Early in October 2024, a post on social media by Jean-Paul Brands of Pétanque Live in Holland brought the unexpected news that the Dutch Men’s National Team will not be invited by pétanque’s world governing body, the FIPJP to compete in the Men’s World Triples Championship in Dijon, France from 5th to 8th December 2024.
Unexpected, in that the current published FIPJP Championship Rules, which can be easily seen on its website state plainly that:
“The men’s triplet world championship is limited to 48 teams (including a team from the host country and a team from the nation holding the title). The participating teams will come from continental qualifiers. The quota of participants per continent is defined by the FIPJP Executive Committee the year preceding the world championship. This same measure will be applied to other world championships when the number of participants is likely to exceed 48 teams or by decision of Congress.”
Article 7, FIPJP Championship Rules
The quota which applied to Europe up until the previous World Championship was 24 teams and the continental qualifier that has always been used was the European Men’s Triples Championship, organised by the continent’s long-established and recognised Confederation, the CEP.
Results of the European Championship 2023
The last edition of the European Men’s Triples Championship was held in September 2023 in Albertville, France.
The results of that Championship and associated rankings of individual Federations can be seen on the CEP’s website. These clearly indicate those countries that were in the Top 16 of the tournament after the five-round Swiss qualification and who contested the final knockout stages.
Those that did not make the Top 16, as is always the case, joined the lower tournament, the Nations Cup.
The individual CEP rankings are calculated from the performances in both the Championship and the Nations Cup.
At the conclusion of the Championship, the Top 16 teams in the European Championship were ranked overall as shown below:
Results of the European Nations Cup 2023
Competing federations who do not perform well in the five-round Swiss qualification and which do not make the Top 16 are always acutely aware that they very much still have something to play for.
They can play for positions 17 to 24 and if they are successful in reaching the Quarter Finals of the Nations Cup knock out, then they can expect an invitation to the following World Championships.It’s important to bear in mind at this point that the FIPJP’s rules also make it clear that quota for each continent should be defined by the FIPJP Executive Committee in the year preceding the World Championships. This must surely mean during 2023 in the case of Dijon.
In many respects “the year preceding” is a sensible timing stipulation as it makes things as transparent as possible for the federations, allows time to find representative teams, prepare, make travel arrangements and for many federations make provisions to fund their team’s attendance.
Although not explicitly stated in the FIPJP rules, it would also make complete sense for the quota to be set and communicated prior to any continental qualifier. That way, every federation would be clear about what they would need to achieve to get a World Championship invitation.
The Nations Cup in Albertville established the CEP Overall Ranking (‘O/R’) and this is shown below:
Based on this, Holland, Latvia, Czech Republic, Israel, Ukraine, Slovenia, Norway and Slovakia should receive the invitation to the 2024 World Championships if the current published rules of the FIPJP are to be followed and respected.
This is not at all what has happened. Instead a new formula has been used by the FIPJP which can probably best be described as a ‘transitional reform’.
Background to reform
Those federations that participated in the 2023 Men’s World Triples Championships in Benin, Africa heard from the FIPJP hierarchy at the Congress organised there that reform of the World Championships was under active consideration.
A change under active consideration was apparently a reduction in Europe’s quota from 24 to 22 or 20.
It could be argued that signalling this quota change at this time was actually consistent with the FIPJP rules which require definition of the quota in the “year preceding” the World Championship.
However, it could be equally argued that the precise quota was not defined, merely the intention to reduce it to some as yet unspecified number.
An additional point mentioned concerned automatic invitations only being extended to European Federations who made the actual European Championship final stages (i.e. the Top 16).
It was not made clear what criteria might be applied for deciding how additional invitations might be allocated to Europe beyond the Top 16.
One issue with the communication process at this stage might be that there was only limited European representation in Benin. The FIPJP Congress was held on 14th September 2023 just before the start of the Men’s Triples World Championship and only seven days before the commencement of the European Men’s Triples Championship in Albertville.
Only 10 European Federations were present in Benin for the Men’s Triples: France, Spain, Poland, Germany, Czech Republic, Latvia, Turkey, Estonia, Ukraine and Scotland.
A further two European federations, Slovakia and Hungary were present in Benin for the preceding World Singles, Doubles and Mixed Doubles Championship held between the 9th and 12th September.
