IDSF, WDC, dominance, and dual system countries

[Chris Stratton]

The IDSF has its roots in central european countries. In some of these, if my understanding is correct, the IDSF structure is so dominant that the professional organization is a sub-member of the IDSF (formerly "amateur") national organizaion.

IDSF policies seem designed with that kind of primacy of control in mind.

Contrast a country like the US, where the majory of competitions of interest to IDSF-class dancers are run not by the IDSF organization USA Dance, but instead by the professional body, NDCA (in fact, the only true IDSF competition in the US is actually hosted at an NDCA comp). Or even England, where some of the more famous competitions also have both professional and amateur divisions, and are marginally inconsistent with IDSF policy.

If IDSF - and to an extent WDC - both "go active" with a policy of forcing dancers and officials to exclusively choose one set of competitions or the other, as several of their rules and many of their press releases seem to suggest they reserve the right to, who wins in a dual system country?

If US dancers were forced to choose between USA Dance competitions plus IDSF worlds, or NDCA competitions plus Blackpool and Elsa Wells, which way would they choose?

I have a strong suspicion that by enacting and enforcing rules that would force them to make such a choice, IDSF stands little chance of winning here, but a substantial risk of shutting itself out of the US entirely.

Where you are likely to be the looser under a "there can be only one" paradigm, wouldn't it be better to advocate sharing the market and getting along? And while it's probably of little interest, such an arrangment would incidentally be better for the dancing

[Joe]

So whose head gets lopped off?

[Laura]

I'm sorry, just how does Blackpool figure into this? I thought Blackpool was sanctioned by neither an IDSF-affiliate nor a WDC-affiliate.

[danceronice]

*makes note to ask pro at next lesson just what this alphabet soup means and if there's a "...for Dummies" version of what federation governs what in this sport. And I thought figure skating politics were complicated...

[DanceMentor]

Each time I try to think of a good thing to post here I realize any one idea has conflicts with different organizations:
What about pro-am?
What about amateurs teaching?
How should pro-am spread?
How would it spread if amateurs could teach?
What would Fred Astaire think about amateurs teaching?
Could teaching amateurs win World Pro-am titles and Am-Am titles in the same year?
Could someone be a pro in one organization and an am in another?
Does creating controversy sometimes benefit people that should not be benefiting?

This is VERY complicated stuff.

[Laura]

*makes note to ask pro at next lesson just what this alphabet soup means and if there's a "...for Dummies" version of what federation governs what in this sport. And I thought figure skating politics were complicated...

IDSF == International DanceSport Federation, the rough equivalent of skating's ISU. In the US, the IDSF-affiliate is USA Dance.

WDC == World Dance Council. Back when "Amateur" and "Professional" meant something consistent and logical, they were the world governing body for Professional DanceSport. In the US, the WDC-affiliate is the NDCA (National Dance Council of America).

Hope this helps!

[Adwiz]

It's actually pretty complicated. I've been following the "war" between WDC and IDSF since it began.

In a nutshell (if it's possible to summarize all the complexity), the issue relates to the IDSF wanting to be the sole body representing all competitive dancing worldwide, with the WDC standing in the way of this world domination. I'm not trying to portray the IDSF as the evil bad guys, but their policies do come out looking that way even though I believe their motives are pure.

If you look at other sports, there is an international body which governs all international regulation, including world championships and the Olympics. In cycling, for example, there is the International Cycling Union. All competitive events, even the criterium in your home town, are governed by its bylaws and all participants must be members of the ICU. But in cycling there isn't *another* body competing for that kind of worldwide authority. In DanceSport, the IDSF pictures itself as the ICU equivalent, and sees the WDC standing in its way.

However, the WDC was actually formed before the IDSF existed. In effect, the IDSF is saying, "Get out of my way, you old has-been" and the WDC is saying, "Who are you to tell me to retire?" The IDSF really has no right to tell the WDC to get lost, so I don't blame the WDC for refusing to buckle to this kind of pressure. But the IDSF genuinely feels that as long as there are two "official" (if you will) bodies handling various parts of this international governance, then the sport will never be taken seriously by the International Olympic Committee.

