Pat,
I split this so it doesn't become a treatise, my apologies to you and all for any eyes falling out...
The ITSF is supposed to govern the sport of table soccer, on the international level. They should represent the interest of the sport, as a whole, on the international level. The names of the players will change over time, the skills of the players will change, but the interest of the sport is what the ITSF is about. And yes, part of the interests of the sport is the rights of the players, and the protection of those rights.
"Supposed to govern?" AT THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL. ONLY. So that means that North American or European or Asian or African associations and groups should retain their autonomy, like a friendly commonwealth, right? No threat carried out to remove sanctioning because some "silly" national group didn't wish to go with a new ITSF ball, right? Isn't it little more than one superleague trying to enforce table and equipment definitions on its manufacturers, in effect changing and enforcing their tables beyond the scope of international play? I would say that that's where the anger and resentment stems from.
And for the record, I don’t need to ASK anyone about the best players in the world, who they are, or where they live. Like you, I have played with and against them, many times.
That's a little confusing, because I would have thought you and the ITSF would constantly keep discussing international play and keep getting the opinions of the world's top players, because conditions and their tournament and venues experiences change continuously. I bring this up because I believe some have strong, even extremely heated opinions on how the ITSF is running the Worlds Cup/Championships/Whatever. That's what I meant. I understand you and the ITSF have to get along with its own agenda and its own plans, but I'm talking about the perception that many seemingly arbitrary decisions just come from one iron-fisted center, filtering down to national play, which it should never have done.
The ITSF is not positioning itself to be a global professional league, like the ATP or Pro Golf or bowling, but it also doesn't mirror a more international Olympic style body, like those for track and field, where they regulate but do not mandate ancillaries like track shoes, or like those for skiing, where they have standards for the skis, but do not mandate specific brands. I would say many in North America, the home of dominant world-class foosball, can't really place this vision of Farid's with any of the standard structures that have worked for years, decades even. At least until the ITSF completely rids itself of all connections with manufacturers, of any sponsorship, and a perceived "old boys club" of table makers.
If you believe that the ITSF has to continue to be bankrolled by sanctioned manufacturers, that it cannot grow out of membership fees by its member nations/regions, which themselves should form as independent associations of players, not manufacturer's leagues, then we will forever disagree on that. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of "international" sports and games groups over the decades have grown successfully independent of the manufacturers. No add-on agenda of promoting for example, Bonzini in Asia, instead of just international play. Sound like international bridge building to you, instead of commercial promotion?
16 Replies
11140 Views