Major 2011-2012 a proposal

Regarding Majors i would like to make a proposal and I'd love to hear your views. I want to create a circuit from the Super 10 season 2011-2012. Ten tournaments with high standards organizations that serve to convey the image of our sport outside of our world. Tie the event to a major sponsor (through the work of Piero responsible for Marketing department) and a television network (Eurosport for example).

The ten tournaments should be these:

MONS (BELGIUM)
AMSTERDAM (NETHERLANDS)
BOLOGNA (ITALY)
MATTERSBURG (AUSTRIA)
PARIS (FRANCE)
LONDON (ENGLAND)
MADRID (SPAIN)
ATHENS (GREECE)
WASHINGTON (USA) *
BUENOS AIRES (ARGENTINA)

The inclusion of two non-European tournaments should serve to create the desire for many European players to go play in these countries. In addition to these ten major tournaments should be added the World Cup and the Champions League. The season was therefore an event for each month. Let me know your opinions.

* The location in the U.S. is only indicative.

Do you really think that a higher number of europeans is going to do a long trip to Buenos Aires or Washington, if they can play 8 of 10 tournaments in Europe?
Should those 10 tournaments be the only tournaments on the FISTF tour then?
If the answer is no!
How do you think the other tournaments should continue existing if you raise the number of high priority events from 4 to 8 in Europe?
The organization of tournaments is in some countries also a financial factor for the clubs.

You can't copy the italian system to the whole community, 10 tournaments in 1 country organized by 10 clubs is easier to handle than having 200 clubs from different countries organizing 10 tournaments.

Heinz

De Francesco wrote:Regarding Majors i would like to make a proposal and I'd love to hear your views. I want to create a circuit from the Super 10 season 2011-2012. Ten tournaments with high standards organizations that serve to convey the image of our sport outside of our world. Tie the event to a major sponsor (through the work of Piero responsible for Marketing department) and a television network (Eurosport for example).

The ten tournaments should be these:

MONS (BELGIUM)
AMSTERDAM (NETHERLANDS)
BOLOGNA (ITALY)
MATTERSBURG (AUSTRIA)
PARIS (FRANCE)
LONDON (ENGLAND)
MADRID (SPAIN)
ATHENS (GREECE)
WASHINGTON (USA) *
BUENOS AIRES (ARGENTINA)

The inclusion of two non-European tournaments should serve to create the desire for many European players to go play in these countries. In addition to these ten major tournaments should be added the World Cup and the Champions League. The season was therefore an event for each month. Let me know your opinions.

* The location in the U.S. is only indicative.

I believe extending the number of Major would be a huge mistake for many reasons.

First of all there is an historic points about the number of 4 Majors. In the past, the limit was put to 4 because FISTF wanted to make something similar to the tennis "Grand Slam". The number of 4 was perfect because besides the World Cup and the Europa Cup, it was great to let a chance to any player to take part in something big (just like any tennis player could have the chance to play the US Open, which is a bit similar because at the US Open, there are regional selections giving some wild cards to amateur players to qualify for the final table).

Well, if we extend the number to 8 or 10 tournaments, there will be much less prestige to win a Major and also it will decrease the importance of the Grand prix. I really believe having one Grand Prix per country should be the achievement to reach for FISTF but I also believe that national associations must do some efforts to deserve a "Grand Prix". That's the reason why only member nations can actually have a Grand Prix.

In Stefano's proposal, I'm a bit unhappy because I believe some tournaments shopuld in no case get the Major status. For instance, it's not acceptable for the moment that the USA host a Major for many reasons:
- they refuse to be FISTF members;
- they didn't even organise an International Open this season;
- the America Cup attracted only players from the East Coast.

About Argentina, I think it's a priority first to make sure that:
- the equipment to run a tournament there becomes better (at least astropiches or similar pitches);
- a better hall;
- a bigger base of local players;
- an historical background for the local events and possible more international appearance (I don't believe that giving the status of Major will suddenly make happen that many Europeans will travel there).

