Australian Dance Champions ejected from Nationals for wearing Freedom to Dance sash

[Alskling]

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/national/sequins-fly-in-ballroom-brawl/story-e6frea8c-1226219092150?sv=d2c44facbbae42ad31f478a4ff49fa40

Correction: Standard Champions, not Latin Champions.

[pygmalion]

Huh? There were couples ejected because of a WDF something-or-the-other, and this couple was ejected for showing support?

[Alskling]

Huh? There were couples ejected because of a WDF something-or-the-other, and this couple was ejected for showing support?

Six of Australia's Latin couples danced either the Freedom to Dance event or London Ball (I forget which competition was the precipitating issue), and were banned by WDSF as a result. Because Australian nationals were being run as a WDSF sanctioned event, the couples were also banned from doing their own Nationals. The couple that won Nationals wore a yellow sash during their victory dance to show support for the 6 banned couples, and were removed from the building by security guards as a result. This is outrageous to me on any front, but especially because this was a silent protest during a victory dance, and the only "objectionable" thing done was to wear yellow. Wandering into very nasty territory here.

[sambanada]

This is just getting ridiculous!

[bluebereft]

i've taken lessons from matt and anna, they are fantastic people and dancers.

this really is ridiculous, especially if it's just a yellow sash that they wore.

btw the title is incorrect, they are standard dancers.

[Alskling]

i've taken lessons from matt and anna, they are fantastic people and dancers.

this really is ridiculous, especially if it's just a yellow sash that they wore.

btw the title is incorrect, they are standard dancers.

Oops, sorry about that, not enough coffee before posting. I've added a note in the original post, don't seem to be able to edit the title.

[ViviDancer]

The 6 couples were suspended for taking part in the Singapore Open Dance Championships which was supported by Freedom to Dance.

[latingal]

It was quite sad to hear that something like this could happen. The political dance wars just seems to keep escalating, and I'm sure this is not what the dancers themselves want. It is disheartening to know that power and greed has such a hold over such a beautiful art form and sport.

It is a sad commentary on the people who run the banning organizations.... *heavy heart*

[pygmalion]

Thanks for the clarification, everyone. That is ugly. :-(

[sambanada]

My friend just told me that they tried to suspend a US couple for worlds for no reason, right before the event. Aparently, they said they danced an event that they did not dance. Since they could not suspend them, they made sure they flew out first round. It is really ugly what is happening in this community. Dancers are the ones paying the price for this ridiculous politics. I am sure other countries are seeing the same kind of thing.

[madmaximus]

Interesting development.

At a dinner, we were having a spirited discussion with friends about the politics of dictatorships, and how to suppress the unmitigated greed and desire for power.

So many parallels here.

I, for one, wonder what would happen if dancers simply decline to dance (i.e., participate) en-masse and initiate change in leadership and its politics--the personal economic hit notwithstanding.





m

[Merrylegs]

I, for one, wonder what would happen if dancers simply decline to dance (i.e., participate) en-masse and initiate change in leadership and its politics--the personal economic hit notwithstanding.


Boycotting individual competitions en masse would only hurt the individual competition owners not the governing bodies. Perhaps the competition owners should be the people who try to put a stop to all this. Dunno but it all seems a bit crazy to me, people should be able to attend, compete and spend their money wherever they like without retribution. It's so unfortunate...

[DL]

I, for one, wonder what would happen if dancers simply decline to dance (i.e., participate) en-masse and initiate change in leadership and its politics--the personal economic hit notwithstanding.


m

The new leaders would face the same climate and circumstances that drove the current leaders into the political morass in the first place. How can you be sure they wouldn't be funneled in exactly the same direction?

Throwing out a couple from an event for wearing a sash seems over-the-top to me. But the larger issues around boundaries on who can compete where seem to me to have deeper roots than I've seen explored on DF so far. Am I the only one to think this?

[madmaximus]

Boycotting individual competitions en masse would only hurt the individual competition owners not the governing bodies. Perhaps the competition owners should be the people who try to put a stop to all this. Dunno but it all seems a bit crazy to me, people should be able to attend, compete and spend their money wherever they like without retribution. It's so unfortunate...

