An Olympic Strategy, for a change!

So the ISAF Annual Conference comes to a close for another year, and has the sport moved forward since Portugal 12 months ago? Hmmm...

I've spent the day on the phone talking to various attendees, mostly off the record unfortunately. There are a lot of people who feel very strongly that ISAF needs to march to a different - and rather more purposeful - beat, but few are in a position to be able to say so. Marcelien de Koning, 470 silver medallist from Qingdao and chair of the Athletes Commission, gave a very forthright interview however, and SailJuice will bring you that in the near future.

In the mean time, take a look at this strategy document put forward by Yachting Australia, and which was widely acknowledged as a good proposal. How on earth the sensible solutions being put forward in this document will ever be implemented while the highly politicised and over-democratised structure of ISAF Council is allowed to prevail, I'm not quite sure. But at least this submission from Australia points the way, for Olympic sailing anyway.

If you want to do a quick scan, I've underlined a few sections which I think are worth noting. If you've got the time, though, read it from start to finish.

Olympic Sailing Competition - Strategy

A submission from the Yachting Australia

Proposal:

ISAF develops, agrees and promotes a comprehensive vision and overarching strategy for the sport of sailing in the Olympic Games. All future decisions, including those on events and equipment, will then be made in line with this strategy.

The terms of reference and title of the existing Olympic Advisory Commission should be reviewed. The Commission will be responsible for the development the strategy for the sport of sailing in the Olympic Games in consultation with the relevant Committees, Sub Committees and Commissions. The Commission will oversee the development of sailing in the Olympic Games, monitoring and providing input to ensure that all decisions taken are in line with the agreed strategy.

The Executive Committee should reconstitute the Commission as soon as possible, with the terms of reference, associated processes and implementation schedule agreed at the ISAF Mid-Meeting in May 2009.

Current Position:
There is no overarching strategy. The current ISAF Yearbook does not list the Olympic Advisory Commission as one of the Commissions, nor are its’ members listed. Despite the importance to our sport, no single group within ISAF is dedicated solely to the development of sailing in the Olympic Games.

Reasons:

The Need for a Strategy

In order to strengthen the position of sailing in the Olympic Games it is essential that ISAF set a strategy that is transparent and widely understood. The decisions taken in November 2007 on the Olympic Events for 2012 are an obvious example that ISAF is simply not working to a clear strategy.

In September 2004, ISAF was asked to complete a questionnaire and return it the IOC Sports Department. It is based on the information provided by ISAF that the “IOC Olympic Programme Commission Report – 24 May 2005” in discussing “Increasing the Appeal of the Sport” states:

“With a view to presenting its sport in a more interesting and attractive manner, the ISAF has taken the following steps….Equipment innovation introducing faster and more spectacular boats, on-board cameras and sound and GPS responders displaying boat positions.”

This was in 2005. In November 2007, ISAF made two decisions that moved sailing in the Olympic Games in a different direction. Both the removal of the Multihull and the choice not to introduce a High Performance Dinghy for Women are examples that would be considered contrary to the direction indicated to the IOC just 2 years previously.

Our vision and strategy for the Olympic Games must be future focused. The sport is becoming more professional. More than ever, the decisions taken by ISAF are effecting the lives of our young, elite athletes. Sudden, unexpected changes in strategy can have a major impact. ISAF has a responsibility to set and maintain a clear direction. This will allow sailors, coaches and administrators to plan accordingly. Certainty is a key to our future success.

The Value of the Olympic Games to Sailing

ISAF must have in place a strategy that strengthens our value as a sport in the Olympic Games. This is a matter of sound, pragmatic business sense.

ISAF has a product, Sailing. We have one key partner, being the IOC. We promote our product to the IOC, as do other sports.

The IOC packages a number of sports together to ‘sell’ to the global market. Collectively and under the brand of the Olympic Games, the IOC generates considerable sponsorship and rights revenue. The greater the audience interest, the more valuable the rights to the various sports that the IOC is selling and the greater the revenue that can be generated. Over 50% of the IOC income is generated from broadcast rights.

We share in a portion of the revenue from these broadcast rights. In fact our sport relies on the IOC for approximately 65% of the income of ISAF. The IOC is therefore a very important partner for ISAF.

ISAF Member National Authorities (MNAs) also benefit significantly as a result of sailing being an Olympic sport. Governments, National Olympic Committees and sponsors support many MNAs because, and only because, our sport is in the Olympic Games. This support is estimated to be more than half a billion Euros every 4 years. Both ISAF and the MNAs therefore have a collective interest in ensuring the IOC is as satisfied as possible with the performance of our sport in the Olympic Games.