The IDSF is right. But I don't think they've ever bothered asking their members if they're really all that interested in the Olympics. Instead of taking the time to negotiate a plan to deal with these issues, the IDSF is attempting to get its way through brute force, using the momentum it has gained with international presence to force its way.

Two examples:

1. In Canada, the IDSF-affiliated Canadian Amateur DanceSport Association made a sudden ruling at its AGM a couple of years ago that it would ban all judges registered with the WDC-affiliated professional association from officiating at Canadian competitions. It would only approve judges affiliated with a new upstart certification group that is in turn affiliated with the IDSF. That has created a firestorm of controversy in Canadian DanceSport.

2. The upcoming USDSC event in Miami was going to include participants registered with IDSF and those registered with WDC. The IDSF said that if any IDSF-affiliated members dance in that competition they will ban them from competition, for the "crime" of competing against dancers who are not IDSF affiliated. The organizers are now going to have to run two events instead of one to get around that issue.

These politics are a mess. The WDC just wants couples to be able to compete, without all these political barriers. To fight the IDSF's aggressive policies, they recently enacted an amateur registry. However, on the flip side, the WDC is not nearly as good a representative for amateur DanceSport, and probably never will be. The WDC has a long history of representing professionals. They have a built-in attitude towards amateurs and I fear that if this amateur registry grows, that attitude will quickly present itself as a real problem. Professionals are interested in protecting their business, and that creates problems. This was actually the reason why the amateur association which is now the IDSF was created in the 1950s. Amateurs felt that there was rampant favoritism because DanceSport was run by professionals and if you didn't train with the right person you didn't have a chance. Politics were just as bad then as they are now, but for different reasons.

[cornutt]

If you look at other sports, there is an international body which governs all international regulation, including world championships and the Olympics.

Actually, in the United States, this is almost universally not true among the most popular professional sports. Baseball, basketball, golf, hockey, even soccer are dominated in the U.S. by North American-centric sanctioning bodies. (American football I leave out, since it's a sport pretty much unique to North America.) The IDSF situation strikes me is as being most similar to the situation that auto racing was in, circa 1960. Allow me to recap:

In auto racing, there is a body called the Federation Internationale de l'Autombile, or FIA. It presumes to be the sole sanctioning body for all auto racing worldwide. In fact, it presumes to be an actual international government body, able to tell venues, promoters, and participants what they can and cannot do, under penalty of law. The FIA has a very, very Euro-centric idea about what constitutes legitimate auto racing and how it should be run. It regards nearly all forms of auto racing in the U.S. as illegitimate and deserving of a total ban.

Like the IDSF, the FIA has various natioinal representation bodies that make up its membership. Up until 1955, its representative body in the U.S. was the American Automobile Association (yes, the same people that come out with a gas can when your tank is dry). The AAA reflected the FIA attitude in terms of regarding itself as the only legitimate sanctioning body in the U.S. It penalized and banned drivers who competed in races not sanctioned by the AAA.

Then, in 1955, after a tragic series of events, the AAA abruptly pulled out of racing altogether. The sport was left with no national rep, and the FIA would not permit any of the other existing bodies to assume the role. Five years of chaos ensued in which the FIA hinted to first one group and then another that it could earn the FIA's favor and gain the coveted national representative role if it played by the FIA's rules. But in 1960, Bill France and Tony Hulman agreed to form a group called the Automotive Competition Committee of the United States, or ACCUS, and they invited all the major American sanctioning bodies to join. Presented with a united front, the FIA was no longer able to play its games in the U.S. It was forced to accept ACCUS as the American representative body (which it still is today), and for a long time, ACCUS acted as a buffer between the FIA and American racing. The following decade was marked by a period of great interchange between American and European drivers, since both groups could now cross the Atlantic and compete in other events without fear of sanction by the FIA. Not coincidentally, this was a period of big growth in the sport worldwide.