Fair point ML.

Isn't history replete with examples of abusive organizational and political systems that got overthrown, ONLY because the dissatisfaction of the members reached a critical point?

Only when people went from passive "tsk-tsk-that's-too-bad-why-doesn't-anyone-do-something" to a passionate "THAT-IS-WRONG, and I am going to do something about it" did change occur.

And it often started with a simple : "I can change this"


Can that happen in dance? I wonder...






m

[madmaximus]

The new leaders would face the same climate and circumstances that drove the current leaders into the political morass in the first place. How can you be sure they wouldn't be funneled in exactly the same direction?

Throwing out a couple from an event for wearing a sash seems over-the-top to me. But the larger issues around boundaries on who can compete where seem to me to have deeper roots than I've seen explored on DF so far. Am I the only one to think this?

[agreed. and for discussion's sake...]


Then, it predicates that the environment should also be changed, shouldn't it?

Tidal-strength change can often ONLY be initiated by economic forces that are strong enough to supplant the current toxic environment.

And change of that magnitude often starts with the most innocuous of things---i.e., the so-called "butterfly effect".

Perhaps in this case, it could be a simple individual statement: "Let's change this".

But then, as I've already pointed out, massive discontent needs to reach a critical point first.



When the environment demands good governance from their leaders, good leadership can occur.





m

[Larinda McRaven]

The thing is every dancer has a choice. Even a choice to belong to an organization whose rules you do not like and plan to break... or to belong to an organization that will not force you to choose. It is their choice.

[DL]

[agreed. and for discussion's sake...]


Then, it predicates that the environment should also be changed, shouldn't it?

Tidal-strength change can often ONLY be initiated by economic forces that are strong enough to supplant the current toxic environment.

And change of that magnitude often starts with the most innocuous of things---i.e., the so-called "butterfly effect".

Perhaps in this case, it could be a simple individual statement: "Let's change this".

But then, as I've already pointed out, massive discontent needs to reach a critical point first.



When the environment demands good governance from their leaders, good leadership can occur.





m

It's not enough to say that things should change, because that doesn't guarantee change for the better. The only way to improve matters is to fully understand the problem, advocate for a solution, convince sufficiently many like-minded folk to agree, and collectively choose a leader who will do the legwork to make the solution a reality.

Merely rebelling against the status quo is just as silly and pointless, IMO, as the status quo itself may seem.

In other words: If one rejects a leader, fine. If one chooses a new leader at random, one should be prepared to reject that one too, maybe for the same reason one rejected the first leader. It's better for one to set one's self and one's leaders up for success.

[madmaximus]

The thing is every dancer has a choice. Even a choice to belong to an organization whose rules you do not like and plan to break... or to belong to an organization that will not force you to choose. It is their choice.

agreed...

and as we're talking about choices, as much as it is a choice to belong to the organization (or not), another can also be the individual's choice to change the organization one belongs to, or to illuminate others of the availability and viability of that choice, or to stand by and see others drive it to ruin.





m

[madmaximus]

It's not enough to say that things should change, because that doesn't guarantee change for the better. The only way to improve matters is to fully understand the problem, advocate for a solution, convince sufficiently many like-minded folk to agree, and collectively choose a leader who will do the legwork to make the solution a reality.

Merely rebelling against the status quo is just as silly and pointless, IMO, as the status quo itself may seem.

In other words: If one rejects a leader, fine. If one chooses a new leader at random, one should be prepared to reject that one too, maybe for the same reason one rejected the first leader. It's better for one to set one's self and one's leaders up for success.

no argument there...

I would add though, that often, the best leaders occur organically---not democratically.






m

[DL]

no argument there...

I would add though, that often, the best leaders occur organically---not democratically.

m

Perhaps; but I daresay "democratically" is the only way they can be *recognized* as such.

[randomaeiou]

I would add though, that often, the best leaders occur organically---not democratically.

I agree. I believe that the reason for this is with power comes responsibility - there are, broadly speaking, two types of leaders. Those who seek leadership, and those who have the responsibility of it thrust upon them by others.

