MLB open possibility of MLB Players in Olympics

[Paula59]

Here the link http://www.reuters.com/article/sportsNews/idUSL1610938820080717

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Major League Baseball opened the door to allowing top players to take part in future Olympics on Wednesday and said the league would consider shutting down mid-season if Chicago or Tokyo were selected as host of the 2016 Summer Games.

MLB's refusal to shutdown so the world's best players could participate in the Games was one of the reasons why the International Olympic Committee (IOC) axed baseball along with softball from the Olympic programme after next month's Beijing Games.

MLB has insisted it is eager to see baseball remain part of the Olympics but had previously indicated it would never consider shutting down mid-season.

"Major League Baseball, the IBAF (International Baseball Federation) and the IOC are working diligently to have a system where our big leaguers are playing," said MLB vice-president and Team USA general manager Bob Watson during the naming of the Beijing squad on Wednesday. "I think if Chicago or Tokyo would win Olympics for 2016, those countries are baseball countries, and they have venues.

"I believe they are trying to work up something, you have a few years to get a plan. There are a lot of moving parts but don't rule it out.

"It's not too premature to say the minds are turning trying to work things out."

Watson said, some of the discussions had revolved around a plan to extend the current All-Star break long enough to allow a condensed format that would satisfy both MLB and the IOC.

The IOC had also expressed concerns about MLB's disinterest in seriously combating the use of performance-enhancing drugs in the sport but Watson says the league's beefed up drug-testing policy has addressed that issue.

"Instead of a three day break for an all-star game, you might end up have a four or five day break and get all the games in some kind of way using major leaguers," said Watson. "It's not too premature to say the minds are turning trying to work things out.

"Some of the obstacles; drug testing, we definitely met a lot of those requirements.

"We're putting on a real good show around the world with baseball and I believe the Olympics are going to definitely want to have baseball back in the fold.

"We feel baseball is definitely going to get back into the Olympics."

(Writing by Steve Keating in Toronto, editing by Pritha Sarkar)

[Agente Libre]

This is just more stupidity on top of what was already a record amount of prior MLB/Olympic stupidity.

First of all, there's no reason the Olympics need major leaguers for baseball to be an Olympic sport.

Second, if the lack of major leaguers is what got baseball booted from the Olympics, then why was softball also eliminated? Is there some Softball Major League I'm unaware of that, like MLB, also refused to halt play during the Olympics?

Third, why go to all this trouble just to jam an Olympic baseball tournament into "four or five days"? If the Olympics are so damn important, why be in such a hurry to get the games over with? And what happens if it rains for three days in Chicago and the Olympians don't get back to MLB in time? Do teams play short-handed? Do dozens of MLB games get postponed?

Total circus. I'd expect nothing less with the dopes from the IBAF and IOC involved.

[spark240]

there's no reason the Olympics need major leaguers for baseball to be an Olympic sport.

Very true... although it's nice when anyone associated with MLB admits that MLB is not the totality of the game.


why go to all this trouble just to jam an Olympic baseball tournament into "four or five days"? If the Olympics are so damn important, why be in such a hurry to get the games over with?

Indeed, suspending the MLB schedule for just a few days, to permit a hyperattenuated Olympic tournament, makes less sense than either a long suspension or no suspension.

Either take it seriously and do it right, or just stay away.

[DownUnderDodger]

Perhaps it is a ploy to get Baseball back into the Olympics and will be a one-off. The initial post did say
if Chicago or Tokyo were selected as host of the 2016 Summer Games. And the article also stipulated
I think if Chicago or Tokyo would win Olympics for 2016, those countries are baseball countries, and they have venues.

Obviously this idea will be dropped immediately if the Olympics goes to a non-baseball country, although from all reports Chcago is one of the favoured cities.

It is appears reasonably obvious that Baseball was dropped from the 2012 games because there were insufficient venues and the UK Olympic Committee did not want to spend money building facitilties which were not appropriate for future use in the city (at this stage at least...who knows where Baseball will head in the future in UK).

