Is "World Archery" a misleading name?

chrisgas

Supporter
Supporter
Just a 4am ramble but there seems to be a lack of debate recently. So I´m just throwing this into the ring.

I often think that World archery should be renamed Olympic Archery, purely as their main aim is to promote a "few" styles of archery. And also to standardise rules and regulations, which obviously is a good thing.
But it isn't promoting all forms of archery, monies that they garnish through the likes of AGB and RFETA here in Spain, do not find their way into other forms, yet they have "here in Spain" a monopoly on "all monies" taken through licences.

If they are truly "World" then why not promote an archery "World Games" and encompass "all" forms of archery that are truly diverse, rather than going cap in hand to promote just one discipline of archery?
 

Shirt

Well-known member
That's a Spain thing.
In the UK, AGB (the WA affiliate) promotes target for both recurve and compound, field, 3D and even clout. Their focus is weighted towards the target recurve side, as you'd expect given that's what their funding is aligned to, but they do promote all disciplines.

There is a small crowd who complain that their primary focus isn't given enough focus, or that the 'game' that WA play isn't what they want (e.g. emphasis on competition rather than 'fun' or 'socialising') - that's fine, there are other organisations that may be more aligned. But AGB have no choice but to support the Olympic recurve if they want to maintain their funding levels, which pays for all the back office functions the other disciplines rely on.
As an analogy, I work in Finance. I get paid a given amount for the work I do because my employer sees me as competent at it.
If I said I want to work as a mechanical engineer, I would rightfully expect to be paid less as I'm not doing the work that my employer needs me to, and even if they did need engineers I would still be less skilled than someone that has spent the last ten years of their life as an engineer.
 

little-else

Supporter
Supporter
AIUK Saviour
It is not unique to archery, the governing bodies for many sports in reality take the money from all and sundry and only spend it on olympic type practices. The real differnce is for most of the others you dont have to affiliate to the governing body to get on with your own thing.
Get into university and you cant refuse to join (or fund) the Students Union. Your SU generally affiliates to the NUS. Your interest is greatly diluted by both structures if you only have a single interest but in theory there as benefits and strength of unity. The problem is that the administration of such bodies is often poorly done, remote and the people elected to lead are motivated by political ambitions rather than a real interest in the welfare of all who pay their salaries/elect them

i think that society in developed countries has changed so much over the last 50 years that such detachment is seen almost everywhere and few people really challenge how things are done and when they do they are defeated by obstacles to change. I cant figure out how the mebership of the GNAS voted to change its management structure to put all of the power into the hands of people who arent freely elected but that is what happened and I would suggest it saves peopel having to think about things and act for themselves.
If peopel were that bothered the proposals would have been so heavily defeated at the ballot those pushing them would have had to go
 

bimble

Well-known member
Supporter
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
AIUK Saviour
Is your complaint about World Archery (who do promote non-Olympic archery and don't (I think) get any funds from individual people members), or RFETA who might very well have their own policies on what they consider to be important to promote in Spanish archery?
 

Geophys2

Active member
AIUK Saviour
I've shot in a number of championship WA 3D and Field events in different countries around the world. Yes, as would be expected, they do have an emphasis on the main style that is in the Olympics, as I suspect that's where the money is, but they do promote other styles of archery and at Championship level.
 

dvd8n

Supporter
Supporter
AIUK Saviour
Well, if you Google "World Archery" the result that you get says "The official website of World Archery, the international federation for the Olympic sport of archery."

And their about page says "Olympic" five times.

So they're not hiding their Olympic bias.

But, as others have alluded to, the Olympics is the most visible competition, so that's where the money is, so that's where the focus is, right or wrong. Maybe they should be trying harder to get more disciplines into the Olympics?
 