The ones who seek leadership tend to focus on acquiring power/privilege through leadership, and view the responsibility of such positions as a "necessary evil" or "comes with the territory". Unfortunately, in many "democratic" systems, people have to put themselves forward to run for leadership, the act of which in itself selects for this group of people.

In contrast, those who have leadership thrust upon them by others ("organic") generally have been viewed as capable by those doing the electing, and tend focus on the responsibilities of the position, rather than the accompanying power and privilege.

IMHO, the reluctant leaders often make the best ones, because they tend to be reluctant as they realize the awesome responsibilities of leadership, and are therefore reluctant to assume these responsibilities lightly. The ones who SEEK leadership, frequently do so for reasons that do not necessarily coincide or align with fulfilling responsibilities to the led.

[fascination]

re DL; not everywhere all the time...authentic legitimate authority can arise in a variety of ways...

[DL]

re DL; not everywhere all the time...authentic legitimate authority can arise in a variety of ways...

Let me make my point another way: Complaining about the dark is easier than lighting a candle.

[fascination]

sure...but people can decide whether or not to follow a star or a street lamp and which is the most authentic form of light...and GE is not the authority on legitimate lighting if you get my drift...so yes, sometimes a light is lit...whether or not people choose to follow it, it a matter of conscience and of how well they recognize the source as being a good one or not...shrug..and not every time that one follows one conscience can one hope for an immediate positive outcome...in fact, in the short run, the opposite is almost always true...the paradox being that that is generally the only way real transformational shifts ever occur...

[TinyDancer109]

Merely rebelling against the status quo is just as silly and pointless, IMO, as the status quo itself may seem.

Agreed. OWS is one example that comes to mind.

It's not enough to say that things should change, because that doesn't guarantee change for the better. The only way to improve matters is to fully understand the problem, advocate for a solution, convince sufficiently many like-minded folk to agree, and collectively choose a leader who will do the legwork to make the solution a reality.Agreed. I hope dance members begin to move toward this understanding so they can dance at any competition they wish.

[danceronice]

Well, first a majority would need to agree on what, exactly, the problem is.

[Beto]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-12/dancers-thrown-out-for-silent-protest/3727340

[toothlesstiger]

How much choice do most of the dancers really have in this matter? If their country is dominated by one organization or the other? Seems like they would have a choice to compete, or not compete, and that's about it.

[Lioness]

That's about all the choice there is in Australia...

I know a couple of dancers boycotted the Aussies by choice, but don't personally know of any who were kicked out.

[Aura]

This is heart-breaking. I don't know much about the politics of dancing, but it seems ridiculous that this couple was ejected for showing support for banned dancers. It seemed like an expression of visual solidarity, not something to intentionally upset.

[sambanada]

I agree. Dancers are not property of any organization.

[mindputtee]

I think what the event organizer, Margaret Lonsdale, said is pretty important. She thinks that the dancers "are getting involved in matters that don't concern them". I think that's blatantly false. Which competitions you can attend without being suspended from an organization (and its competitions) concerns any and all dancers. Organizations have no right to say you can't attend their competition because you went to someone else's. It's childish and petty.

[Larinda McRaven]

Do we know the "matters" that she is talking about??

[SDsalsaguy]

Do we know the "matters" that she is talking about??

I don't, and I certainly accept that there could be multiple agendas concerned... but would have to agree with mindputtee's point about the absurdity of claiming that what events competitors are allowed to attend = "matters that don't concern them."

[fascination]

ditto

[IsaacAltman]

I do believe they are taking the proper route at this point by getting legal council. I also believe that things have progressively gotten out of hand because the competitiors have allowed it to happen over a long period of time. There is no solidarity. Maybe if everyone would support Independent organizations who allow you to dance wherever and drop out of the so called mainsteam organizations, then change would surely happen. But what are the chances of that happening? Look at it like an ugly divorce. Mom and Dad (WDC and WDSF) split and the kids (competitors) are the pawns. When are the kids going to say enough is enough. They love both parents, but because of the arguments and putting them in the middle, their love is turning to hate. Who really can turn these parents around is the kids. Think about it....

