i voted no. let the players/teams decide when they want to play. they'll have to play (want to play) anyway to make $ and accrue ranking points. in the end the best players will show up at the highest level tournaments.
Yes, there should be a mandatory number of tournament appearance or else Chen Long and Lin Dan will skip all tournaments and fans will be screwed.
...and cl & ld will suffer the consequences. no more wc and no more olympics for them. besides cba will make them play because they're on the payroll.
the question was not clear I voted 'no' because I refer to the next year rule regarding compulsory tournaments. I don't agree with the specification of the rule I should vote 'yes', if the question is actually: 'shall there be rules on minimum compulsary tournaments'
http://system.bwf.website/documents/folder_1_81/Regulations/Superseries/Part III - Section 10 - ANNEXURE D - Player Commitment Reg.pdf
i figured everyone already knew there is one... especially you. it had been mentioned countless times in multiple threads.
maybe I just did not explain it well haha I agree and support the rule on a number of mandatory tournaments must be participated by top players, so in this polling should be 'yes' I voted 'no' because I was thinking already to a more specific part of the rule, that is the number that must be participated for next year and for which level of tournament. I believe it should be less than what BWF set for next year. That was why I voted no. I guess I was just thinking too much about this rule for next year
I vote YES! To maintain the competitive level on highest level and any top players should be aware of their commitment. Another purpose gained by this mandatory commitment, to attract more fans into Badminton - not only through playing and winning matches but also through engaging with the media, fans and sponsors - all of which are critical elements of promoting badminton. With greater number of the tournament being held, off course the player's commitment also increasing. - 2017 (5 SSP, 4 of 7 SS, 1 SSF) - 2018 (3 Level 2 + 5 Level 3 + 4 of 7 Level 4 + 1 Word Tour Finals) Let's say 13 World Tour tournaments + WC/Olympics + Team Championships (including Continental stage) = 16 Total Tournaments Don't forget also about, once the players have mandatory commitment, they've received incentives as well. Overall, I'm looking about making larger and greater badminton attraction as main goal here.
@Master summerized my reason very well It is about commitment of the athlete itself. It is not really satisfying for audience (and furthermore for BWF who organizes the tour) when players are on and off that easily, especially for the highest tournaments in the tour (not yet discussing about non-tour events such as WC, SC, etc.). BWF keeps doing their part, thus the players should also continuously doing what they have to do. Furthermore, the increase of price money at highest level tourney is enough to give luxury life to the elite players, but not enough for them outside top 20. Without this rules, I somehow think the polarity will increase more drastically with prizes only increase mainly at top tournaments. The main issue is more on too much 'mandatory' tournaments, which make players tend to not focus on their performance in some tournaments. It is unavoidable to have players perform at bad condition but what is necessary is that they still perform with spirit and does not come with the mentality to lose, which is also frustrating for the fans. The key is really on finding the right mandatory tournaments formula, which I think the rule for next year is not right yet.
@stanleyfm 1. If it's too much, the players themselves (inside top 10) also joining some of non mandatory tournaments (outside their home soil). 2. I think the 3+5 Formula (Level 2 & 3) still a must. Don't touch these 2 high levels! 3. How about to decrease the other tournament mandatory (Level 4 or below). I don't think the decreasing number is the right formula as well. It's applied only for top players, not for all players. Let's split the perspective: - Based on the players' perspectives : I don't think they will reject the mandatory commitment with the highest number : 3 + 5 + 4 + 1 formula (12 tournaments). - Based on the spectator's perspectives : With current 2017 mandatory commitment (5 + 4 + 1, 10 tournaments), most of spectators will ask why some Superseries still have fewer players that attended in (for instance: Korea SS, China SSP). Then we remove that mandatory, how does the condition after that? Easy Illustrations Without mandatory commitment A : Hey, would you come to Japan Open this year? B : Is the great legends playing there? A : I dunno. Let's wait the M/Q Report on BWF website B : Oh no, I need to buy the ticket now. With mandatory commitment A : I watched last night commercial break about the upcoming All England Open 2018 B : Hmm... I've just got the ticket from Black Friday sale A : Wow, but you don't know whether Nozomi Okuhara will playing there or not. I heard about her injury. B : No problem. More top players surely will go there. I'm supporting Lee Chong Wei and Huang Yaqiong there. Summary : If the mandatory isn't a good option, I don't think without mandatory will give us better outcome. Keywords : certainty, assurance, promotional purpose
both of your 'yes' side points are well stated and valid. i agree with all of them, however... if the draws always contain the top 15 (singles) & top 10 (doubles) it becomes harder for new talent to crack through. obviously i don't want to pander to the lower ranked players because, in the end, sports should be a meritocracy. on the flip side bwf is guaranteeing the top players a certain level of points & money by merely showing up & playing 1 point before they 'retire' from the match. it should be the consequences of the actions of the top players to let it play out. let's say coincidentally a lot of top players don't enter a top tournament, well then, too bad if your ranking suffers because other players picked up valuable ranking points. the mandatory system, in legal terms, presents a conflict of interest on bwf's end. a governing body should not have authority over when you are required to play. in sports if you let things happen organically things will play out correctly on their own. also, the more control you give a governing body, the slower it grows. the athlete's will still play often. they need ranking points & money. there's a whole other discussion related to this point... for another time. what other sport out there makes these kind of demands on their top athlete's? i can't think of one.