At the 2021 World Men’s Triples Championships in Santa Susanna, Spain and the 2018 World Championships in Desbiens, Canada, there were respectively 21 and 15 extra European Federations present.
This meant that despite the quota of 24 for Europe, actually 31 were present in Spain and 25 in Canada. Even then, neither of these World Championships hit the target of 48 teams in total as envisaged in the FIPJP rules.
Next stage in the reform process
The next point of communication of changes to the organisation of the World Championships was via a video call with federation representatives (it’s not clear exactly who was present) held on 14th April 2024, the day after a meeting of the FIPJP Executive.It’s also not clear who was present at the 13th April FIPJP Executive, but the members of this body include Claude Azema as President (France), Supphonart Lamlert (Vice President, Thailand), Bernard Auroze (Vice President, Canada), Michel Signaire(Treasurer, France), Bruno Fernandez (Secretary, Slovakia), Karel Dohnal (Member, Czech Republic), Michael Doerhoffer (Member, Germany), Agnes Kocsis-Simon (Member, Hungary), Claudio Mamino (Member, Italy), Stephane Pintus (Member, Monaco), Gerard Schneider (Member, Luxemburg) and Henrik Toft (Member, Denmark).
According to information supplied to Petanque365, the Executive had concluded that a couple of important points of principle should apply in future.
First, the decision on which federations should be invited to the World Championships should reside entirely with the FIPJP and no other body.
Second, and following on from that, the invitations would be based on ‘world rankings’, meaning that the former approach of using the continental qualifiers as the primary basis for World Championship invitations would no longer apply.
It was not clear how these ‘world rankings’ would be calculated, although apparently the results of the continental championships would still be considered as part of the equation.The devil as always will be in the detail as to precisely how this will work, and an FIPJP working group led by Executive Committee member Stephane Pintus is doing the spade work with presumably a final decision being made by the Executive.
Sources close to the CEP have also told Petanque365, that they had been told that there would be some clarity provided as to the future organisation of the World Championships (and no doubt the amendments to the rules) by the end of October 2024.
Once the proposed approach and rule changes are in the public domain, that will be the appropriate time to assess them rather than second guess.
Key here is to understand how ‘World Rankings’ might be calculated.
An aggregated ranking?
Although a formal announcement is awaited, the very latest information obtained by Petanque365 suggests that the favoured approach of the FIPJP is to calculate world rankings by aggregating all the results of its World Championships across formats, ages, and genders.
If applied, it is understood that this would mean that results in the Youth, Women’s and Men’s Triples World Championships (including Precision Shooting) as well as those in the World Singles, Doubles and Mixed Doubles would be used to find world rankings. These would then be used to issue invitations to each continent based on the applicable quota.
This approach, if applied – we stress that at this time Petanque365’s information is based on information privately communicated by the FIPJP – raises a number of important questions.
Probably the most fundamental one is whether in principle that invitations to gender specific triples format tournaments should be based on results achieved in different gender and format tournaments.Intellectually, it seems hard to see how the results achieved by a young player in a precision shooting competition or by female players in a doubles competition could be in any way be considered a sound basis for extending invitations to Men’s Triples teams for a World Championship.
Not all federations have the players or the resources to attend all of the FIPJP’s tournaments. It could be argued that this will penalise smaller, less wealthy federations.
It would certainly place federations in a position where they are under much greater pressure to participate in all FIPJP tournaments. It would effectively downgrade the continental championships that the current rules identify as the ‘qualifiers’ according to the allocated quotas.
It’s even possible that cash-strapped federations may no longer attend their continental championships and prioritise the World Championships instead.
It also significantly increases the control of the FIPJP and lessens that of the continental confederations. In short, it’s a power grab.
Maybe there are sports that follow such an aggregated approach. It would be interesting to hear from anyone who could offer any examples.
The detailed rules when they are finally provided may prove to be different to the aggregated approach outlined above, and Petanque365’s understanding is based on internal information that may yet be subject to change.
Are continental qualifiers a better way?
There’s an old English adage, “If it ain’t broke, don’t change it!”
The process that has been used to date to find continental representation in pétanque is in fact no different in practical terms to the football World Cup organised by FIFA. There is a quota of places allocated per continental zone (six in the FIFA case) and the qualification is overseen by the respective confederations.The difference of course, using Europe as an example, is that the qualification process is transacted outside of the UEFA European Championships, but the four-year cycle of the World Cup tournament allows for the opportunity to carry out the qualifiers.