However, in 1991, the FIA decided to try throwing its weight around in the U.S. again. By this time, the FIA-sanctioned Formula 1 circuit had become a huge cash cow for certain teams and their top drivers. It was a desirable destination for a lot of drivers. At the time, Indycar racing was sanctioned in the U.S. by an organization called Championship Auto Racing Teams, or CART. Stock car racing was of course sanctioned by NASCAR, which was not nearly as popular then. The FIA was irritated at the growth of CART and (to a lesser extent) NASCAR, both of which were beginning to sanction events outside of the U.S. The FIA saw this as a direct threat to them, since they regarded (and still do) the entire world outside of the U.S. as "their" territory. That year, CART held a race in Australia. The FIA threatened to issue lifetime bans from international competition, including F1, against any driver who participarted in the Australian race, or in a stock car race being planned by a NASCAR subsidiary in Australia.

At this point, the unity of ACCUS failed to hold up. CART, on its own, acquiesed to the FIA and signed an agreement saying that they would not compete against the FIA outside of North America. Since international expansion accounted for most of CART's growth at the time, this basically killed their future. NASCAR, on the other hand, stood with the rest of the ACCUS members and told the FIA to go pound sand. We see the results today: CART, after several buyouts and name changes, is a mere shell of its former self, having among other indignities lost the Indianapolis 500 and most of its top teams to the rival Indy Racing League. NASCAR, by contrast, has grown enormously and is now America's most popular racing series. Juan Pablo Montoya, who just a couple of years ago was a star driver on the Formula 1 circuit, is now competing in NASCAR, and the FIA isn't getting a dime of that action. The actions the FIA took in 1991 have almost entirely shut it out of American racing. Even in sports cars, the one area where the FIA has historically been strong and well-run, the two highest-level sports car racing circuits today are both run by U.S.-based organizations -- one in association with the ACO, which sanctions the 24 Hours of Le Mans and is a bitter rival of the FIA.

The IDSF strikes me as having all of the same bad qualities as the FIA -- the petty bureaucracy, the rule-bending when it suits them, the desire to be a monopolistic, quasi-governmental organization, and the tendency to regard American variations of the sport as illegitimate and deserving of banishment. In my fantasies, I'd like to see USA Dance and the NDCA form a Dance Competition Committee of the United States, and jointly tell the IDSF to take a running jump. Just to see what kind of reaction they'd get.

Of course, there's always that Olympic complication (which, admittedly, doesn't exist in the auto racing scenario). But Chris posed the question in his original post: if forced to choose, would American dancers choose to align with the IDSF and foreswear all non-IDSF-sanctioned comps, or would they align with the NDCA which also leaves their options open for third-party or independent comps? Seeing as to how I'll never make it to the Olympics anyway, I'm going to choose the option that least restricts my future choices, and hint hint, the IDSF side isn't it. And you know what? Out of the tens of thousands of competitive dancers in the U.S., there are maybe 20 with legitimate Olympic aspirations. For the rest, the Olympic thing simply doesn't matter.

[xxtupikxx]

The real dispute, in my mind, is largely about power and money as it pertains to judging. Professionals object to being judged by amateurs, which in a way makes sence since professional judges have to be certified in way that amateurs do not. However, currently many amateurs are much better then the pros, and so object to being judged by dancers who are less qualified. Judges and people who select them hold real power, as always there is not enough power for everybody.

[Chris Stratton]

Professionals object to being judged by amateurs

Yes, I can imagine they wouldn't like it if it happened. But can you give us an example of a situation in which it might occur?

which in a way makes sence since professional judges have to be certified in way that amateurs do not.

The amateur judge programs that do exist are based around certification, usually copied from or modeled on professional certification requirements. Arguably, certification is more central to amateur judging programs than it is to professional ones, where substantial teaching and competition experience usually (either as a formal or informal requirement) complements the certification exam.

[DrDoug]

the tendency to regard American variations of the sport as illegitimate and deserving of banishment.

I hear if they catch you dancing rhythm, they hire a thug to come straighten your knees . . . .