Sooner or later it has to be spoken about. Are we aware that a war is going on above our heads with the powers that be. Find your way to Dancesport UK. and then Dance News Net and read. These are just my thoughts. If I am a full time Amatuer the people who invite me to their competition could be called my employers. Is it even lawfull to be told who I can and can't work for. How many competitions in Canada have been black balled by the IDSF. You'll need two hands to count on. Also they took the Professional WDC to court and lost. That cost money. You would think that they would have researched what happenned in Australia when a simular thing occured. It went to court and cost us, I think the sum quoted was $20,000. All to try to close down the ADB. Australian Dance Board who still own the rights and the name to the Australian Championships.I doubt that this little comment will be on show very long. But maybe one or two might see it and draw their own conclusion.

I think you'll find this everywhere. Some structures for dancing are needed, but not the sort of in-fighting which seems to develop. It holds back dancing instead of promoting and encouraging it.
Imagine going into a supermarket X to do your shopping and being told that you can't shop in supermarket Y. If you do, you'll be banned from shopping in X. Nobody would accept it.

It's all about the money.

They tried to put pressure on our little community championships last year with the pros threatening to pull their support if we didn't sanction under the professional banner instead of the amateur banner we've been sanctioned under from the beginning.

Seems to me they've forgotten if it weren't for the amateurs paying for the lessons there wouldn't be any professionals.

OB

They are all as bad as each other. The EADA. thats the UK controlling body wrote on the UK Dancesport site that they had no choice but to comply with the directive given by the IDSF. If they allowed their members to compete in the competitions banned by the IDSF sactions could be taken out against them, that is the society. They adviced members not to compete. It doesn't just stop with the Competitors. Judges also, if they accepted would become outcasts. As I said before nobody should be told who they can and can't work for. I doubt if it would stand up in court if somebody was to take it there.

Here is a piece from the IDSF published on Dancesport UK.
IDSF couples are strongly advised that if they compete at this competition they may lose their athletes licence and thus may be stopped competing in any country.
Couples who choose to compete at Assen may find that many and pehaps all doors will close to them.
By Order of the IDFS Presidium.
I wonder what would happen if this went to court. Some of you might remember that a few years ago the ruling body of Soccer was taken to court by a Belguim soccer playing challenging a rule which said the in a team only ( I think it was three ) could be from another country. The court ruled that this could not be so. Nowdays a team can have as many players not from that country as they like. Just look at the EPL in the UK

Actually, it's not that unusual, especially at professional levels. E.G. I believe NASCAR drivers sign contracts to drive only NASCAR sanctioned events.

American football players could not play for both the AFL & NFL until after they merged.

In hockey you played for either the NHL or the WHA but not both. In fact, in 1972 our best forward, Bobby Hull was not allowed to play against Russia in the Super-Series because he'd switched to the WHA.

Again, it's about the money. If I'm investing a ton of money developing a league (including player development) I don't want another group coming in and taking advantage of my investment and reaping the benefits possibly destroying my efforts. You end up with "us or them" sanctions.

Let's face it. There's a ton of money to be made in Ballroom these days and I'm not talking just about teaching. You've got products, endorsements, etc.

Unfortunately, those paying for this are the ones being taken advantage of.

The only solution will come when both groups merge. It's the Lincoln "A house divided against itself cannot survive" thing.

OB

Operabob. Are any you mentioned wholly amateur. My thoughts only. Is the ultimate aim of the IDSF to eventually control all dancing. Amateur Professional Argentine International Mambo Salsa Rock and Roll the whole lot. At the moment they are an Amateur organisation who are trying to a produce a Professional section within their movement. It would appear that with Essen. Essen will not pay homage to the IDSF. The IDSF will not try to be strong handed with Blackpool The International or the UK. But who knows in the future. Just imagine. Members will not dance at Blackpool by order of the Presidium. This is what is being tried with Essen. If any of the above is not so Please correct.

ser,

I'm not saying I agree with it but understand some of the motivation. There are precedents where groups actively restrict members from participating in other groups activities. Often something will appear on a group's membership application form restricting members.

In a sense, it's no difference than unions restricting members from crossing picket lines.

Another example might be signing a recording contract, having the recording company spend huge money developing and promoting the artist and later discover the artist is giving performances and recordings elsewhere for someone else's benefit.

Once it became "dancesport" dancers became commodities to those funding events. Now you have 2 groups fighting over the commodities.

The problem is dancing was a social activity and though a dancer might want to compete it started as fun. But once a dancer started competing it became someone else's "business".

There's nothing they're saying about the "fun" end. "Wanna have fun then go to a dance." However, competition at a world scale involves huge investment. "Want me (general) to invest in a competition then I (general) need guarantees. One guarantee is restricted entry because if I can drive the other guy out of business I'll make all the profit."

It's not about you. It's about who controls the money.



OB the "Cynic"

It doesn't stop with the competitors. The adjudicators, who I would say are Professionals, dare not cross that line lest they provoke the wrath of IDSF and they could be victimized. That is telling a person who they can and cannot work for.Would that stand up in law. If it does you and I can be told who you can work for. The law must remain the same in both situations..

Ah! But they're not saying you can't work.

It's a private members group saying, "If you work for the other group then we won't employ you."

But I'll agree with you it's something ultimately the lawyers and judiciary will sort out.

OB