And it stands to reason that with Baseball being dropped, so would Softball, because they would undoubtedly use the same facility. I don't know how strong Softball is in UK, however I can only presume it was the lack of suitable facilities as well.

[Paula59]

First of all, there's no reason the Olympics need major leaguers for baseball to be an Olympic sport.

The Olympics needed years ago the NBA AllStars to stay in the Olympics. We are far away that just amateurs start at OG like Pierre de Coubertin wanted. So why play without pro´s in one of the biggest sport in the world? WHo wants to see some no-names?? Sepctators want to see the stars; Merchandiser want to sell the stars products; OG want to break OG Records




Second, if the lack of major leaguers is what got baseball booted from the Olympics, then why was softball also eliminated? Is there some Softball Major League I'm unaware of that, like MLB, also refused to halt play during the Olympics?

I think for the Olympic Comitee SB is pretty much the same than BB - maybe they thougth it is all under 1 governing body like FIFA in Soccer for Men and Women.
I also think that it was a political decission because of getting the stars to OG; a venue decission; less backhand money if you know what I mean.




Third, why go to all this trouble just to jam an Olympic baseball tournament into "four or five days"? If the Olympics are so damn important, why be in such a hurry to get the games over with?

I can´t understand this deal with the 4 or 5 days too! The only think I can tell you is that the OG with BB and SB are importand because here on the old continent and maybe somewhere else the only chance you have to have a BB/SB Program going on is if you get help from your national olympic comitee. This help will stop if BB/SB is no longer at the OG. Without this help BB/SB will drop in this countries from their level now to a pre-human level!



Obviously this idea will be dropped immediately if the Olympics goes to a non-baseball country

You are 110% rigth! This is just a political announcement to help Chicago or Tokio to get the Games.

[Paula59]

I got a question:

If we have a look at the rosters of the qualified teams for this year how many MLB players would they have in their roster if MLB players join the teams? (24 Athletes max)

all the numbers are just numbers to show how the spreading would be. Maybe someone can ad the true numbers.

USA 24
Cuba 0
Netherlands 4
Japan 5
Republic of Korea 2
Canada 4
Chinese Taipei 2

Would this short number of players (41 out of 192) make it neccesary to have MLB Stars at the Games? Would it be that hard for the clubs to forbear to play without these 192 players (if so many players could join because of the nationality) the regular saison games for 2 weeks.
The avarage per team would be with 192 players 6,5 players per MLB team missing. That is not much

[Shootmaster_44]

I got a question:

If we have a look at the rosters of the qualified teams for this year how many MLB players would they have in their roster if MLB players join the teams? (24 Athletes max)

all the numbers are just numbers to show how the spreading would be. Maybe someone can ad the true numbers.

USA 24
Cuba 0
Netherlands 4
Japan 5
Republic of Korea 2
Canada 4
Chinese Taipei 2

Would this short number of players (41 out of 192) make it neccesary to have MLB Stars at the Games? Would it be that hard for the clubs to forbear to play without these 192 players (if so many players could join because of the nationality) the regular saison games for 2 weeks.
The avarage per team would be with 192 players 6,5 players per MLB team missing. That is not much

Canada you have severely underestimated. There are currently 15 Canadian born players gracing MLB rosters:

Jason Bay - Pittsburgh
Erik Bedard - Seattle
Luke Carlin - San Diego
Jesse Crain - Minnesota
Ryan Dempster - Chicago Cubs
Jeff Francis - Colorado
Eric Gagne - Milwaukee
Rich Harden - Oakland
Shawn Hill - Washington
Adam Loewen - Baltimore
Russell Martin - LA Dodgers
Scott Mathieson - Philadelphia
Justin Morneau - Minnesota
Matt Stairs - Toronto
Joey Votto - Cincinnati

I think MLB shutting down for the Olympics is the way to go. As the WBC showed, it won't be a case of US dominance like Dream Team basketball was. I've never understood baseball's (and to a lesser extent soccer's) reluctance to have their best players participate at the Olympics. Yes the Summer Olympics falls right in the midst of the pennant hunt, however it doesn't have to be. The IOC could push the Summer Games up a month to the beginning of July and MLB could shut down in lieu of the All-Star Game. I mean the if the NHL and WNBA can shut down for the Olympics, why can't MLB?