[toothlesstiger]

It's gotten to the point now that one organization is looking like a petty dictator completely of touch with reality, however noble their goals may have been at the beginning of this road.

[Larinda McRaven]

I don't, and I certainly accept that there could be multiple agendas concerned... but would have to agree with mindputtee's point about the absurdity of claiming that what events competitors are allowed to attend = "matters that don't concern them."

I think what she was trying to say is there are things going on that the dancers simply don't see. And taking a stand, noble as it is, against a force that you only think you understand is kinda crazy.

Yes they were upset their friends were disqualified. Yes they stood up for their friends... but do they even REALLY know who and what they were standing up to? They are dipping their toe in a sea but have no idea what is in the water but what they see floating on top.

[Alskling]

I think what she was trying to say is there are things going on that the dancers simply don't see. And taking a stand, noble as it is, against a force that you only think you understand is kinda crazy.

Yes they were upset their friends were disqualified. Yes they stood up for their friends... but do they even REALLY know who and what they were standing up to? They are dipping their toe in a sea but have no idea what is in the water but what they see floating on top.

That doesn't work for me as an explanation, nor do I think it's fair to insinuate that the couple involved didn't know precisely what they were standing up for. You have no more idea what they do or do not know than I do.

An allegedly democratic organization should be an open book to its members. If there are things going on that impact the members, they should be told. All this hinting around that things are involved that we don't understand and shouldn't bother our pretty little heads about is infuriating and insulting.

And furthermore, even if this woman is in possession of some deep knowledge that no one else has, she--and only she, if the news reports are accurate--is responsible for ordering the removal of this couple by SIX security guards for the crime of wearing yellow. To me, there can be no excuse for this kind of thuggish, dictatorial behavior.

[DL]

I think what she was trying to say is there are things going on that the dancers simply don't see. And taking a stand, noble as it is, against a force that you only think you understand is kinda crazy.

Yes they were upset their friends were disqualified. Yes they stood up for their friends... but do they even REALLY know who and what they were standing up to? They are dipping their toe in a sea but have no idea what is in the water but what they see floating on top.

I've been wondering similar things.

[Larinda McRaven]

They stood up for their friends. That much they understand and admit freely. The president said there is more going on that they don't understand. Why would we question that statement?

It is not a democracy and never claimed to be.

She did not remove them for simply wearing a yellow sash. She removed them for inciting disruption. There is a difference.

[19DancerBabyLin]

If that's the case, then I'm curious to know how and what the couple was doing to incite disruption... and what the disruption is exactly?

[Alskling]

They stood up for their friends. That much they understand and admit freely. The president said there is more going on that they don't understand. Why would we question that statement?

It is not a democracy and never claimed to be.

She did not remove them for simply wearing a yellow sash. She removed them for inciting disruption. There is a difference.

Yes, if one presumes that wearing a yellow sash = inciting disruption. I don't. And how do you define disruption, exactly? Daring to disagree with the powers that be in a public forum in any way whatsoever, however silent? Do you honestly believe that riots were about to break out in the ballroom? What else would warrant such a response?

As to democracy: WDSF proclaims itself to be a democratic organization in virtually every communique they issue. Here is just one quote from their website, and I could go on, but won't: "Democratic and efficient describe the style of governance and the structure of WDSF. The WDSF General Meeting elects the 12-member Presidium and delegates the management to the latter. On the operational level, the Managing Committee – made up of the President, First Vice President, Treasurer, Secretary General and Sports Director – tends to the day-to-day running of the federation. The committee is supported in its task by the standing commissions, by advisers and consultants, and by the administration."

Last I checked, in a democracy, the governed are allowed to question those who govern them, and SHOULD. They work for us, not the reverse. Blind obedience ain't part of the deal.

[toothlesstiger]

I think what she was trying to say is there are things going on that the dancers simply don't see. And taking a stand, noble as it is, against a force that you only think you understand is kinda crazy.

Yes they were upset their friends were disqualified. Yes they stood up for their friends... but do they even REALLY know who and what they were standing up to? They are dipping their toe in a sea but have no idea what is in the water but what they see floating on top.

