Birmingham 2022 Shooting

Back in June, I wrote of my disappointment that Shooting had not been included in the programme for the 2022 Commonwealth Games. I also mentioned that Dame Louise Martin had hinted that an offer of a reduced Birmingham Delivery Option had been on the table but British Shooting had declined to consider it - Bisley or nothing.

The media coverage and various statements gave me the impression that B2022 had given Shooting a fair opportunity, and that the Shooting bodies were coming off somewhat recalcitrant - declining to engage with the Shooting community or discuss what had gone wrong with the proposed bid. It also struck me as odd that British Shooting and the ISSF were so involved - typically the Commonwealth Shooting Federation and the Home Nation (in this case the English Target Shooting Federation) would be the lead. That got me to wondering what a FoI Request might turn up. Although the Organising Committee is a Ltd company, it is wholly owned by the DCMS which makes it “publicly owned” and FoI-liable (unlike British Shooting or the ISSF), and I was pleased to receive not just internal documents and reports but a slew of candid and enlightening e-mail correspondence.

Money makes the world go round

The projected cost of running a full Shooting programme at Bisley was £15m, which reflects the parlous state of the Lord Roberts Centre, the upgrades needed, the associated costs of securing a dispersed site like Bisley Camp and of housing athletes in (secure) satellite accommodation. The NRA of India have made statements suggesting that the financial assistance offered by the ISSF was somewhere in the region of £800,000. This is not exactly £14.2m short for the organisers since ticket, food and merchandising sales would contribute a fair chunk of cash, but it’s clearly a major seven-figure endeavour. This is quite a lot for an “additional sport” considering that the alternatives were basically free - Para Table Tennis (for instance) reuses the Table Tennis venue at the NEC, and athletes would be accommodated in the main village - it’s all sunk cost. Financial cost was weighted at 35% of the bid, and Shooting would not have scored more than 2-4 out of 10. The competing sports are likely to have scored better than 7. That’s clearly a bad way to start.

The Board Report of January 2019 recommended that Para Table Tennis be included, funded by efficiencies found from the core programme (i.e. it was literally a zero-cost addition), and then endorsed Women’s Cricket and Beach Volleyball (in that order) provided that additional funding could be found, or realised through additional savings and efficiencies.

It seems clear that cost ended up being a defining feature of the review and although Shooting scored highly in respect of CGA participation and home nation medals, the huge price tag - and the decision not to submit a proposal for a cheaper Birmingham Delivery Option (most likely Smallbore and Airgun at the NEC) - was the nail in the coffin. It is also noted that Shooting scored lower on “Alignment with Games Partner Objectives”, which I will come back to later.

Who put the ISSF in charge?

With respect to the involvement of British Shooting and the ISSF, B2022 had this to say:

When and under what circumstances did British Shooting supersede the English Target Shooting Federation as the representative of Shooting Sports to the Birmingham Organising Committee?

The International Shooting Sport Federation (ISSF) is the International Olympic Committee recognised governing body for shooting. The Commonwealth Games Federation also recognise the ISSF as the governing body for shooting. The ISSF, specifically Mr Peter Underhill (Member of the ISSF Administrative Council) was nominated as the main point of contact for the Additional Sports Review & Costing process. Please see the attached letter from Franz Schreiber, ISSF Secretary General, dated 26 October 2018.

British Shooting is the only target shooting governing body in Great Britain recognised by the ISSF, IPC Shooting, British Olympic Association, British Paralympic Association, UK Sport & Sport England. As per the ISSF letter of 26 October 2018 (referenced above), the ISSF’s proposal for inclusion in the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games was supported by British Shooting.

This does not really answer the background to my question, but it seems clear that a bit of a coup has taken place and this will prove important. BS recognise the ISSF, the ISSF recognise BS - smacks of marking one another’s homework. Neither is directly accountable to athletes or the shooting community in Britain or anywhere else - neither is a membership organisation with UK grassroots being covered by the NRA, NSRA and CPSA. Of note is the power shift towards two organisations which have no formal jurisdiction over full bore shooting and one of which has courted controversy with shooters both in respect to their programme for the 2020 Olympic Games and with their “Dress Code Concept” which was widely derided as “mucking about” to the detriment of the actual sport.

So what of the bid?

With respect to the December 2018 Bid Meeting with British Shooting and the ISSF to include a full Shooting programme at the 2022 Commonwealth Games: … Please provide copies of all Bid Presentation Materials … minutes … supporting documents. (Abbreviated for brevity.)

These documents were duly provided and the big shocker came in the Bid Presentation. The Commonwealth Games have alway had a few more medal events than the Olympic Shooting Programme (19 compared to 15) courtesy of the two mixed-Gender Fullbore events and Women’s Prone and Double Trap events which offer near Gender Parity (only Free Pistol has no Women’s equivalent). For the 2020 Tokyo Olympics, the ISSF has controversially done away with Men’s Prone, DT and Free Pistol to make way for Mixed Pairs events,¹ but that was to do with oddities relating specifically to the Olympic Programme. Nothing to do with the Commonwealth Games which have historically not even been an ISSF-sanctioned event (much less an ISSF-run event).