fyi: http://system.bwf.website/documents...2018/5.3.6 Player Commitment Regulations .pdf the protected ranking is new... section 4. another reason i don't like the mandatory appearances: as far as section 2 “TOP COMMITTED PLAYER” OBLIGATIONS go, if you happen to be independent or if you play for a federation that doesn't do squat (past examples: michelle li canada was #14, beiwen zhang usa was #10) you will go broke. if hendra setiawan/tan boon hong crack the top 10 they will be forced to stretch themselves financially... they will basically be playing for almost nothing. same with yoo yeon seong & his partner. not every top independent player will have sponsors. the added stress will cause your results to fall from not being able to plot your own career path. this tells me bwf doesn't care about the players and does not want players to be independent. why is that, you ask? because given the prize money & distribution 10 out of the top 15 would not be able make a living due to the 'player obligations.' oh wait, the major teams (federations) are paying the way for the top players... and bwf knows it! that's a double edged conflict of interest: 1) screw the players from the small teams that cannot afford to commit with penalties & fines, and 2) screw the major teams by forcing them to send their top players who may not win enough $ to cover their cost. in what world does that sound fair? if you are going to require something, you must bear some of the cost. so, what is the cost to bwf? don't laugh... almost zero. this is all very brief, so i may not be explaining it very clearly. but if you're involved behind the curtain (having run the #'s & followed the money from source to expenditure) you would be as conflicted as i am: love the sport, hate how it's governed.
your reasons are also the 2 reasons why I said that I disagree with the next year rule. While Beiwen played more than 15 tournaments, but to make it mandatory to play in minimum 12 also decreses her flexibility. Ginting, Aya Ohori, JC will be made to play all of these tough tournaments as well, while arguably they are still developing their game, even actually Aya is not allowed to play in SS (for this year). In a way, it may disturb the progress of top young talent. Overall, I agree that top 15 is too much, should only be top 10 or the most top 12. Top 15 (and combined with all 5 mandatory tournaments) will also cause SSP (level 3) to be filled with these 15 players. As you said, this is not good for the outside top 20 players. That is why, in addition to decrease the top players into top 10 only, I think the composition of mandatory tournaments should be 3-4-3 for SS-SSP-SSP+. This will also allow more players to gain more prizes at SSP, while top 10 players still have a bit flexibility to at least skip 1 SSP. The mandatory 3 SS will help to increase popularity of these lower tournaments and further also help the increase of income for the lower level players. With 3-4-3 formation and top 10 players, SSP will averagely participated by 8 of the top 10 players in each tournament. SS will be either 4 or 5, but considering that usually some of the last top 10 players (ranked 8-10) played much more tournaments, I think the average number will increase. The interesting thing is all of our concerns are actually related to the athletes point of view and less about audience. We kinda see BWF starts to 'squeeze' players to the last sweat. However, there is the athlete commission which should be able to convey better the athletes' aspiration. I have no idea though how prominent actually their role in BWF and, for instance, in ratifying this new rule. Also, I don't know whether these commission has truly represented all of the athletes voice or only some who are close to these people.
That's actually a very good point especially about the Independent Players ranked inside Top 10. Can you predict whether Lin Dan would play India Open or not or are there more lucrative Level 4 tournaments. Thanks.
also noting the fact there is no qualifier for level 3 and higher, so you'll have top 15 + only 17 new participants in a draw. that's 17 players pursuing a top 15 spot while making $0 in the process. the major teams should also be concerned about this. they have a vote, but are always out voted by a large margin on money issues. 1 vote for athletes against the many many votes for financial interests and power, based on, at times, world class idiocy. there has yet to be a significant change in favor of the athletes. there are other problems w/ the athlete's commission. there's a conflicting agenda between the small teams (de facto independent players) and the major teams due to financial resources & control. small teams need independence, major teams want control of their players. current bwf rules make independence de facto impossible: 1) prize money not enough to sustain an independent player, and 2) mandating you register through your nat'l association. the athlete's heading the player's association have no experience dealing w/ greedy-power hungry-clueless executives. granted, they're busy pursuing athletic excellence so it's not entirely their fault. but, they do need to find experienced people willing to look out for their best interest... for free. bwf claims they want to promote badminton worldwide. but, do they really? i believe they do, to the point of being able to maintain control. again, a whole other discussion about following the money from source to expenditure and the colossal lack of professionalism throughout bwf.
You missed this one: Distribution of Prize Money • BWF World Tour Level 2-3 : Players on Last 32 also get prize money (0.10%)
I believe if it's so important and that conditions makes some players in danger's zone, somebody should had made their official statement on last BWF Council Meeting on 17 November 2017. And if anybody feel it's not fair, why don't you write directly to BWF Council (Executive Board & Members) : http://bwfcorporate.com/about/council/ I think BWF would be happy to hear your voice to improve the quality of badminton, tournaments and regulations. @stanleyfm @samkool Don't make a conclusion about athlete's commission based only on assumption. If you think it's wrong with athlete's commission or they couldn't speak much (have not enough power), write directly to Chair - Athletes Commission (part of BWF Council Members) The contact available in the website above. Announcement New Regulations 2018 20 October, 2017 The updates made are significant, so it is important that Members carefully read all sections of the GCR and associated Tournament Regulations and make your teams, players, and coaches and team managers aware of these. http://bwfcorporate.com/news-single/2017/10/20/new-regulations-2018/
