Humphrey Appleby

It's not BSI's fault, but the manner in which things have been set-up by the FIM. They're not in fact making a huge profit anyway, although if you combine that with what's paid to the FIM, then it's a reasonable sum.

How was it a pointless competition before, but now suddenly isn't?

You need to view matters in a non-nationalistic way. Firstly, whilst BSI might nominally be a British company it's ultimately owned by an American corporation (IMG). Regardless of whether you consider them a British or US company though, they appear to put no money back into speedway so it's somewhat irrelevant where they're actually from. There are indeed questions to be asked about why BSI has such a long-term deal with the FIM, how much they charge cities to host GPs, and no doubt many other things. Those are questions though, that should be raised by the Polish promoters with the FIM - who incidentally also include the PZM who were presumably party to the original agreement. Do you really think OneSport is some of benevolent organisation that will donate its profits to Polish speedway though? Without addressing the underlying issues of the way international competition is set-up, then you're just going to end replacing tweedle-dum with tweedle-dee, possibly after you've alienated a few sponsors along the way.

Internet forums and all the people who go on there and tell promoters what they should be doing...

I haven't defended the ACU/BSPA at all, but they're not really relevant to the SGP/SEC or BSI/OneSport discussion. What the Polish position is ultimately about, is the view that it should be controlling and making more money out of the international competitions. I'm not entirely unsympathetic to asking questions about how things are currently set-up by the FIM, nor the view that SGP profits should be benefitting the sport rather than a US corporation. However, to simply replace BSI with OneSport without changing anything else, would hardly seem to be much of an improvement. There needs to be new approach whereby the major speedway leagues collectively run and benefit from the SGP. I'd have no objection if Poland has bigger share in that arrangement, but there needs to be some sort of revenue sharing as you ned several countries to make a proper World Championship. There's a similar parallel with the BCCI trying to take over the ICC, and bullying and blackmailing the smaller test nations to achieve it. It's ultimately not good for the sport.

I can't see that the organisation of world speedway is a national issue. It would nice if journals could take a non-nationalist view on such things.

SportoweFakty is the party paper of OneSport. Not often that I defend BSI, but I can't see how they're in the wrong at all. The FIM and FIM Europe have created this situation, even though I'm sure that BSI will be less than amused with it all. Not sure of the point you're trying to make. That site is clearly the official website of the SGP, the same as www.speedwayeuro.com is the official website of the SEC.

The multi-disciplinary nature of motorcycling sport complicates this. National federations have responsibility for moredisciplines than just speedway, which probably represents a relatively minor part of their activities these days. I'd imagine they wouldn't want to compromise their road racing interests, which presumably are far more lucrative for them than track racing. The only way it's going to happen is if speedway breaks away from the whole FIM/national federation structure.

Of course not. The current contract runs until 2021, and FIM are paid something like GBP 1.5 million per year. They in turn pay the SGP (and probably SWC) prize money out that, but it's unclear where the rest goes.

I think the ACU is also a member of FIM Europe, but presumably the SCB/BSPA can choose to recognise whichever competitions it wishes. I seem to remember that FIM World Longtrack and European U21 events (when the latter was an FIM competition) were not recognised in the past.

Who is getting a fee from BSI, or OneSport for that matter?

Is it? Might be doing okay crowd-wise, but my understanding that virtually all the clubs were losing money. That's before we even get to the playoff fiasco that surpassed any of the farces we've ever seen in British speedway. You can only afford to pay what you can afford to pay. Even when the EL had nearly all the best riders in the world, crowds were still falling and teams were losing money. I guarantee that if British teams could afford to pay what Polish teams are, then you miraculously wouldn't hear any complaints from the riders about too many fixtures. I don't think it's a matter of holding back OneSport if they can do a better job than BSI, which of course brings the very long-term deals made by the FIM into question. It's a matter of having two championships (and two governing bodies) competing with each other that's the matter for concern. It's not a matter of confusing the fans whom I'm sure can work out the difference. It's the matter of competition for a relatively limited pool of sponsors and venues, as we're already seeing with sponsors choosing one competition over another. As already pointed out, the World and European Championships in most other sports have different focuses and to a large extent different competitors.