Last edited:

dvd8n

Supporter
Supporter
AIUK Saviour
"World Archery" being so much better than "Fédération Internationale de Tir à l'Arc". $0.02.
I like the old names. I always thing that these rebranding exercises are down to seeing a problem then fixing the wrong thing.
 

chrisgas

Supporter
Supporter
Is your complaint about World Archery (who do promote non-Olympic archery and don't (I think) get any funds from individual people members), or RFETA who might very well have their own policies on what they consider to be important to promote in Spanish archery?
I believe the IOC is by far the biggest contributor of income for the WA, on looking at their funding in 2016 they received over 15 million from the IOC and nearly 2 million in 2017. Without this, there seems to be no way their income would cover the funding to others that they make.
Looking at their audit figures it looks as if they would be not much better off financially than AGB. So on that alone, the WA is really not in a position to do much other than look after and promote Olympic archery. Their other income, commercial 1.5 million and 600k others, in 2017 ended the year with a 2 million loss after expenses and funding etc.
So logically maybe "Olympic Archery" is a better fit than "World". I am not complaining about WA as an organisation but I would like to hope that if they use the word "World" as a beacon to show their standing, they would act as a catalyst to bring the archery "world" together.
I know this sounds naive but I just believe that archery encompasses much more than what the WA supports.
As for RFETA they have a monopoly on all income from owning a bow. The 50 euro licence fee is payable on ownership of a bow. It is illegal to shoot anywhere in Spain unless the land or building has a shooting licence and you have a club membership. The only way around this is to apply for a sports licence (hunting), which lets face it the average person is not going to do. A visiting tourist also needs such a licence (technically).
 

bimble

Well-known member
Supporter
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
AIUK Saviour
Well, considering that WA have just introduced world barebow target records and recognised it as a target bowstyle, been increasing their 3D & field sides, and have been treating compound & recurve as fairly equal bowstyles (world cups, world champs), if they receive most of their money from the IOC, they're not spending most of it on Olympic recurve.

They encompass indoor, outdoor, field, 3D, clout, flight, and nominally ski/run-archery, and bowstyles are recurve, compound, barebow, longbow*, instinctive*... what is it you think they're missing??

* - only at 3D at international events
 

chrisgas

Supporter
Supporter
Well, considering that WA have just introduced world barebow target records and recognised it as a target bowstyle, been increasing their 3D & field sides, and have been treating compound & recurve as fairly equal bowstyles (world cups, world champs), if they receive most of their money from the IOC, they're not spending most of it on Olympic recurve.

They encompass indoor, outdoor, field, 3D, clout, flight, and nominally ski/run-archery, and bowstyles are recurve, compound, barebow, longbow*, instinctive*... what is it you think they're missing??

* - only at 3D at international events
Horsebow (on horseback), Canoe etc. But mainly bringing all the above styles and techniques along with Turkish, Mongolian, Japanese, Chinese, etc. and their traditional archery and equipment etc. and "their competitions" into an Archery Games, as a spectacle of a diverse world sport. Perhaps?
 

bimble

Well-known member
Supporter
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
AIUK Saviour
which would fit where in the schedule?? And what location? There's already a struggle to fit in locations big enough for World Cups and they don't require areas for horses, lakes for canoes, all the various other facilities that is required for field, indoor, clout, flight... maybe the Easton Centre in Yankton, but I can't think of anywhere else off the top of my head...
 

chrisgas

Supporter
Supporter
which would fit where in the schedule?? And what location? There's already a struggle to fit in locations big enough for World Cups and they don't require areas for horses, lakes for canoes, all the various other facilities that is required for field, indoor, clout, flight... maybe the Easton Centre in Yankton, but I can't think of anywhere else off the top of my head...
Neither can I, but in principle?
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 7654

Guest
That's a Spain thing.
In the UK, AGB (the WA affiliate) promotes target for both recurve and compound, field, 3D and even clout. Their focus is weighted towards the target recurve side, as you'd expect given that's what their funding is aligned to, but they do promote all disciplines.

