Discussion: Reading an open letter to IOF...

Saying something about WOC future is very doubtful but if IOF made mistakes in the past, I think this proposal is the best we can get for world orienteering.
http://news.worldofo.com/2015/07/09/open-letter-sp...


Yes it is radical proposal but if we want to bring orienteering outside the EU then i suppose we don't have much other choices as we already lost one chance in the past when IOF blocked idea from PWT.


A few arguments for splitting WOC:

1. There will be always risks when someone want to introduce new model and there are always risks to find another EU WOC host. What is bigger risk in the next 5 years? In my opinion the risk to find the suitable WOC host is each year bigger and bigger.

2. Regional champs and WC. My question is, do we really need EOC, NAOC,... with so open eligibility rules? Today EOC count also for WC and it is strange that on start list there are also runners from outside EU and that European runners can win NAOC. We all know that mixing different competitions are not good for media. If Orienteering as a sport is not economical strong enough to host regional championships and WC races then I would prefer to cancel regional champs and go with the WC -> world tour series. Races for the best teams (able to finance the travel,....) and for a few other individuals.

3. If future forest WOC organizers are afraid to lose city support because of a sprint event then there is always a chance to host a race or two within a world tour series a week before.

4. Let's say that Singapore is ready to host a Sprint WOC. Do you really think that people want to know who is the king of the forest?

5. I think the major risk for IOF will be to find a sprint WOC host from non-EU. If forest WOC is EU business, than IOF must find a way that Sprint WOC will become a non-EU business. In case there are no real interest then let's face it that orienteering is and will be only EU sport, forest and sprint. Hosting a forest WOC in Sweden, next year Sprint WOC in Switzerland, next year WOC in Switzerland and next year Sprint WOC in Sweden would be a joke.

Let's support IOF one more time.

I find some or most of the arguments in that open letter a bit strange or not that convincing. Like sprint events being complicated to organize, more difficult than forest. And some previous WOC sprints with protest and all. Yes, that's true, it is complicated. Everyone knows that. As far as I can see it is easier to organize just sprint or forest than both sprint and forest. And would previous complaints and protests possibly indicate there had not been enough focus on making fair sprint race for having to focus also on piles of forest races? Letter writes seems to believe IOF and others does not know how complicated it id and IOF trying to push sprint WOCs getting organized by less experienced O organizers.

Split woc being too short for spectators is strange from my perspective. As a spectator race runner I would much rather run quality races before, during and after the woc with organizers actually focusing on getting good spectator races organized. Than something poor quality races for organizers having to focus on getting those actual WOC races done right. Heck, quality 5-day week with just one single WOC race would be just fine and far better than 6 WOC races with poor quality spectator races.

Like mentioned in the letter, sprint is mostly an elite discipline and there is usually forest near the sprint area, so some or all spectator races could be forest events even in sprint woc. For example at NY sprint WOC would you hate to have to run some spectator races at Harriman before or after the actual WOC?

Too short for media? Do they know that or just are they just guessing? Would spectator races before the WOC help here, build up attention there is something going on?

Fore sure there is respectable names there so maybe they know better, the letter and arguments in it just are not that convincing really. But that's just me, they should know better.

I agree with Jagge. The logic in the letter is dubious. Basically it seems to me to be an an argument for a return to biennual forest WOCs with forest World Cups in the off years. Was sprint a passing fad?

I think they mean biennial.

World Games in Colombia 2013 have already been some kind of a Sprint WOC where TG was absent so the sentence: "But imagine if Thierry Georgiou says no to a sprint-WOC" is not put on the right place. Budget, technical help and other issues can be a good basis for a discussion.

If biennial forest WOC is not enough for the best experienced athletes then it is clear that we need a strong World cup series which will cost less for organizers than current WOC.

One would think the key is making WOC profitable for organizers. There would be no shortage of organizer candidates if organizer can make money with it, right?

One income is spectator races. More spectator races compared to WOC races might help. Splitting WOC might help here, not so many expensive WOC races compared to more profitable spectator races.

Also "selling" WOC together with more profitable IOF event like WMOC might help. So If you organize WOC you'd get to organize WMOC too (first? and with 21 classes for those preparing for coming WOC? - event with no TV or any other money wasting requirements) to balance your economy, making the whole package more profitable.

That's happening (de facto) now - both Estonia 2017 and Latvia 2018 are being cross-subsidised by WMOCs in the year before/after.

What's the funding model for orienteering at the World Games? Does the organising federation have to pay the IOF a sanctioning fee?

IOF is not the governing body for the World games. There are world games rules and contracts for each games between host city, IWGA and IOF about who finance the games, what are IF's commitments and how host city and IWGA share any profit from commercial activities of the games. Not sure but from what I read in the rules I understood that host city must finance the sport infrastructure (map, equipment, legal, arena, accomodation and TV. IOF tasks are probably related only to technical staff and obligation to pay their work and to prepare eligibility/selection rules for athletes. Federations probably pay only travel for their athletes.
https://www.theworldgames.org/the-iwga/governing-d...

Regarding how WG funding model works from the IOF perspective. My understanding. The basis for a discussion or for a better explanation can be used an income and expenditure list as it was presented at GA 2012. In GA minutes, page 22

Income 2011/14 = 0k+16k+8k+0k
Expenditure 2011/14 = 17.5k+10k+60k+2k

The mayor difference I see with the possible Sprint WOC model is that organizer would be obligated to cover IOF sanctioning fee. IOF probably has produced a similar contract for media and TV rights as it is between the host city and IWGA at the world games. How successful is IWGA at selling the games to TVs and sponsors would be good to know. I don't know/read if there is an interes to follow the IOC distribution model for the future WGs.

One important difference is probably also when financial garancies, government and city support enter and become part of organizer's budget.

Also it would be fair from the writers of the letter or IOF itself to produce a media report, so we can discuss based on facts. Media report and commercialization of previous WOCs, #viewers and income from TV rights and Live stream is unknown. All we know is that IOF signed a few contracts with some providers. Costs and income report should be part of this discussion, so representatives could get a full knowledge before asking them to vote.

I didn't find any facts to better understand this. I hope the writers can provide facts what media thinks about sprint WOC and how split WOC could affect media and broadcasters' interest for forest WOC.

"... it’s also recognized within media and commercial partners. It is the only week during the year, when the international media knows what to expect from an orienteering event."