This leads to the realistic solution of using the results of the European Championships held in the previous year.
With a biennial approach in pétanque where normally the European Championships take place in one year and the World Championships the next, a separate qualification process to the European Championships is impractical.
World Rugby has adopted a slightly different approach with only 20 nations present at its 2023 World Cup. The qualification process involved 12 ‘automatic’ places and a further 8 found from continental based qualifiers with a quota for each continent.
One of the key issues is trying to balance the principle of involving the best nations with that of diversity in participation.
Is it a better outcome for the sport as a whole, for example, to ‘rebalance’ quotas to give a place to an emerging South American or Asian Federation even if that outcome might mean excluding a European Federation who would be likely on significantly more occasions than not to defeat the emerging nation in a head to head or progress further in a World Championship?
There can be no doubt there are different levels of performance across the globe, some of which might not have been truly appreciated by fans of the sport. The Benin World Championships revealed some truly talented players from Africa that have not been showcased before.To focus the debate further though, if there are 8 viable federations in the Pan-American Confederation (there were indeed 8 at their continental championships in 2023) and five of these get a ‘quota place’ based on a world ranking which might be inferior to a European federation who is outside of the quotas for Europe but with a higher world ranking, does that lead to a better and more competitive World Championship?
This is where choices have to be made in terms of promoting diversity and encouraging the wider global growth of the game.
This choice becomes more acute as the sport expands and administrators seek to work within the maximum number – currently 48 teams – invited to the World Championship. Might there be a way to extend the invitation beyond 48 and avoid the problem?
Alternatively, might the Rugby model work where say the top16 in the Men’s World Triples Championship receive an automatic invitation and then the remaining 32 are found through the respective Men’s Continental Triples Championships by using quotas?
That’s probably more a question for those more skilled in designing competition formats which maximise participation on an equitable basis yet at the same time do not make the World Championship excessively long and unwieldy.
The ‘transitional reform’
Whilst there may well be good grounds to critically review the format of the FIPJP World Championships and address the ‘best nations/diversity balance’, what has happened since the April 2024 FIPJP Executive Meeting and the subsequent video call, raises a number of questions.
Instead of finalising and communicating the agreed future format of the World Championships and making a fresh start, the FIPJP instead has come up with a ‘transitional’ solution. The basis of this solution and its application in terms of invitations to European Federations are not entirely clear, so the following analysis by Petanque365 is based on information obtained from a variety of sources at FIPJP, CEP and individual European Federation levels.
It is, however, like trying to piece a jigsaw together and in the absence of a clear explanation from the FIPJP, the following is our best understanding of what has transpired.
The ins and outs of Dijon
Although it certainly must be acknowledged that the FIPJP’s direction of travel would have been apparent to those limited federation delegates that attended the FIPJP Congress in Benin in September 2023 or the video call in April 2024, the real impact was not felt until the middle of October 2024.
It was only at this point less than two months before the start of the Dijon World Championships that some clarity emerged about who had and who hadn’t got the nod amongst the European Federations.
The latest understanding that we have is that in addition to the Top 16 ranked Federations found by the European Championships in 2023 in Albertville, a further three European Federations, namely Czech Republic, Germany and Slovakia have been issued an ‘automatic invitation’.
A further six Federations, namely Estonia (ranked 26th in the 2023 EC), Latvia (ranked 18th in the 2023 EC), Lebanon (not a CEP Member Federation), Norway (ranked 23rd in the 2023 EC), Scotland (ranked 28th in the 2023 EC) and Ukraine (ranked 21st in the 2023 EC) have been invited to a pre-qualification process in Dijon.
The pre-qualification will, apparently, find three Federations for the World Championships and three for the Nations Cup.
Based on the latest list that Petanque365 has seen, this will result in 21 Federations from Europe, 5 from the Pan American Confederation, 3 from Oceania, 5 from Asia, 12 from Africa and 1 non-aligned (Lebanon), a total of 47 participants.
We also understand, again from information obtained from FIPJP sources that there were dropouts from 44 original invitations issued pre-August 2024, particularly from Asia and Oceania. We do not know who they were.
In other words, invitations were issued but not taken up, much like what the FIPJP experienced for Benin in 2023, although the scale of European non-participation there was unprecedented.
