Olympics are supposed to be a joy to watch for everyone. But I cannot remember how many career-ending moments I have witnessed in the Olympics, especially for Women's Singles. Players Committment Regulations have got to change. Top fifteen singles players and top ten doubles pairs in the World Ranking will be required to play in all 4 Super 1000, all 6 Super 750, and 2 out of 9 Super 500 tournaments occurring in the full calendar year, making it a total of 12 mandatory tournaments. A fine of US$5000 per event will be imposed upon players/pairs who fail to play. Exemption from penalty will be considered by BWF on receipt of a valid medical certificate or strong evidence that prove players unfit to participate. However, suspended or retired are not subject to these regulations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BWF_World_Tour#:~:text=Level 5-,Player commitment regulations,total of 12 mandatory tournaments.
I completely agree with you! The Olympics are meant to be a celebration of sports and athleticism, but it's heartbreaking to see athletes suffer career-ending injuries. The current Players Commitment Regulations do seem quite demanding, with top players required to participate in a minimum of 12 tournaments per year. The penalty for non-participation is also quite steep, with a fine of $5000 per event. While I understand the need for a certain level of commitment from top players, perhaps there's a need to re-evaluate these regulations to prioritize athlete welfare and safety. After all, the well-being of the athletes should be the top priority
I do agree with the point you're trying to make, but let's be real if it didn't take a lot of work to reach the olympics than every other athlete would want to participate in the olympics.
Let's also tell them to not train so hard all day, every day. All those 2v1 or 3v1 drills. Those are unfair and puts extra strain on the players. Having to wake up at 5am to run day after day, that must've drained all their energy and adding to the fatigue.
I disagree with the title. Compared to tennis, there are too few tournaments. The problem is the mandatory tournaments, the mandatory should be like only 4-5 tournaments
This is the only way to train the body and mind, put it under stress so the brain sends signals to the body and tell it to become better. I know this kind of scenarios most likely wouldn't happen in the day to day life, but that's the point of training everyday, so the brain will remind the body to keep improving. You need hard times to make great people.
"Too few" I think it's the wrong approach, "less"? Maybe, too few no haha. You make a good point with the mandatory tag coming to each tournament, it can be draining esspecially when you're not having the best day in your life and have a mandatory *anything really* later in the day
I was being sarcastic. Clearly OP believes that the answer to the recent injuries is to limit tournaments altogether. But he's ignoring the fact that in the absence of tournaments, players will still train. I would even argue that players spend more than 50% of their time training. So no you're still going to get injuries whether or not BWF limit tournaments.
We can also look at this discussion from another side. It was the players who asked for more tournaments and higher prize money in recent years. The sponsors of these higher-paying tournaments are of course interested in presenting the best players. BTW- The players also played in private badminton leagues such as the Premier Badminton League in India. So the burden can't be that big?! ;-) This PBL was stopped due to Covid but there are plans to let it take place again. Let's see how many players don't miss out on this source of income... And I would like to point out that only a few players have problems meeting the tournament participation requirements. 75% of all players are already eliminated from the tournament on Thursday and therefore have enough time to regenerate until the next tournament. The only problem, in my opinion, is the amount of traveling between tournaments, which can put a mental strain on the players. But in all discussions it is important to control the training load for the players. For example, there are also tennis players in the top 10 who have already played 12 tournaments this year - and it's only August.
How about this? Instead of "all 4 Super 1000, all 6 Super 750," how about "3 Super 1000, and 5 Super 750"?
To me i dont think thats too many tournaments. What i think is there are too many tournaments that forced participation. The 12 tournaments (and for top 15 players, this simply means 2 bwf level 1 events and ssf, meaning a 15 tournaments), most tournaments are held in series of 3, giving the number not that hard to reach but the requirements hard to meet. Well considering the need for participating in all the 750 and above tournaments, basically the difficulties of winning the 750 and Olympics isn't too much differences, and seriously that makes things boring in my opinion. The same players again and again, this sports will not grow. The entry for new players at not so strong country is just too hard. Perhaps CM is the only exception so far that i can recall I would suggest 12 tournaments for top 15 players, but they can choose whatever tournaments they participate. This give more saving on cost for independent players, and more planning for raking up points.
If you need to force the world's top elite professional players to play in the world's most prestigious tournaments, there is something wrong with the tournaments, not the players. Players want to play tournaments. It is the whole point of their career. It is also their livelihood. Can you imagine having to force top 10 players to play Wimbledon?
I remember years and years ago, Andre Agassi, being one of the top players in the world, deliberately chose not to play Wimbledon. No injury issues. The amount of press coverage he got (and criticism) from British media was huge. To be honest, players don’t need to have any requirements for playing a fixed number of tournaments at all. The incentive is the ranking points and the prize money. Historically, there used to be a time when countries would prioritise Thomas and Uber Cups (May)and would not send all players to the All England (March). There were other similar occasions happening up to the mid late 1990’s. That’s why BWF put this rule of minimum tournaments attendance to require the top players to attend and generate the publicity. However, now we have a yearly World Championship / Olympic Games which players really need to chase points to there. If top players play fewer tournaments, then we get more players getting exposure and sharing the prizes. Isn’t that exactly what is happening with the Korean/Japan/Taipei/Hong Kong/China/Macau occurring right now? Player commitment rules should be reduced and eventually phased out.
agassi did not like the all white dress code. exactly. ...yet those have $0.00 prize money. if it makes sense, bwf will not do it.
