toulouse, France
    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:
     
  13. Loh

    Loh Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Messages:
    16,670
    Likes Received:
    871
    Occupation:
    Stock Broker
    Location:
    Singapore Also Can
    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.
     
  14. hcyong

    hcyong Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,558
    Likes Received:
    104
    Occupation:
    Software Engineer
    Location:
    KL & Sg
    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.
     
  15. seven

    seven New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Computing Engineer
    Location:
    Toulouse, France
    Yes, I'm quite busy at the moment... Sorry for the slow replys! :eek:

    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.

    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:
     
  16. Chai

    Chai Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2002
    Messages:
    146
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    import export
    Location:
    France
    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!
     
  17. taneepak

    taneepak Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,526
    Likes Received:
    22
    Occupation:
    Designing and producing quality feather shuttlecoc
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    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).
     
  18. seven

    seven New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Computing Engineer
    Location:
    Toulouse, France
    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:
     
  19. bdbc74

    bdbc74 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2005
    Messages:
    195
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Bonn
    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.
     
  20. Radium

    Radium Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    England
    Im sure he meant to say Northern Island :eek: ....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:
     

Share This Page