Continental qualification – African and Pan-American
We have seen information which suggests that the original intention of the FIPJP was to extend the World Championship invitations to only 8 African Federations (the continent’s confederation had requested 12) since the continental championship had only attracted 14 separate federation entries. Also, the FIPJP, we understand, decided that it would not await the outcome of this continental championship to issue invitations.
From the list of African nations that Petanque365 understands will be in Dijon, in fact only seven competed in Morocco in June and three of these were not placed in the championship stage following the initial qualification rounds.
Madagascar, Algeria and Mauritius are listed as attending Dijon but did not compete in the African continental championship.
Similarly, as indicated above, as far as the Pan-American Confederation is concerned, only 8 federations competed at its continental championships held in Mexico in late 2023.
It appears from the list of attendees in Dijon that the top 5 ranked federations at the Mexico championships received the invitation. This includes the Dominican Republic, which to our knowledge has never competed at world level before.
European controversy
There can be no doubt that the main controversy revolves around the European invitations.
The starting point as we understand it in the FIPJP’s justification for its selection is the argument that it is not a robust approach to use the results of the CEP’s Nations Cup (NC) in Albertville 2023 in deciding the Overall Rankings of European Federations.
This, according the FIPJP hierarchy is not a serious competition as it is not in fact a ‘championship’.
As far as we are aware, the NC being used by the CEP to establish rankings beyond 16th place has never been at issue before. In many respects, as the FIPJP Rules state the invited participants ‘will come from the continental qualifiers’, it follows surely that it is the decision of the continental Confederation as to how it establishes its rankings.
The CEP has always used the NC to find its Overall Rankings and this has never been challenged by the FIPJP. Until now. This is clearly linked to questions of who is in control and the FIPJP has a clear view that it should be the world body.
In formulating its ‘transitional approach’, we have seen documentary evidence that clearly indicates that the FIPJP is now taking the stance that the Nations Cup should not be used to determine the European Rankings at all and that instead the European Championship Rankings should be based on where Federations were placed at the conclusion of the five-round Swiss qualification.
One argument which we have seen put forward by the FIPJP which does have some resonance is that it is often the case that the European quota is finalised by going further down the list than 24th place (the Quarter Finalists of the NC).Whilst that might arguably mean that this devalues the European qualification further, the counter argument would be that if you did not do it that way, the alternative would be presumably to just go further down the list of the Swiss qualification standings?
What is more robust in finding the additional teams: a ranking where teams are split on a Buccholz tie break following five rounds or one which is based on a straight knockout in a different competition, the way in which the Championship itself is decided?
As shown in the table below, all of the teams ranked from 18th to 28th after the Swiss in Albertville had two wins and had to be split by the Buccholz tie break. There were only two BhN points between 24th and 27th place.
It’s not difficult to make the case for untimed knockout games in the Nations Cup to be a better a way to find the rankings than the timed games which rely on statistical tie breaks using a formula which uses how well your opponents played.
The whole thing can be argued one way or the other and apparent conviction of the FIPJP that the CEP’s approach in using the Nations Cup results is flawed is questionable.
The FIPJP could effectively re-express the CEP’s Overall Rankings by just looking at the five-round Swiss Qualification (as shown above) which puts Federations in different positions, but that was not and has never been the basis for the European quota for the World Championships.
The strength of the FIPJP’s argument is perhaps somewhat undermined by the fact that in their transitional arrangements they have offered a pre-qualification place to three Federations who were ranked officially 25th, 27th and 29th at the EC, if you base this on the Swiss rankings only.
Every European Federation that entered the European Championships in 2023 did so on the reasonable expectation that the Nations Cup would be used to determine the Overall Rankings and that the Top 24 would receive an invitation to the 2024 World Championships.
The Dutch exclusion
Whether you use the long-established CEP approach to the European Rankings or the FIPJP ‘Swiss rankings only’, you arrive at the Dutch Federation (NJBB) being ranked either 17th or 23rd in Albertville.
So what explains their exclusion?
Information we have seen that has been provided by sources close to the NJBB suggest that the omission of the invitation to Holland is driven by a penalisation for their non-attendance at the Men’s World Championships in Benin and the Women’s World Championships in Thailand, both having taken place late last year.
The first question which arises from this concerns the published rules of the FIPJP in relation to participation in the World Championships. The relevant clause is shown below.