That's my whole problem with all of this. There's this really nasty battle going on, and as long as I've been trying to understand what it's about, I could find no explanation that adequately explains the behavior of the one body in particular. If it's because they don't know how to explain themselves, that's just bad management. If it's because they don't want to explain themselves, that's a lack of transparency, reflects hidden agendas and is also bad.

I am still waiting for someone to provide an explanation that doesn't boil down to a nasty, petty, battle for control. I'm seeing a lot of stick, and not much carrot.

[rbazsz]

I don't understand the "Freedom to Dance" controversy so I went to their website (http://www.freedomtodance.org.uk/) to try to figure it out. There is nothing on the website that gave me a clue, which makes me just a tad bit suspicious about their motives. If their own website doesn't explain what all the fuss is about who will?

I also watched the video of the dancers wearing the yellow sash. It certainly didn't look to me like their protest was anything that would warrant being ejected from the event.

Without knowing all the facts it still seems to me that the treatment of the dancers was very heavy handed and somewhat scary.

Would somebody please provide some information about what Freedom to Dance is all about?

[DL]

We should be careful what we wish for. Do we want DF to become the forum for the disputes at issue? (Just sayin'.)

[toothlesstiger]

If someone understands this dispute, I'd be perfectly happy to take the explanation in PM.

[randomaeiou]

for those with fb accounts (who doesn't anymore? :rolleyes:)

there's a significant amount of information openly available in the discussions/posts on the group page of ACDA (Australian Competitive Dancers' Association), including posts by the two dancers evicted.

[Joe]

Would they have also been ejected had they chosen to wear a red sash, or a blue sash, or a green sash in protest of their friends' banning?

[Bailamosdance]

Would somebody please provide some information about what Freedom to Dance is all about?

Is it one of those slogans like 'pro choice' that was actually created to obscure the negative situation?

[sambanada]

What's actually going to suffer most from all this drama is the level of dance around the world. When all couples were in one circuit, we had a push for more competition. Now, both are a bit watrered down, with strong couples in both WDSF and WDC. With time, this can actually bring down the overall level a bit.

[TinyDancer109]

We should be careful what we wish for. Do we want DF to become the forum for the disputes at issue? (Just sayin'.)

Is there any reason to be afraid to discuss the issues, DL?

[DL]

Is there any reason to be afraid to discuss the issues, DL?

I don't know enough about them to know the answer to that! :)

[Lioness]

They stood up for their friends. That much they understand and admit freely. The president said there is more going on that they don't understand. Why would we question that statement?

It is not a democracy and never claimed to be.

She did not remove them for simply wearing a yellow sash. She removed them for inciting disruption. There is a difference.

Anyone who didn't know what the sash meant would have dismissed it as an ornamentation for the dress. Anyone who did know what the sash meant would have felt heartened by her support. It was a silent protest, not intended to disrupt, or incite conflict...it was merely there to show support.

IMO, anyone seeking to limit which dancers dance which competitions forgets that the most crucial part of a competition are the competitors. You limit the competitors who can attend, and you eventually diminish the attractiveness of attending the competition by choice...

[Alskling]

I don't understand the "Freedom to Dance" controversy so I went to their website (http://www.freedomtodance.org.uk/) to try to figure it out. There is nothing on the website that gave me a clue, which makes me just a tad bit suspicious about their motives. If their own website doesn't explain what all the fuss is about who will?

I also watched the video of the dancers wearing the yellow sash. It certainly didn't look to me like their protest was anything that would warrant being ejected from the event.

Without knowing all the facts it still seems to me that the treatment of the dancers was very heavy handed and somewhat scary.

Would somebody please provide some information about what Freedom to Dance is all about?

The website you linked to above is mainly for the Freedom to Dance competition organized by Richard and Anne Gleave in England in May rather than an official organization website, as there isn't an "official" anything here. Richard is definitely the originator of the slogan "Freedom to Dance", and started a FB group of the same name. So far as I know the only goal of the group is what its name suggests: that dancers should be free to dance where they want and when they want without fear of punishment. Discussions in the FB group do tend to lean strongly anti-WDSF; on the other hand, WDSF appears to be the only organization that is actively banning dancers for doing the "wrong" competitions, so this isn't particularly surprising, as the group was created as a protest against just that. Beyond that, I don't think there's any dark conspiracy at work here to be suspicious of. Competitions have been organized under the slogan "Freedom to Dance", but while some of them are officially WDC or WDC-AL affiliated, most are non-aligned with either WDSF or WDC, and welcome all comers, and that is rather the point.