About the other tournaments in the list, I don't know but I have a problem with many "new" events:
- Madrid: not enough experience. Who would be the "professional" competition manager to run it? Can Madrid have a Major whent he Satellites in december were for the "sports part", not for the "marketing part") a disaster? (despite the absence of many players, there was no new draw and there were many groups of 2. There was only one category). Madrid should better be a Grand Prix for one or 2 years and then see if they are able to become a Major.
- Issy/Paris: looks OK for me but are they ready to move to a bigger hall if they have to expect 200 players?
- Athens: by history, the number of foreign players in greek events has been very low over the years. Probably because the events were not very attractive (it does NOT mean they are badly organized). probably something is missing in term of communication.
- London: I don't think any tournament in England is reaching the standards of organisation of any International Open in Italy or Belgium (even if I admit that this year's Open in Temploux was not very good). The 2 best events in the UK in general are the GP of Scotland (but are they ready to have 150 players?) and Cardiff at the Millenium stadium (2 years ago).

There is also a need to rethink some points in the current Majors.

For instance, the entry fee is really a joke. In Amsterdam the open players paid 10 Euros to play. What a joke! When you travel hundreds of kilometers to play 2 games, why should you pay 10 Euros? If Majors are supposed to be "professional" tournaments, why don't we expect fromt he organizers to find sponsors so that players can play for free (or let say maximum 4 Euros)? That you play 2 games in a Future or in a Major is exactly the same. You just play 2 games, referee 2 times and get back home. And at least in a Future, the organizer will most of the time try to organize a consolation tournament or let you play in 2 categories if possible, which is not possible in Majors.

Another point about the Majors is that some events, in particular Bologna and Mons, are becoming "too big". An idea for the Open categorey would be to have an exclusive category of 32 players (8 groups of 4) with the best 24 registered players (see world ranking) and 8 wild cards from the organizer. The other players would play another tournament for just the same number of points as an International Open.

Another issue about the Major is the communication. For instance in Bologna, the website is superb but communication by e-mail (in particular when it's not in italian) is terrible. Also, after the tournament, it always takes weeks before the results are available and never in the right format (at least an "acceptable format"). This is not acceptable for a Major, in particular when every year you tell the organizer he's wrong and never improves things.

Finally, in a Major, the sports management must be perfect. In Amsterdam there was a delay of 40 minutes for the first games and almost 90 minutes delay when the barrages had to start. Some categories started very late and some players had played only one game after 5 rows. This is totally unacceptable.

The last thing is that by history there could only be a Major is besides the Major, there is also a Grand Prix. This was a big issue whent he Netherlands were give the Major in Amsterdam. They also had to host a Grand Prix in another city.

Well, these are my ideas. I'm against the increase of the number of Majors. I beleive tournaments like Mons and Mattersburg are very good as Majors, Amsterdam has things to improve and Bologna is probably the best italian tournament. As for the others, I don't think people are ready to reach the "next level".

That the Majors need to be improved is probably true but I believe the existing 4 Majors didn't come by surprise. They just deserved it.

Ι like the idea with one big tournament every month in different country.
I agreed that is not possible to travel all the players to all tournaments but maybe this is advantage if we afraid for terrible number of participations. And in these big tournaments the players can select only one category (no both veterans and open for example). And probably in 2 divisions in open category.

I think that it will be better if EVERY country organise a big tournament. Malta Finland Portugal Scotland Wales Denmark Germany etc are out of list. Why? We can organise 22 tournaments plus 2 ( W.C. and E.C.). 2 PER MONTH FOR WORLD RANKING. And the rest 2 weekends per month for national tournaments.

I wrote this idea again before one year. And i hope more persons to understand in future that we must gave the same opportunities to all federations. We don't need satellites futures challengers and many international open and grand prix sometimes two and three in the same weekend.

Do you know why the greek tournaments had not foreign players? because they must use airoplane and this is more expensive. They prefer a close trip with car. Greece has the same problem (but smaller) with USA Argentina and other countries outside of Europe.

Kostas,

I think FISTF needs several categories of tournament.

1) World Cup (but not every year)
2) One Team Championship for clubs every year
3) A Top Players Series (for promotion, sponsors, television, development)
4) Majors & GP´s for everyone
5) Tournaments only for players who are not high in ranking

Not more, not less.

Just my opinion of course