Does NPB in Japan shut down for the Olympics? I know they have no restrictions on their players playing in the Olympics, I've always wondered how they handle it?

[Richard]

I think dropping baseball and softball had more to do with anti-Americanism than anything. It was a ridiculous decision because baseball is becoming more prominent worldwide.

[Paula59]

I think dropping baseball and softball had more to do with anti-Americanism than anything.

I don´t think so. But before we start a political debatte here - if this is the cause why didn´t they chose some more sports where US is good at or being a US Sport like Basketball; Ice Hockey; etc


It was a ridiculous decision because baseball is becoming more prominent worldwide.

True

[cutchemist42]

-I don't want to see this tourney be a quick 4-5 day event, if it does involve MLB I still want it to be the 10 days it takes to play now

-Another problem I have is the fact that MLBers aren't involved with qualifiers which means there's a GOOD chance Venezuala/DR/PR etc not in the Olympics because they have alot of players involved with MILB that can't play even in qualifiers.

There is still ALOT of time from here to 2016 so who even knows where MLB's stance will be on international baseball or who will even be the commissioner at the time.

[Richard]

I think baseball is the quintessential American sport and internationally I think baseball is most associated with the USA in regards to countries that do not play much baseball. They complained about doping in baseball. What about track and field and cycling? Here is a list of some current Olympic sports. Table tennis. Badmitton. Fencing. Rowing. Curling. Sailing. All of which put 55,000 in Yankee Stadium on a nightly basis. I do not think anti-Americanism was the only reason, but maybe just a bit.

[Rally Monkey]

Here's something that I don't think anyone can seriously dispute: MLB couldn't care less about Olympic baseball. I mean, how many MLB executives--including baseball operations people--do you think can identify the winners of the last three Olympic baseball gold medals? I didn't think so. MLB doesn't control the Olympics or make any money on it. So why would they spend much time worrying about it?

But here's MLB's bind: While they don't care about the Olympics, they do care about growing the MLB brand worldwide. They care about the World Baseball Classic--which they have a huge stake in. And they care about developing international players who they can buy on the cheap. MLB has staked a lot of capital on worldwide growth. The internationalization of the sport, I think, is MLB's primary strategic plan.

Before now, the Olympics has obviously helped MLB advance this plan--and at relatively little cost. Governments, as you know, spend an enourmous amount of money supporting development and national associations for Olympic sports. (Americans usually find this hard to understand. Support for sport development here comes from the private sector, not the state.) So, if there's no Olympics, there's no incentive for most countries to spend a penny subsidizing the sport.

Basketball is the model. Like baseball, it's an American sport. But unlike baseball, it's played in every country of thw world. And it's no coincidence that it's been an Olympic sport for decades. China would not be basketball mad today if its government hadn't invested in the sports growth for decades in order to achieve Olympic glory. Baseball, of course, hasn't seen anything like that. And now MLB is behind the eight ball in China and Europe and nearly everywhere else.

Given this, MLB certainly has a business reason to endorse IBAF's mission to bring baseball back to the Olympics. They'll even offer up the possibility of allowing MLB players to play--given, of course, the right conditions. But let's be frank: MLB will never seriously let its players play in the games. Sure, it'll say what it has to support the IBAF. But, believe me, it's not because MLB cares about winning the gold.