The yellow color that was at issue at Australian Nationals is very recent, I think, and came from a Picbadge of a yellow ribbon that an Australian dancer created and asked people to add to their FB profile picture for the month of December to show support for the Australian couples who were banned from competing at Nationals. It is showing signs of going viral from there.

Totally agree that the origins of this mess are complex and sometimes murky, and unless you have been personally affected and have been following developments for the last couple of years, it can be hard to figure out why everyone is so up in arms seemingly all of a sudden. And people who have been following it can find it hard to explain, or, since they're in the middle of it, don't realize they need to, since to them it's all crystal clear.

[toothlesstiger]

So, near as I can figure out the chronology and likely motivations... (ignoring name changes, just using current names)

WDC original org founded in the 1950's to govern professional dance, a couple of years later WDSF original org founded to govern amateur competition. WDC seems to be centered in England, while WDSF in continental Europe.

Late 90's, WDSF becomes sole body recognized by IOC to govern Ballroom Dance, and everybody starts sticking "sport" after dance.

2007ish, WDC creates WDC-AL, stepping on WDSF turf.
2010, WDSF creates Professional Division, stepping back on WDC's toes.

As near as I can remember, that's when I started seeing all the hubbub about who is allowed to dance where, and dancers getting banned.

Now, it seems there is a belief that there has to be only one governing body to be taken seriously as a possible olympic sport. Opinions vary as to whether it is a realistic or desirable goal. It would also seem that WDC creating WDC-AL could be construed as an attempt by WDC to render WDSF redundant.

I don't know why WDC started WDC-AL. Where there some onerous restrictions on WDSF amateur comps? WDSF professional division clearly seems to be a response to WDC-AL. And after that, restrictions on where one could compete seem to be part of an effort to establish One True Dance Governing Body (TM).

Seems that someone could have used a reminder that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar....

[Alskling]

So, near as I can figure out the chronology and likely motivations... (ignoring name changes, just using current names)

WDC original org founded in the 1950's to govern professional dance, a couple of years later WDSF original org founded to govern amateur competition. WDC seems to be centered in England, while WDSF in continental Europe.

Late 90's, WDSF becomes sole body recognized by IOC to govern Ballroom Dance, and everybody starts sticking "sport" after dance.

2007ish, WDC creates WDC-AL, stepping on WDSF turf.
2010, WDSF creates Professional Division, stepping back on WDC's toes.

As near as I can remember, that's when I started seeing all the hubbub about who is allowed to dance where, and dancers getting banned.

Now, it seems there is a belief that there has to be only one governing body to be taken seriously as a possible olympic sport. Opinions vary as to whether it is a realistic or desirable goal. It would also seem that WDC creating WDC-AL could be construed as an attempt by WDC to render WDSF redundant.

I don't know why WDC started WDC-AL. Where there some onerous restrictions on WDSF amateur comps? WDSF professional division clearly seems to be a response to WDC-AL. And after that, restrictions on where one could compete seem to be part of an effort to establish One True Dance Governing Body (TM).

Seems that someone could have used a reminder that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar....

I think the rumblings about Blackpool boycotts and then the beginning of individual country amateur federations forbidding their couples to go may have been contiguous with the founding of WDC-AL. Not sure of cause and effect relationship, but the idea of banning couples for going to certain comps has been around longer than 2010. I think the Italians, Russians, Germans, and maybe Spaniards were enforcing it pretty heavily for their couples by around 2009-2010. It's in the last year or so that the idea of WDSF enforcing bans on their own came in, rather than bans being enforced at the national level, and WDSF is now reserving to themselves the right to ban couples for doing events even if their national WDSF member body has no objection to their participation. Best example of this is in the US, where USA Dance has said it will not prevent or punish its couples from doing any competition they wish to do, but there are cases now of WDSF banning, or at least threatening to ban, US couples for doing non-registered events.