The federations must send their participation agreement to the Executive Committee and the Organizing Committee within the deadlines set by the latter. If a federation renounces its participation after having accepted it, it will be banned from any world championships in the following twelve months as well as from the next world championship in the category concerned.
Article 7, FIPJP Championship Rules
Whilst it is the case that along with many of its sister European federations, the NJBB did not participate in Benin, it also did not go to Thailand for the Women’s WC.
As indicated above, there was a significant number of European federations which decided not to participate in Benin, and the assumption is that they simply did not accept the invitation and return their participation agreement.
It is not clear whether the NJBB sent its participation agreement in either instance.
If the NJBB never renounced its participation then it should not be subject to any penalty under the rules in terms of a 12-month ban from any world championships and a ban in the next corresponding category world championships.
As far as we are aware, no federation has ever received a ban for being in contravention of Article 7.
However, rather than falling foul of Article 7, other information seen by Petanque365 suggests that the justification for the exclusion of the NJBB is linked to the transitional arrangements for invitations to Dijon.
According to the information provided to us, invitations to European Federations were based on the application of three criteria:
- Continued use of the results achieved in the continental championships (and not the Nations Cup);
- Participation in the World Championships; and;
- A world ranking found by results in the World Championships over the past two years.
It therefore seems that it is the transitional formula which has led to the exclusion of Holland.
The inclusion of other European federations
As noted above there were three ‘automatic’ invitations offered to Czech Republic, Germany and Slovakia, all of which did not finish in the Top 16 in Albertville.
From the information Petanque365 has seen, the basis for these invitations and those given to those European federations for the preliminary ‘play off’ (Estonia, Latvia, Norway, Scotland and Ukraine) is equally the transitional formula.
Although we have not seen the detailed calculations nor the complete ‘world rankings’ which flow from the formula, according to the FIPJP:
- Slovakia are ranked 16th in the world with 41 points;
- Latvia are 21st;
- Estonia are 24th;
- Ukraine are 33rd;
- Scotland 39th; and
- Norway 54th with 3 points.
Looking at the case of Slovakia and the federation’s recent results in Men’s Triples, it was placed 24th in the CEP’s official overall rankings for Albertville (25th if you adopt the argument of the FIPJP as set out above that the Swiss rankings should be used) and did not compete at all in Benin in the Men’s Triples (although it did compete in the Singles, Doubles and Mixed Doubles).
Looking at the results of the previous 2021 Men’s Triples World Championships, Slovakia was placed 28th.
In other words, in neither the previous two FIPJP World Men’s Triples Championships or the last CEP European Men’s Triples Championship was the federation a Championship qualifier.
Yet, according to the FIPJP’s calculations, the federation’s world ranking places it 16th.
Looking at Latvia, by comparison, the federation was placed 18th in the CEP official overall rankings for Albertville and 19th at the Men’s Triples World Championship in Benin, where unlike Slovakia the federation competed. Latvia was placed 35th in the 2021 Men’s World Triples Championships (Slovakia were 28th).
Therefore, if the equivalent gender and playing format is used, it must follow that Latvia have performed better than Slovakia in recent years and on that basis should receive the ‘automatic invitation’ to Dijon in preference to Slovakia.
Clearly – and this will be seen if and when the ‘world rankings’ calculations are revealed – it is only by aggregating world level results across age, gender and format that Slovakia is ranked higher than Latvia.
This example shows rather starkly that the aggregation of results in this way ends up with a very different ranking from that achieved by only considering the applicable playing format.
As indicated above, there are significant questions around whether the aggregation approach is a sound basis for the ranking of federations at world level.
There are also questions around governance in terms of the decision to apply the transitional formula.
Whilst no impropriety whatsoever is alleged, there is arguably a perception problem for the FIPJP Executive in that the three federations outside of the Top 16 in Albertville that have received the ‘automatic invitation’ are all represented on the FIPJP Executive Committee.
This is what can be described as ‘not a good look’.
It is not known whether the representatives concerned were present at the FIPJP EC that considered this or indeed whether they participated in any discussion or vote on the adoption of the transitional formula which then led to the Dijon invitations (both automatic and to the ‘play-off’) and exclusion of the NJBB.
The NJBB – the fall guys?
Looking at things from the FIPJP perspective it might be understandable why there might be unhappiness with any leading federation not playing at a World Championships.
