Members of the WMA Council posed at a recent meeting in Puerto Rico, site of the 2003 world masters track championships.

WMA sets bar high for meet bidders; Sacramento drops out

By Ken Stone

A deadline of September 1, 2002, looms for cities wanting to host the 2007 World Masters Athletic Championships. That’s the date WMA has to have applications in hand. But you can scratch one potential candidate from the list, and perhaps others.

The Northern California city of Sacramento – host of the 2000 and 2004 U.S. Olympic Trials but a failed bidder for the 2005 world masters meet – has dropped out of the 2007 race, says USATF Masters Track & Field Chairman George Mathews. 

Why? WMA has upped the ante in this poker game.

In a split vote, the WMA Council has decided to boost what it calls the “bid sanction fee” from $40,000 to $150,000 – a hefty 275 percent increase.  This is in addition to a $20,000 refundable performance bond that WMA requires.

And WMA also stipulates that the host Organizing Committee “shall provide courtesy accommodations (single-occupancy rooms) and breakfast for each WMA Council member (maximum 15 rooms) beginning four nights before the Championships commence until one night following the conclusion of the Championships, at a hotel approved by WMA.”

Thus the winning city must be prepared to pay $150,000 – plus the expense of a bid campaign, a $20,000 performance bond (returned if WMA is satisfied with the meet)  and the costs of  a bid campaign. (However, the host city is allowed by WMA to tack a $15-an-athlete surcharge onto the entry fee. Thus, a meet drawing 6,000 athletes could recoup $90,000.)

The $150K fee is paid in three installments -- $50K just after a city is awarded the meet, $50K when entry registration is closed and $50K by the first day of the meet.

Still, Mathews has protested the fee increase, which is said to have been spearheaded by WMA President Torsten Carlius. A sample contract for bid cities to submit to WMA has been posted on the WMA Web site. Bidder guidelines also have been posted.

In a widely circulated letter, Mathews told the WMA Council: “With the sanction fee at $150,000, we don’t know of anyone in the United States who can afford to lose this kind of money.”

Further, Mathews said that if WMA doesn’t roll back the bid fee to $40,000, the United States would propose a rule change at the 2003 Puerto Rico General Assembly to do just that.  

On the other hand, the fee increase indicates WMA is aware that the biennial world masters stadia championships can be a windfall for the host city and country -- and now wants its cut. It’s been said that Buffalo, New York, brought in $11 million as host of the 1995 world masters meet.

With a two-year budget of about $200,000, WMA is not rich. It has no headquarters and barely has enough money to erect a rudimentary Web site. Bid fees from even a handful of cities could double or triple WMA revenues, allowing it to plow money into needed areas, such as the Web site,  and subsidize meets and local governing bodies in Asia and Africa where masters track has nearly no presence. 

But the fee issue raises fears that the WMA Council could be favoring one bid -- one that can afford the $150K fee -- and thus wipe out competition in the host-site race. Even more chilling is the thought that kickbacks from the winning city could enrich a member or members of the WMA Council.

News of the bid-fee brouhaha comes on the heels of another sign of the WMA Council throwing its weight around.

In June, Mathews wrote that the WMA Council – the 15-member body that includes elected officers and regional representatives – had proposed radical changes in other bid procedures for the world masters championships.

In the past, bid cities for the biennial meet completed applications by a certain date and then showed up at the world championships to argue their case for the meet four years hence.

The General Assembly -- made up of delegates of all WMA affiliate nations -- would then select a site by a series of open votes.

Now it appears the WMA Council wants to hear bid presentations privately and then come up with a recommendation for the General Assembly to reject or rubber-stamp.

Mathews writes: “In this way there will be no formal bids by the bidders to the Assembly, and to protect against any suggestion of impropriety or bribery on the part of any member of the Council, no gifts in excess of the value of $15.00 may be accepted.”

According to Mathews -- who quotes WMA Exec VP Tom Jordan -- WMA wants to adopt the IAAF's evaluation criteria for choosing a meet site. (Not sure what those criteria are). WMA would send an inspection team to the bid cities and grade them accordingly.

 “I am not sure why all this is being done.” Mathews wrote in a Chair’s Report on the USATF Web site. “I never thought that any Council member could possibly be bribed. I thought the biggest problem with the process was that the bidders weren’t given enough time to make their presentations and handle questions and answers.

“I believe there was bloc voting going on at the last General Assembly (Brisbane 2001), but I don’t think we can or should stop that if that’s what people want to do. I really think that the decision belongs with the General Assembly by vote, not a sanction of recommendation.

 “It is scary that this could get enacted for the next bidding process. I know that USATF Masters wouldn’t let the Masters Executive Committee get away with such serious changes.

“My biggest concern now is to get the time needed for the bidder presentations. I recommend at least one hour each, and that this new procedure not be enacted in 2003 and reconsidered for the future. Jordan has offered to distribute my views to the Council members at the appropriate time.”

Mathews isn’t alone in objecting to the fee. 

Winston Thomas of Great Britain, technical manager for the European Veterans Athletic Association, writes: “Like you, I totally disagee with this and quite a few other things that WMA seem to be doing; without the agreements of the affiliates, they seem to have taken the stance that they are able to change whatever they please under Rule 9, and need not get the approval of the affiliates.”

Here is Mathews’ original memo to the WMA Council on the bid fee:

Subject: World Masters Athletics Championships bid sanction fee 

Dear Council Members,

Over the last few weeks I have become painfully aware of changes incorporated into the World Masters Athletics Championship provisions and process.

The latest bid documents received over the last few weeks indicates that the bid sanction fee has been increased from $40,000 U.S. dollars to $150,000.

This has caused our most viable candidate, Sacramento, California, to opt out of the bidding process. Most of you, I hope, understand how hard it is to break even on this event with a $40,000 sanction fee. With the sanction fee at $150,000, we don’t know of anyone in the United States who can afford to lose this kind of money.

I would propose that the council consider rolling back the sanction fee to $40,000 and that the $15.00 surcharge be variable with the number of entries. We don’t believe that a bidder should be at financial risk to make up a shortfall in the number of entries. It is bad enough that they will lose the entry fees.

We may be able to get Sacramento to reconsider if this reasonable proposal is allowed.

We understand that the Council has the general authority -- under Constitution Section 5, J, “The council shall negotiate the terms of any contract entered into by WAVA” -- to make these changes.

We believe this new sanction fee ($150,000) is a very serious detriment to attracting viable bids from people who can really put this event on in the manner that we all want to see. We have witnessed past venues cutting back toward the end of the championships for financial reasons and this $150,000 fee will not help forestall this situation in the future.

If necessary, we are prepared to present proposal to the By-Laws or Constitution as follows:

RIGHTS FEES. RIGHTS FEES THAT HAVE BEEN USED FOR THE LAST STADIA OR NONSTADIA CHAMPIONSHIPS SHALL REMAIN THE SAME. MODIFICATION OF RIGHTS FEES FOR FUTURE CHAMPIONSHIPS CAN ONLY BE MADE BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Hopefully, reason shall prevail and allow the best candidates in the world an opportunity to bid on this important event.

Thank You in Advance For Your Consideration