[toothlesstiger]

Oh, thanks so much for that reminder. I remember now that some of the national bodies were unhappy that the judging panels did not reflect the same diversity as the competitors, i.e., their dancers were getting coaching from English judges and continental coaches wanted in on that action. Now let's see if I can avoid having another senior episode and remember where the money is going. ;-)

[DL]

I thought I saw another post a few months ago that gave me the sense that different revenue models (in particular, pro-am vs. am-am) in different places were an additional underlying source of friction.

(Please, I'm not trying to start discussion of the pros and cons of pro-am and am-am. I just mean that the money flows differently, depending which system dominates a given market.)

[Alskling]

I thought I saw another post a few months ago that gave me the sense that different revenue models (in particular, pro-am vs. am-am) in different places were an additional underlying source of friction.

(Please, I'm not trying to start discussion of the pros and cons of pro-am and am-am. I just mean that the money flows differently, depending which system dominates a given market.)

Don't remember the thread, but I'm fairly sure money and power battles are at the root of most of this, cynic that I am. And just to further muddy the waters, WDSF has now added their own pro-am division, so now we've got two--or more--of everything. Is there such a thing as pro-am in any Olympic sport?

[toothlesstiger]

It looks to me like someone is making more money than someone else, and that someone else is jealous. Sticks are not very effective without some good carrots.

Start putting on a competition that's so good that being banned means you miss the best....

[Joe]

It looks to me like someone thinks someone else is making more money, and that someone else is jealous.
ftfy. ;)

[DancingJools]

The dispute between the two major organizations is much more complex. A major sore point was the issue that amateurs in certain countries were allowed to teach and earn significant money, while other countries did not allow that. In essence, there was no distinction between professional and amateur dancer, and professionals felt their livelihood threatened by this. The WDC (the professionals organization) began imposing (rather timid) restrictions on who can call themselves amateur and dance as such in WDC competitions, and things escalated. This fight began about 10 years ago. The forceful decisions, specifically boycotts and penalizing dancers for participating in certain comps, was more the policy of WDSF affiliates (the amateurs organization), and began about 4 years ago.

[toothlesstiger]

If you understand the complexity of the issue, I would be very happy to find out more, even in PM. but otherwise, what you say there still seems to boil down to money and somebody wanting to make sure they get what they think is their fair share of the pie.

[DancingJools]

What else would be really worth fighting over - other than money and power, I mean? :-) Of course it's a struggle over power of representation and ultimately power of earning revenues.

[toothlesstiger]

In which case both sides are treating this like a zero-sum game, rather than trying to figure out a way where everyone can benefit. A pox on both their houses. :-P

[DL]

In which case both sides are treating this like a zero-sum game, rather than trying to figure out a way where everyone can benefit. A pox on both their houses. :-P

I'll just guess:

Probably each side has a good way to assess the rate at which the overall pool of available resources could grow or shrink, and doesn't come up with an encouraging answer.

[toothlesstiger]

I'll just guess:

Probably each side has a good way to assess the rate at which the overall pool of available resources could grow or shrink, and doesn't come up with an encouraging answer.

The pool of resources to support a dance governing organization, sure. But the number of dance organizations is going to have little affect on the available resources for dance professionals.

[DL]

The pool of resources to support a dance governing organization, sure. But the number of dance organizations is going to have little affect on the available resources for dance professionals.

Well, the organizations funnel the raw resources into actual revenue streams, no?

[toothlesstiger]

For the organizations, maybe. Dance professionals make their money teaching dance and dancing. The number of people taking dance lessons is hardly a function of the governing organizations. Making a living is not at issue. Who gets to be the judge that gets competitors willing to pay very high rates for lessons is at issue. ;-) But then again, rectifying that issue means that the really lucrative lessons would go away. When competitors could possibly make the full circuit of Blackpool judges, they might very well do that, but when you expand the pool of judges globally, nobody has the time to make that circuit, and the goose that lays the golden eggs is gone. Please don't be offended by my armchair analysis, I'm just thinking with my fingers. ;-)