There is a small crowd who complain that their primary focus isn't given enough focus, or that the 'game' that WA play isn't what they want (e.g. emphasis on competition rather than 'fun' or 'socialising') - that's fine, there are other organisations that may be more aligned. But AGB have no choice but to support the Olympic recurve if they want to maintain their funding levels, which pays for all the back office functions the other disciplines rely on.
As an analogy, I work in Finance. I get paid a given amount for the work I do because my employer sees me as competent at it.
If I said I want to work as a mechanical engineer, I would rightfully expect to be paid less as I'm not doing the work that my employer needs me to, and even if they did need engineers I would still be less skilled than someone that has spent the last ten years of their life as an engineer.
AGB hardly represents field & 3D, their bow classifications if flight don't have any classes for "primitive" styles of all wood bows other than ELB.
They are very much focused on Olympic target archery.
Ah and you said the "F" word..... It's supposed to be about archery not funding.
It's all a big money-go-round
Del
 

Eugen

Member
Just a 4am ramble but there seems to be a lack of debate recently. So I´m just throwing this into the ring.

I often think that World archery should be renamed Olympic Archery, purely as their main aim is to promote a "few" styles of archery. And also to standardise rules and regulations, which obviously is a good thing.
But it isn't promoting all forms of archery, monies that they garnish through the likes of AGB and RFETA here in Spain, do not find their way into other forms, yet they have "here in Spain" a monopoly on "all monies" taken through licences.

If they are truly "World" then why not promote an archery "World Games" and encompass "all" forms of archery that are truly diverse, rather than going cap in hand to promote just one discipline of archery?
I think you are right and at the same time not too right. Right now naming and marketing are both only to generate revenue... so as always it is everything about money only and not about pure sport or passion etc.
if name sells then use it. But I fully understood your idea b/w lines. And I’m agree with you , it can be a bit misnaming ...

world archery is a good name but, agree with, doesn’t represent archery as a entire sport And all styles.
would it named as ‘world of archery’ it would has a different meaning and more suitable, in my opinion, for a magazine or journal. But I like it )

from other point of view, Olympic archery is a bit narrow branch of archery and represents only 1. sports and 2. Several styles.

so, the first difference is in 1. Number of styles and 2. number of types and 3. Nature of participation , so, World archery is wider and has more different styles, types of archery and accumulate and unite a lot of ‘non-professional’ people. So, from this point the name ‘world archery’ is more suitable to use.
‘the second difference I see is from point of view of ‘conflict of interest’. What I mean:
olympic archery is suppose to be part of the international tonal Olympic organisation, so, it should directly regulated and managed by them. and of course, as any organisation of this level, it should generate income and act on an international level.
so, name ‘Olympic archery‘ for the current ‘world archery’ isn’t too much suitable (in sense of level of current regulation, organisation, participants and etc). Everyone in world archery has different level of orientation in sport and not all are ‘professional athletes’ by definition. So, even from this point of view, use ‘Olympic archery’ isn’t too much suitable. archery is not a main source of income for members of world archery so we are definitely cannot be called ‘Olympic archery’.
etc, there are a lot of differences even in the names...

my vision and position:
1. world archery is needed for Olympic archery as air... world archery is a pre-step for archers to ‘Olympic archery’, this is kind of selection of talents... so, renaming for me has no common sense
2. Olympic archery is a very very limited number of styles and types of archery and I think we don’t want to limit ourselves just to 2-3 styles and 1-2 types of archery. So, let’s keep our freedom and sport From limitations Of expression and existence.
3. Olympic archery can be considered as a kind of misleading name too, from one point of view. Modern version has nothing to do with ‘Olympic’ As it was created in ancient times. so, primary only traditional and intuitive archery are pure ‘Olympic’. My understanding is that word ‘Olympic’ is used only and only to demonstrate an association/relation ‘Olympic’ modern games or international Olympic organisation.

so, I personally would prefer to be part of world archery then olympic one And regarding us all the name ‘world archery’ is more appropriate and suitable.
 

Eugen

Member
How about changing World Archery to "ARCHER CHATTER"

Kind regards.
Hahahaha.... this too close to reality....
lol
any naming suppose to incorporate in itself not only mission and activity but also strategical views for a future…
im afraid with such name we will degradation further lol
 
Top