The IOC publishes tables that show that on the ladder of hours of broadcast from the Olympic Games, our sport sits at 26 out of 28. Set against this, the television coverage of our sport is very expensive by comparison to other sports, as are the facilities for hosting it. The IOC also notes a number of other significant facts, such as ticket revenues for our sport account for around one 1/4 of one percent of the total from the Olympic Games.

There are a number of other sports that would very much like the IOC to adopt their sport in preference to ours. Other sports lobby the IOC for inclusion and are prepared to be flexible and adapt their sports to make them more attractive to the IOC needs.

The IOC has made it clear to ISAF for a number of years that there is concern over the level of public and media interest that there is in sailing. They also express some concerns about the costs of staging the sport. Are there ways we can perhaps make sailing more attractive and less expensive?

ISAF has responded by making some changes to our sport. We run more races around shorter courses; we introduce a medal race, an effort to provide a 'final' in each event; we set out to establish a World Cup to ensure more regular exposure for our sport outside the Olympic Games. But are we doing enough quickly enough and do we have a clear plan to further strengthen our position?

Strengthening our sport in the Olympic Games not only helps to protect our current position, but provides the platform to improve that position. A higher profile for sailing means a stronger argument to the IOC for a greater share of the marketing revenues and better support for MNAs from their funding partners. This in turn means more money to invest in the development of sailing at all levels.

The Olympic Games is the major part of the business of ISAF and its MNAs. The implications of not taking steps to secure this part of our business are enormous. The future of sailing in the Olympics is far too important to all of us to be left to chance.

Establishing a Strategy

This paper does not attempt to set out the strategy but some of the issues that must be considered include:

• What the environment will look like in the short to medium term and how can we align with it?
• What will future generations be looking for, be they participants or spectators, and what drivers will capture them?
• How will people consume reports, results and information from events?
• ISAF established itself as a leader in the early use of internet technology. Is there an opportunity to do the same with on-line coverage?
• What will our business model look like?
• What is the vision for sailing in the Olympic Games?
• Are we leading, are we following or are we trying to do both?
• What types of sailing should we be catering for?
• Should the events be the same for both genders?
• Do we have a focus on youth participation or are we trying to cater for a range of ages?
• What are the limiting factors?
• If sailing was more popular as an Olympic sport, would we still be under pressure to reduce the number of athletes and the number of medals, or would we have a case for greater participation?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of sailing now and what are the opportunities and threats for our sport in the future.
• How can we differentiate ourselves from other sports to add value in the Olympic mix?
• What are the implications on other parts of our sport to changes at the Olympic Games?
• What alignment should there be with other events, such as the ISAF World Cup and ISAF Sailing World Championship?
• How can we best use our participation in the Olympic Games to attract more people and countries to our sport?
• What links should there be between our strategy for growing sailing, our strategy for youth development and events, and our strategy for the Olympic Games?
• How can we better present our sport and our athletes to both the live and remote audience, reflecting all that we have to offer in an attractive and positive way?
• How can developing technologies help us?

Once these and other questions have been addressed, we can then build strategies and outcomes to help strengthen our position as a sport in the Olympic Games.

The Decision Making Process

Various Committees, Sub Committees, Commissions and Working Parties currently provide input to a range of decisions about the Olympic Games. However there is no single group within ISAF responsible for the planning and coordination of sailing on the Olympic Games. As a result of the lack of coordination, a number of things occur:

Poor setting of priorities - There is a focus on some issues and an almost complete disregard for others. This is mainly due to the interests of those within the ISAF family. Events, Equipment and Format tend to dominate because we are all sailors and these are things we understand. Set against this our focus on TV, media, marketing and promotion is limited and yet this is what we are being asked by the IOC to address. Our expertise in these areas is limited.

Focus on Processes not Outcomes – Our focus and time is on the processes and not the outcomes. The lack of strategy means that the outcomes are not clearly defined and understood. It is too easy for our Committees to become focused on the process, particularly when so much of what we do and the decisions we make are driven by the ISAF Regulations. The Regulations become an outcome of themselves.

Decisions are not effectively implemented and promoted – Good decisions are often poorly executed. As one example, when the Medal Race was introduced, there was a lack of detail as to how it should be run at the major Olympic Class Regattas. Each did it slightly differently. This was confusing and unfair. Also we have failed to promote the advantages of the Medal Race to the media. No decision is good if it is poorly executed, nor can the benefits be properly assessed.

