EFAF Statement to the IFAF Delegates of the IFAF Congress at Austin

Frankfurt July 3, 2012

To
Delegates of IFAF member federations


Dear friends in sport.
Dear delegates of the IFAF World Congress Austin 2012,

On behalf of the EFAF Board of Directors we ask you to not approve the proposal to remove the current status of the continental federations.
The acceptance of this proposal will severely and possibly irreparably harm future development of American Football within Europe and subsequently globally. There are no obvious benefits to be had by replacing locally developed and independent continental federations with a centralized structure as proposed.

Should the proposal be approved, this could possibly lead to a split in the global American football community and subsequently the loss of any Olympic recognition for the near future.

EFAF has been a founding member of IFAF; it was the European countries and Japan in a joint initiative that led to the formation of IFAF. Since the establishment of IFAF, EFAF has always been a loyal and integral part of IFAF. Without EFAF and its long-term experience in sports administration on an international level IFAF and its initiatives to promote American Football all around the globe would not have been as successful.

EFAF (and its European predecessors) have been organizing international games and tournaments in Europe for more than 30 years. Annually 50+ clubs take part in EFAF competitions, national teams from up to 20 nations compete in international games for European championships on senior or junior age level, both in tackle and flag football. EFAF generates its annual budget almost exclusively on its own. It does not have to be subsidized from external, non-European sources, and membership fees only account for around 6 percent of the total budget. This means that all EFAF member federations altogether pay EUR 12,000 annually to generate a budget of EUR 200,000, which is used to grow and develop American Football in 30 countries. EFAF has 24 full members and six organizations currently associated.

EFAF could certainly be the blueprint for other continental federations to follow and demonstrate the guiding principles that have created success for American Fooball in Europe while respecting their independence. Of course Europe is different from other continents: In Asia any international efforts are hindered by much bigger distances, which is also true for Oceania. In North America the dominating leagues from professional ranks and within the educational system may indeed lead to the conclusion, a continental federation might be obsolete as far as governing and administering club games is concerned. However, a true challenge the global American football community faces, lies ahead in Africa and South America. Recent IFAF initiatives have sparked interest in American football there, and EFAF does and would love to continue to share its experience with continental federations there to help them build up a system of their own.

However, it is the proposal of the IFAF board to not only exclude continental federations from IFAF membership, but also to prevent national federations from being part of continental federations. Since EFAF until now is the only continental federation that maintains a thriving system of continental competitions and tournaments in American Football this proposal seems to be exclusively targeted at EFAF. By excluding EFAF from IFAF membership, obviously IFAF shall be put in a position to take over EFAF's running and time-proven competitions and tournaments.

In business terms this move is nothing more and nothing less than a hostile takeover of a member federation with subsequent elimination of a previously independent and successful organization.

The proposal is simply a tool to annex EFAF and its affiliates. Everything that was built up in Europe in 30 years shall be transferred into the hands of the IFAF. Such a project is immoral, unfair and unjust. EFAF has been and aims to remain a loyal member of IFAF.

It is our understanding that no organization has the right, not even by a majority vote, to remove a member for no reason. And even if a reason to exclude would exist, any move to execute the federation after exclusion would remain ruthless behaviour. EFAF has - other than by its achievements - raised no reason to be treated this way by the IFAF Executive.

It is obvious the IFAF Executive desires to establish a centralized structure in which decisions are strictly made from top to bottom. This might seem to be an efficient structure, streamlining processes by transferring full executive powers to a distant headquarters. However even the most successful and biggest business corporations of our age have already turned their back towards such models and prefer more modern decision making structures. And above all IFAF is a joint federation of independent, equal and voluntary members, not a business corporation.
This time the move is targeted at EFAF. The next step could easily be to dissolve national federations, as in such a top-down approach this may also be deemed a necessity for rationalization.

Without doubt, the most successful global single-sports federation, soccer's FIFA, is prospering not despite but because of strong continental federations. On club team level all renowned soccer competitions nearly exclusively are administered by continental federations and the continental soccer championships for national teams - at least in Europe, South America, Africa and Asia - do not fall very short in regard of public, media and corporate interest compared to FIFA's own flagship World Cup tournament.

Virtually no Olympic summer sports federation builds on a centralized structure without continental federations. Yes, the International Federation of Equestrian Sports features such a structure. But whose example should we follow? That of soccer, a team sports constantly renewing its tradition, attracting young and old in virtually every country of the world? Or that of a rather old-fashioned „sports“, limited to the participation of a wealthy minority with a world governing body in which the presidency is regularly awarded to royal princesses?

How the complex processes administering the sport in Europe shall be handled under the proposal is an open question. A Continental Committee whose seven members would not be eligible to sign binding contracts surely will not be able to replace EFAF's current structure of around 50 volunteers sharing all the duties.

The proposal is an expression of an undemocratic spirit and of ignorance of the non-profit global sports system.

And this proposed new structure will further intensify the recent tendency of cost increases for IFAF members:

 IFAF membership fee already was raised from EUR 100 to EUR 1,000 in 2011.
 While participation in World Cups 1999 and 2007 was free or charge except for a minimal enrolment fee, World Cup 2011 participating nations were liable for 13,000 EUR each.
 For the Junior World Championships the fee almost tripled from $ 10,000 in 2009 to EUR 25,000 in 2012.
 For the Flag World Cup, participants have to cover all costs of the event completely by themselves.
 Participants of Team World program have to pay up to 1.200 USD plus airfare.

IFAF tournaments have deteriorated into all-inclusive package sports trips where participants have to bear all cost and the local organizers are hardly contributing any significant amounts in financing or efforts to reduce the cost.

For many and especially the smaller nations in Europe , IFAF membership currently does not bring any benefits - but it bears high costs of membership fees and travel expenses to the IFAF General Assemblies overseas (2006 USA, 2007 Japan, 2009 USA, 2010 Australia, 2012 USA). Consequently there is a notion in these nations, whether an IFAF membership makes any sense when there is no participation of athletes from the country in any IFAF competition. The larger nations with regular participation in the various world championships notice a tendency towards inflation in the number of these competitions and especially the explosion in the costs of participating.

If EFAF will be excluded from IFAF membership by a majority vote of the IFAF Congress, activities in Europe will not be suspended. EFAF will continue to advertise and conduct its competitions for all clubs and member federations. These activities then might be considered contrary to the new IFAF statutes. IFAF Executive will then have to decide whether member associations of both IFAF and EFAF will be penalized under the new IFAF statutes.

If this will be the policy of the IFAF Executive Committee, this will severely endanger the unity of the global American football community. National federations possibly excluded from IFAF certainly will try not to cease their international or intercontinental activities. The possible scenarios in such a case all have a tendency not to speed up the recognition process by the IOC nor will they be helpful for IFAF within SportAccord.

This is a situation the EFAF board firmly wants to avoid. But we have to be true and honest towards every delegate of the IFAF World Congress:

Exclusion of the EFAF by the IFAF will split up the global American football movement. Together we have achieved a lot since 1998 - but most of this will be lost if the IFAF World Congress decides that way.
There is a need for reforms for IFAF. But these should aim to strengthen IFAF and not to weaken IFAF members and consequently IFAF itself.

Yours in Sport!

EFAF Board of Directors