Karate Issues - 21.9 – A Different Perspective?
21.9 has become the focus of a much polarised debate – perhaps the most quoted measure of difference between the EKF and other NBG's for Karate in England. It is of course not a rule created by the EKF, nor the BKF, nor the European Karate Federation. So it must be a WKF rule. If that is the case then within our world of Karate we know who to challenge if we want the rule changed. In fact it has been often said that ‘change comes from within’, a classic mantra of all democratic systems. However, could it be that the WKF have had to include this rule in part to be recognised by the IOC?
With this in mind we decided to look at other Olympic sports World Governing Bodies to see what their statutes had to say. Not once in 2 years of 21.9 debate have we heard anyone say ‘look at sport a,b or c - it’s the same’. Repeatedly we hear folks say that the world does not understand Karate, that it’s unique. Well we’re not so sure. As we speed-read though statutes after statutes we realised the WKF’s statutes are very similar to other sports. Karate, in core statute terms, is little different to any other sport. Basically they all have a similar organisational structure and their own ‘21.9’. The key difference appears to be that they allow exceptions with written permission from their respective World Governing Body, but this may for all we know be impractical and there is no indication how successful this is. Maybe it is a wise legal opt-out clause? In any case it is usually still ‘no’ by default when the question of relations with non-members arises.
Maybe the WKF’s ‘harder line’ actually amounts to the same intention and probable end result as all the examples below, it’s just expressed in a simpler manner. In the end the Olympics are only as good as the quality of athletes competing, indeed any sport follows this logic. You need a wide pool of athletes, yet you need considerable regulation of them too – e.g. anti-doping and especially controlling their eligibility to represent certain countries. On top of this a respected and accountable system of regional and world championships are required to recognise the most talented athletes. This needs joined-up systems and the WKF are just a component of such a system. If you read the various World Governing Body statutes you’ll notice they all follow a similar structure. In this respect we are no different in Karate to many other established Olympic sports.
At this point you may say ‘Karate is not in the Olympics!’. Well, yes and no. It’s not actually a competing sport however, it is fully recognised, which in terms of statutes is the same thing.
In Karate, if you look at the situation re 21.9 from the very top down in the context of international sport as whole, it is perfectly clear and obvious why the rule exists. If you look from the perspective of a small club upwards it is in danger of appearing to be a remote edict, overbearing and restrictive. Either way the rule is the same, it’s just the perspective that matters. Is it therefore the case that up and down the land the same debate rages in cycling, shooting, swimming or other sports clubs? Or is it that there is no need to debate the issue as they have long established single NGB’s? We don’t know the answer, but the question alone is relevant to the discussion on 21.9.
If you are fundamentally against Karate in the Olympics then none of this will matter & most likely you will be outside of the whole system and especially 21.9. If you chose to not join the EKF because of 21.9 then a set of ironies kick in . . . You can have unrestricted competition relations, except they are limited to non-WKF family members. If the WKF were to lose IOC recognition and be replaced by an alternative World Governing Body you might suddenly find yourself subject to 21.9, or it’s equivalent.
So maybe the IOC have inadvertently created this dividing rule? We have heard the argument that their own charter rejects ‘discrimination of any kind’. Therefore 21.9 is against this charter as it discriminates against those outside of it’s jurisdiction. However, surely this is only true if an NGB rejects genuine requests from prospective members willing to abide by the rules? And of course if everyone joined there would be no one left to feel discriminated against. No – the whole Olympic movement emphasises inclusion. It seeks equality through standardisation. No matter who you are or where you are from you should be given the same chance to compete. It’s just that human nature requires rules to ensure equality.
This ideal lives in statutes to be adhered to from the top right down to every individual athlete in any country no matter what its political or religious state. If you removed the statutes, in particular the ’21.9’ element you’d remove the accountability. You could then theoretically have an NGB in a country with questionable human rights only selecting athletes of a certain religion or race. In practice the statutes are not so powerful as to ensure this never happens - we don’t live in a perfect world. They exist to minimise the risk and therefore they exist to prevent discrimination. Of course there are hundreds of NGB's operating throughout the world outside of NOC recognition, to the same high standards and ideals – this does not question them. They have their own rules. They achieve great things, but they are not paths to the Olympics.
Back to reality, Karate & 21.9. The point of this article is simply to see if we are unique in this world. Take a look below, read some more and decide for yourself.
Disclaimer: The following rules are quoted out of context. You should read the publicly available statutes to develop your own conclusions. We have no idea how these rules are implemented in each respective sport, or if they are in any way relevant to our own WKF statutes . . . that’s another avenue of research for a wet Sunday afternoon. Naturally we would welcome any comments from folks familiar with the workings of these statutes in their own sports.