Lack of consideration of the impact of decisions – The decisions that we make about the Olympic Games have impacts on other events and areas within our sport, yet there is very little consideration of these impacts when decisions are made. What, for example, will be the wider implications of the decision not to include the multihull at the 2012 Olympic Games? Conversely, we need to ensure that the decisions we make in other areas are consistent and not in conflict with our strategy for the Olympic Games.

No analysis of decisions made – Research and feedback systems should be in place to allow a proper analysis of the impacts of the decisions that we make. This should be considered as part of the decision making process. Instead it is an afterthought, undertaken in a spasmodic and piecemeal way.

The establishment of a strategy and reconstituting of the Commission is seen as a way of addressing these issues.

The role of the Commission

The strategy, once established, must be actively implemented and reviewed. The role of the Commission would be to both develop the strategy in consultation with the Committees and Commissions within ISAF and to then ensure that all decisions are made with reference to the strategy once agreed.

Importantly, all Committees, Commissions and the Council would be involved in establishing and agreeing the strategy and for any subsequent review. With all parts of the organisation working to a common strategy and only making decisions in line with it, there would be more consistency in the outcomes.

QUESTION: What do you make of the Yachting Australia submission? Does Olympic sailing need a strategy, or is it doing OK anyway?

Comments

[opinionated]

As has been evident in the past year, people right across the sailing spectrum have widely different ideas about what is best for the sport at Olympic level, but some people are clearly more vocal and vociferous about the decision making process than others.

I think the danger in this proposal is that it has been presented as a balanced and logical step to remove this division, when in fact, from much of the statements used, it seems to have been created specifically to meet the needs of dissatisfied and disenfranchised cat and skiff sailors.

I hope it is open to the arguments and proposals of all classes and other stakeholders and not just meeting the needs of its own agenda.

[Toby]

Well said.

The ISAF need to understand/agree with the IOC what the purpose of the Games is. In other words it needs to put the following statemements in a priority order:

Classes should be selected to:.
1. Maximise TV exposure/revenue
2. Represent/reflect global participation
3. Encourage newcomers into the sport
4. Test skill levels to the full
5. Represent a broad range of disciplines
6. Showcase modern technology
7. Conform with ploitical correctness
8. Reward the best sailor

Until the ISAF decides how much weight to give each of these factors, there is no way a systematic, consistent approach to selecting classes can happen and the farce of the last 12 months (12 years?) will continue.

[MG]

Andy,

While the Aussie proposal is great and development friendly you should know - or you don't know since the voting was by secret ballot - that Australia was one of the nations that voted to keep the 470 along with their antipodean neighbours the Kiwis.

For the record the Scandinavian countries (plus Estonia) which is Group G (of nations) in the ISAF Council voted for the 29er with their 2 votes.

Maybe you could have your readers find out what their nation's representatives voted for and make them stand up for what they voted for? To me the Aussie submission is just political posturing as they say one thing and act the opposite.

Yes I am calling them hypocrites!

M

[JimC]

MB: I'm curious: what in the Australian Strategy proposal can be construed as pro or anti any particular class, and why do you think voting for the 470 (assuming they did) was in anyway incompatible with wanting a general stratgy or hypocritical?

[Andy Rice]

Thanks for some insightful comments from SailJuice readers. 'Opinionated' had a concern about bias in the Yachting Australia document which I couldn't really see (and it appears nor can JimC). I think it was as balanced a document as you could hope to find from a national sailing authority, although there's another side to this which we'll come on to shortly.

As for Toby's suggestion that ISAF start to put a priority on the various criteria that an Olympic boat is expected to fulfil - I couldn't agree more! If there was a scoring system that measured each of the incumbent boats against the criteria laid down by the IOC, you'd soon start to see which classes had something to contribute and which were deadwood.

Now to MG and his allegations (a word we have to use seeing as the voting system took place under a secret ballot - as MG rightly points out), you are not the first to have told me that the Australians voted 470, and nor does it come as any great surprise to hear that they did. Having won men's and women's gold medals in the 470 at Qingdao, not to mention Sydney eight years ago, you can see why they want to protect their investment in their wonder coach Victor Kovalenko and his ability to conjure 470 medals almost at will.

Does that make it right? Absolutely not. It's for reasons like these that the decision making powers should be taken away from ISAF Council and placed in charge of a body which places the health of the Olympic Regatta above all selfish national priorities. Ironically something not dissimilar to the very Olympic Commission which Yachting Australia advocates in its own submission.

MG, if you want to contact me directly, please do so via my 'Contact' button at the top of the page. I'd like to learn more - strictly off the record - about what else you know.