Which would be fine if the other 'modern' competitions were paragons of success, but I don't see anyone making much money. I think few would disagree that British speedway hasn't moved with the times, but its decline is not entirely down to its business model. Pressure on land for housing, noise regulations, rising insurance costs, and increasing choices of entertainment have all taken their toll. The bottom line though, is that we are where we are, and it's simply a matter of survival for the foreseeable future regardless of what could'of, should'of been done in the past. It's very easy to take an "I'm alright Jack" attitude and say let the best competition win, but having the sport contract back to just one or two markets is hardly desirable either. If people think this is a good idea, they should read about the rivalry between professional sports competitions in North America that ended-up ruining nearly all of them.

Teams are expected to be at full strength, unless there are injuries or a recognised higher priority competition is taking precedence. For example, if a team is riding away without its star rider they've released for a mickey mouse competition, it's potentially going to affect the crowd of the home track. The SCB is there to uphold the regulations in this respect. OneSport would not be able to do that in the context of FIM Europe, and BSI have the rights for the World Championships. It would require a breakaway movement, but perhaps that is overdue.

I doubt they're happy their exclusivity has been totally undermined by the FIM/FIM Europe shenanigans, but you generally don't take legal action against organisations who you might want to continue a working relationship with.

I certainly didn't suggest that BSI aren't doing it for commercial reasons. Neither did I bring British speedway into it, as clearly the horse has long bolted in that respect. It's the people believing the ridiculous propaganda making out OneSport to some sort of saviour of the sport against the 'evil' FIM/BSI. There are undoubtedly questions to be asked about the FIM/BSI arrangements and who is benefitting from these, as well as how FIM Europe can be allowed to establish competing events, but that should be considered in a non-partisan manner. All very well in the real world, but commercial competition in sport has always been ruinous which is why these sorts of things were regulated from the very early days. Regardless of what one feels about BSI - and I've certainly been one of its few critics on here - it's ultimately not in the interests of the sport to have two similar competitions running in parallel. If people cannot understand how this is competing for what are already quite limited resources in a minority sport, then I fear there's little hope. Maybe, but British speedway has a completely different set of economic and logistical challenges to Sweden, and it's a matter of staying in business rather than doing what's convenient for the riders.

Why? Do you think One Sport are doing it for the benefit of speedway? BSI are a British company (albeit ultimately owned by a US corporation), but I hold no candle for them whatsoever. People have to move beyond national interests and not listen to propaganda.

I suppose it depends how desperate or deluded they are - clearly promoters are willing to sign deals where they take the financial risk on a GP. I'd doubt any of the contracts would actually make guarantees about who's riding in the series, as presumably that would would be virtually impossible with multi-year deals and the potential for injuries/retirements etc.. As to whether a rival series taking away draw cards would be grounds for abrogating a hosting contract, I suspect it would end-up getting dragged through the courts to decide.

Yes, but there are no European equivalents to the SWC. The Pairs is a distinctly different type of competition. What's the point in having two GP-type individual competitions with potentially the same riders? If more rounds are needed or someone wants to go to Russia, then why not just extend the SGP? Undoubtedly true, but no reason to keep propagating them.