In all of this you must draw your own conclusions. None of this is a statement of fact, just a little research mixed with some opinion to see if 21.9 can be viewed from another angle.
THESE ARE EXTRACTS ONLY.
SWIMMING
GR 4 UNAUTHORISED RELATIONS
GR 4.1 No affiliated Member shall have any kind of relationship with a non affiliated or suspended body.
GR 4.3 The holding of demonstrations and/or exhibitions, clinics, training, competitions, etc., with non affiliated or suspended bodies is not permissible.
GR 4.6 Each Member that conducts a competition shall strictly enforce the FINA Rules governing eligibility
BOXING
A NGB is a ‘Member’
Article 16. Suspension
1 A suspended Member shall automatically lose its membership rights during the suspension period.
2 Other Members cannot entertain sporting contact with a suspended Member.
Is a suspended Member the same as a non-Member?? If so it suggests Boxers in AIBA can’t fight against boxers not affiliated through an AIBA NGB.
BASKETBALL
Article 12 Clubs, Other Bodies and Leagues
12.1 The various bodies of national member federations (including clubs) may pursue their activities within the limits of their own national member federation only, and with the latter's recognition and permission.
12.3 National member federations and their clubs or leagues may not play on the territory of another national member federation without the latter’s approval and with that of FIBA for intercontinental activities, or of the FIBA Zone affected for continental activities.
CYCLING
Cycling is clearer than boxing of defining non-members as the same as suspended members (4).
Article 11
1. The members of the UCI shall extend reciprocal recognition as federations regulating cycling in
their respective countries to the exclusion of all others.
4. Except in the case of prior consent of the Management Committee, federations and their members
shall take part only in cycling activities organized by one of them or by the UCI or a continental
confederation. Moreover, they shall not take part in activities organized by a suspended
federation, except as provided in art. 18.2.
Article 12
A federation which joins a competing union or association, or a body declared as such by the
Management Committee or the Congress, shall be automatically suspended if it refuses to forsake
this other membership within the month of the notice to that effect being served by the
Management Committee.
FENCING
1.2.6
a) No team or competitor of a member federation has the right to take part in any competition organised by a non-member country or by a “confederation” which is not recognised by the F.I.E. and the converse. Nevertheless, competitors of countries which are not members of the F.I.E. may be registered for individual competitions organised by member federations, provided that they are F.I.E licensees for the current season. They fence under the banner of the F.I.E.
b) All members of member federations are forbidden from taking part in competitions or events organised by an individual or entity which is not recognised by the national federation of their country, unless these competitions or events have been specially authorised by that
same federation. International competitions which are not organised by a member federation and in which there are more than five nationalities must have the approval of the F.I.E. and must appear on the International Calendar.
SHOOTING
1.3.7 Members must not belong to and must not participate in championships of other Continental or International Shooting Associations which include events defined in the ISSF Regulations, except when authorized by the ISSF.
SKIING
This one is more general – again though it’s like having to explicitly ask the WKF (not EKF etc) to do an international comp – I wonder what applies to domestic comps?
8.2 No Member Association or member thereof is entitled to participate in international ski events,
not to receive prizes or awards from such events unless they are approved by the FIS.
WRESTLING
This is pretty much the same as 21.9 with the exception of saying – ‘you can compete if they have indicated they will join’. So NAKMAS et al would have to engage with us to meet this criteria.
Article 32 – Principles
National Federations (and their affiliated sports clubs) may only participate in competitions organized
by the Federations affiliated or associated with FILA. However, at the request of a National
Federation, the FILA Bureau may agree that a National Federation not yet affiliated to FILA
participates in a tournament provided that the competition concerned contributes to the development
of wrestling in the participants' countries and provided that this Federation has indicated its intention to
become affiliated to FILA. Moreover, if the desired affiliation has not become effective within two years from the time the authorization was granted, no other authorization will be granted to the requesting.
GYMNASTICS
34.3 Inter-Federation Events and responsibilities of Federations
Federations may organise events among themselves in accordance with the Statutes and Regulations of the FIG. It is, however, forbidden for gymnasts or judges of a federation to participate in competitions or demonstrations in the sphere of activity of another federation without the prior consent of the
federations involved and that of the federation organising the event. Likewise, the participation of gymnasts or judges of a federation in an event organised by a body other than a federation must be subject to the prior consent of any federations involved. Federations are also responsible to FIG for the behaviour of their gymnasts, coaches, judges and other officials and they act as guarantors to the FIG in respect of these responsibilities.