Imagine my surprise therefore to see that aside from Fullbore, the proposed programme for Birmingham had been cut down and harmonised with the Olympics! W. T. F.

So that’s me out - had Shooting been included, I wouldn’t have been going anyway (short of getting good at Fullbore in a hurry), because my speciality was 50m Rifle Prone, which has been cut!

It is absolutely inexplicable as to why such a change to the programme should have been suggested internally, much less proposed to the Organisers. The Olympic “Mixed Team” events are the ugly result of the IOC asking impossible maths of the ISSF.¹ Mixed Teams have no place outside of the Olympics (which is a special case in many ways). The athletes don’t want them and the spectators don’t want them - especially if they come at the cost of other disciplines like Prone or Double Trap. This single slide shows quite clearly that the ISSF have no understanding what the Commonwealth Games (“the Friendly Games”) are really about and have mis-read entirely the spirit and intention of the Games. It is a startling and unwelcome revelation which raises many questions:

1. Why would the ISSF wilfully do away with perfectly good and popular events in favour of the Olympic Programme (which is “stripped down” compared say, to the World or Regional Championships)?

2. Why would the ISSF try and shoehorn the Olympic Mixed Team events into a Games which neither needs nor wants them?

3. Why would British Shooting go along with it? Who are they representing here - their athletes or vested interests within the ISSF?

4. Who else in the UK Shooting scene was aware of this - The NRA? NSRA? CPSA? Prone Rifle is by far the largest rifle discipline practised in the UK. Dumping it in favour of Mixed Team Air Rifle would alienate a significant proportion of British rifle shooters. The programme already has Men’s and Women’s Air Rifle - Mixed Pairs is pointless repetition.

This perhaps goes some way to explaining why British Shooting didn’t want to release details of their bid - they didn’t want to admit (having failed to get Shooting included) that they were going to throw Prone, Double Trap and Free Pistol under the bus. Although I am biased as a Prone-specialist, Prone in particular is especially concerning as it is one of the “long-lived” Rifle disciplines - athletes can compete well past the age of 40, where other disciplines such as 3-Position (which are more physically demanding) start to take their toll. By focussing on 3P and Air (and introducing additional air events), British Shooting demonstrates a bias towards promoting “youth” rather than life-long participation. Whilst youth participation is an objective of the Games, many sports are fundamentally “young men’s games”, Shooting is not. It is a skill sport which can stand out from the crowd with older athletes competing on par with the youth and brings diversity to the Friendly Games.

I mentioned above (Money makes the world go round) that Shooting scored lower on “Alignment with Games Partner Objectives”. The Commonwealth Games is obviously a pinnacle for some sports and a valuable stepping stone to the Olympics for others. But it’s also about participation, not just medals. The 2002 Games sparked off many sporting traditions in Manchester which continue to this day including events like the Great Manchester Run (which attracts more than 25,000 participants annually). The proposed alignment to the Olympic Programme is a kick in the gonads for a lot of shooters - foreign and domestic - and would have left a lot of shooters in the local communities feeling a bit cold.

What about the antis?

A review of the documents (as well as e-mail correspondence) shows that despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth online, there is no evidence of “anti-gun” sentiment amongst the board - Shooting was just too expensive and too inflexible. There’s probably a lesson there for our NGBs and indeed our clubs. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: This sport is it’s own worst enemy.

Conspiracy theorists will no doubt insist that otherwise unidentified “antis” simply made their protestations in private or by phone - outside the reach of my FoI request. This may indeed be the case, but the wildly expensive price tag attached to the Shooting events counted them out without the need for adverse political intervention.

In Summary

So sadly, it turns out Shooting was just too expensive and too far away. This wasn’t really a shock - it confirmed my suspicions. What was deeply disappointing was the proposed change to the programme, which is significantly out of step with the interests of the Shooting community. In some respects, it is almost good that Shooting has been left out as it does not legitimise the modified programme.

Meanwhile questions remain regarding the motivations of the ISSF and how in touch they are with the real world, as highlighted by recent controversy at the Lahti Shotgun World Cup in which ISSF social media channels poked fun at Italian coach and former Olympic Silver medallist Albano Pera who was asked to leave the field of play by ISSF General Secretary Alexander Ratner. What Ratner himself - neither a referee nor event official - was doing on the field of play is unclear (his supervisory role overseeing tests of the new VAR system would not extend to interacting with athletes or coaches). The post was roundly criticised by athletes, coaches and even members of the IOC with commentators suggesting that an athlete would probably be sanctioned by the ISSF if they made equivalent posts about an official. The ISSF has nonetheless doubled down with more tired and fairly unfunny “Caption Contests”. Quite when the ISSF is going to return to it’s core role of promoting target sports is unclear…