These tournaments involve a lot of organisation and mobilisation of human and financial resources by the hosting federation. It is reasonable to expect under normal circumstances that ‘solidarity’ should be shown with the organising federation.
The FIPJP could be justified in feeling that they should be able to sanction federations who decline invitations as a result of their own national level decision-making.
A case could be made for the NJBB acting unreasonably on two separate occasions.
However, having said that, the FIPJP rules only provide for penalties when a federation accepts an invitation to a World Championships and then withdraws.
It can equally be argued that many federations voted with their feet in relation to Benin 2023 because the situation was hardly ‘normal’. The NJBB was far from alone.
The tournaments there necessitated two weeks in the country (the Singles, Doubles and Mixed Doubles followed immediately by the Men’s Triples had never been organised that way previously) and couldn’t have been closer to the European Championships in Albertville.
This was unprecedented in the history of the sport.
It was international tournament overload and as noted above there were 21 European federations present at the 2021 Men’s Triples Championship who were not there in 2023.
Many federations had various levels of legitimate concerns around availability of players (including constraints around time off work for amateur players), cost, the outdoor playing environment (contrary to FIPJP World Championship tournament rules and the result of a promised bouledrome not being delivered in Benin) and the internal security of the country itself.
The FIPJP has never publicly acknowledged that these conditions were in any way a factor in affecting participation or considered as such.
An objective view might be that they should have been. It is very unlikely that any international federation would take a decision not to compete in a World Championship lightly.
The FIPJP cannot justifiably present itself as blameless in terms of what happened with participation in Benin.
There are also internal issues which may affect why a federation might not participate at a World Championship. These might include an assessment that there are not players at a sufficient level to compete or perhaps financial constraints.
It is not clear why the NJBB did not compete at the Women’s World Championships, but if there were mitigating factors put to the FIPJP by the NJBB, then these were clearly not accepted.
An objective assessment of the NJBB male players and teams suggests that they are a very strong pétanque nation.
In 2021, Holland was a Quarter Finalist at the Men’s Triples World Championships, the last they competed in. This was a very good result in a highly competitive tournament involving 46 world federations.The players and coaches from Holland that compete at international level have always been exemplary and the culture of the sport in the country is well-established and embedded.
The NJBB has also played a significant role post the COVID pandemic in promoting the sport, notably with the hosting of the brilliant CEP European Singles, Doubles and Mixed Doubles in 2022, a highly visible and successful festival of pétanque.
The NJBB also adopts a robust national process in finding its national representation and used its ‘Masters’ process to find its number one Men’s Triples in 2023 in preparation for Dijon 2024.
Ultimately, the players that have been denied the opportunity – Dennis Mul, Frank Schepers, Patrick Tuax and Milan Heilegers – are the real victims of the FIPJP wanting to flex its muscles.
Conclusion – a transitional fix gone wrong
We have done our best to verify what has been going on and this is the only way to try and find out what is happening behind the scenes, as transparency behind FIPJP decision-making is often limited.
It’s clear from our contacts with sources at CEP level that they have been kept largely in the dark as to what has been going on and the rationale for invitations to Dijon.
Our basic conclusion when all is said and done is that much of the controversy revolves around the decision to implement the transitional arrangements. The basis for these has not been explained in detail and should have been as they have directly affected the invitations made to the 2024 Men’s Triples World Championships.
A better and more equitable approach would have been surely to set out in detail the future basis for the World Championships with a reasonable advanced warning (and certainly not within a couple of months of the World Championships).
Rule changes are part and parcel of organised sport, but how they are communicated and implemented are crucial.
Applying an intermediate fix in advance of the finalised rules is always going to raise questions, although maybe those questions may not have arisen if the decision to exclude the NJBB had not been taken.
That decision seems to be on the face of it unnecessarily punitive and could affect Holland for some time as the NJBB will be unable to get world ranking points in 2024.
The bigger picture is of course the quotas for the continental confederations for the World Championships and the qualification process for those quotas.
The precise details are awaited but as things stand it does feel that the ‘aggregated approach’ of mixing together age categories, gender categories and format in deciding invitations to future World Championships is not an obviously sound way to proceed.
The erosion or removal of the continental qualification process also does not seem a good solution and actually contrary to the practice of most international level sports.
It’s difficult to see how the aggregated ‘world rankings’ is a better way than a continental-based, format specific qualification process.
Add Comment