Yes, but they're distinctly different competitions. Firstly, the European Championship is not well established - it was one of those pointless competitions created by the UEM a few years ago to give itself something to do, but even then was intended to a 'second tier' competition for riders outside of the SGP or from smaller speedway nations. The problem though, is that speedway is primarily a European sport with primarily European or European-based riders. There's therefore very little need for separate World and European Championships, and if the latter starts resembling the SGP, then of course it's going to start competing for sponsors, venues and riders. The World Cup and European Championships are distinctly different competitions with significantly different teams, but more specifically are coordinated so they don't run in parallel. Two year blocks are set aside for qualifiers and finals in each competition, so it's quite clear which is which. This is usually the case with other sports too - for example, the World Athletics Championships are held in different years to the European Athletics Championships, but again they involve different sets of athletes. In sports such as skiing, the European events are feeder competitions to the World Cup, so again no confusion in status. A better parallel would be the World Cup and Olympic Football Tournament. Once professionals were allowed into the Olympics (although Communist teams were effectively professional), then the Olympics could merely have ended-up a duplicate of the World Cup. That's why it was restricted by FIFA to U23 players so the World Cup remained the premier competition. FIFA clearly saw issues with having duplication, and that's in a sport with far more inters and money than speedway. One year doesn't prove much as long-term deals would probably have been in place with BSI. The telling thing will be over a longer period. Personally, I think questions being asked of the FIM arrangements is long overdue, but I don't see OneSport as being some sort of Packer-type organisation shaking up the sport for the better. More like a BCCI-type organisation acting totally in its own self-interest without any regard for the wider sport.

Having two effectively parallel GP series is a nonsense, is ultimately not good for the sport, and should never have been allowed to happen. However, I think the SGP has not brought the sport forward as it might have, and the FIM is stuck with a 20-year deal with the current organisers. Clearly some feel they can do better, and no doubt there are some power politics at work in the background.

The point is that I don't think they could be banned for competing in a championship outside of the FIM - or unlikely stand up in court if challenged. The SGP contracts might themselves have 'exclusivity' clauses that may preclude where else riders may compete, but again if riders are otherwise competing all over the place, it's pretty hard to argue they can't ride in the SEC. The Mafia charges 'affiliated businesses' fees in return for not very much, and also has legitimate fronts to give them respectability. How does the FIM really differ in practice? It's funny though, how the nonsensical UEM they created a few years ago has come back to bite them.

I don't know 100% how it works in UK speedway, but I believe the ACU operates along similar lines to the MSA. When racing under an MSA permit you do get public liability insurance amongst other things, but that doesn't preclude unlicensed (or alternatively licensed) events from obtaining their own insurance. Obviously there are reciprocal agreements between official national federations and the world governing body with respect to the licensing system, but as far as I know there are no sanctions if you compete in an unlicensed event (and rightly so). That's the decision (and risk) of the competitor, and to insist on exclusivity with a single governing body would be anti-competitive. I can see that in professional sport it might be possible to insist on a exclusive contract with one competition, but if speedway riders are riding in several national leagues as well as the SGP, then I think it would be hard to argue why they shouldn't be allowed to ride in the SEC as well. Organisations still can't make anti-competitive rules, especially where it involves international movement of labour. I'd be very surprised if it were any different in Finland or Sweden.

I doubt it. It's anti-competitive to ban competitors who want to ride in a competition authorised by another body, and any governing body trying to do so will leave themselves open to legal action. The motor sport authorities in the UK have long given up on this, and MSA/ACU-licensed competitors and venues can freely compete in and host non-MSA/ACU events. If European Championships fell within FIM Europe's remit, then presumably they can sell the commercial rights the same as the FIM proper can sell the commercial rights for World Championship events. I'd imagine when the FIM endorsed the creation of the Continental Unions, they assumed the regional competitions would supplement or act as feeder competitions to their world championships. Unfortunately though, the problem in speedway is that most/all professional events already take place in Europe, so any European Championship is invariably going to parallel existing World Championships. Unless there was some sort of agreement between the FIM and FIM Europe (or the forerunner UEM) to demarcate who could ride in what from the outset, then they're trying to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted. However, this at least highlights the high costs of running under the FIM, and perhaps shines a bit of light on its business practices.

Not suggesting OneSport can do better than the SGP, but they obviously think they can.