[Agente Libre]

I think MLB shutting down for the Olympics is the way to go. ... I mean the if the NHL and WNBA can shut down for the Olympics, why can't MLB?

Because no one cares about the NHL or WNBA? (I say this only half-jokingly.)


Here's something that I don't think anyone can seriously dispute: MLB couldn't care less about Olympic baseball.

I wish you were right, but you seem to be dead wrong. If MLB truly didn't care about the OLY, they wouldn't talk about it so much and would, instead, talk about the WBC.


Basketball is the model. Like baseball, it's an American sport. But unlike baseball, it's played in every country of thw world. And it's no coincidence that it's been an Olympic sport for decades. China would not be basketball mad today if its government hadn't invested in the sports growth for decades in order to achieve Olympic glory. Baseball, of course, hasn't seen anything like that. And now MLB is behind the eight ball in China and Europe and nearly everywhere else.

Well, sort of. Basketball is popular for the same reason soccer is popular: You can play it with only 2-3-4 people and you're in business after spending maybe $50 for a basketball hoop and basketball.

[Rally Monkey]

I wish you were right, but you seem to be dead wrong. If MLB truly didn't care about the OLY, they wouldn't talk about it so much and would, instead, talk about the WBC.

MLB is talking about the Olympics now because, well, that's what's on peoples' minds. The Olympics are coming right around the corner.

But just because they TALK about the Olympics doesn't mean they really care. As I wrote above, MLB would be happy to have baseball reinstated at the Olympics. That means they won't have to do all the hard work themselves growing markets overseas. (I mean, that article you posted about baseball in Russia proves exactly that. Without the Olympics, baseball in Russia is withering on the vine. How expensive will it be for MLB to step into the breach?) But, to put it bluntly, MLB won't pay the bribes and prostrate itself to the IOC in order to get baseball back. And it certainly won't shut down the regular season in the middle of the pennant races just to goose the ego of the IOC.

MLB will talk and talk about the Olympics, but it won't DO anything about it. It's kind of a dilemma for them. But, in the end, it's an easy call. MLB is in the business of making its own money, not enriching the IOC.

[ShawnC]

I wish you were right, but you seem to be dead wrong. If MLB truly didn't care about the OLY, they wouldn't talk about it so much and would, instead, talk about the WBC.

True, but the WBC will have very little potential for expansion outside of the current 16 teams if baseball starts dying off in countries which lose the Olympic funding support. After all, the MLB has a stake in the WBC and there are ideas to expand it by 2013 to have 24 teams and qualifying rounds, but will the MLB be able to find 24 countries by 2013? That's 4 and 1/2 years away at the very least and if baseball (and softball) isn't included for the 2016 games (either because Chicago or Tokyo don't get the games or because the sports haven't been voted back in) then for a lot of countries which rely almost primarily on goverment-sponsored Olympic funding, baseball may well be a thing of the past.

Imagine that baseball and softball don't return to the Olympics by 2016. Well, in that case a number of baseball associations would have faced about 7 years without any real funding and the prospect is that by the 2017 WBC they would go another year and face the possibility of no more government funding indefinitely. In places like Panama, Colombia, the Philippines and Spain, baseball will probably be alright (but would be facing tighter budgets) due to historical reasons (a history of baseball, widespread popularity and/or immigrant communities). But the MLB would have to forget Africa outside of South Africa since in football-mad countries like Ghana and Nigeria, baseball will have to bite the bullet of limited government aid drying up entirely. And if baseball risk dying in Russia, what about other places in Europe like the Czech Republic, Ireland, France and Belgium? Or Germany (Paula59 may be able to say more on that one)?

Perhaps governments may start giving sponsorship again for the WBC, but as much as the MLB may wish it, the WBC has nowhere near the drawing power of the FIFA World Cup and outside of that particular tournament, few countries' governments will be willing to spend much (if anything) on national qualification in non-Olympic tournaments.


This is just more stupidity on top of what was already a record amount of prior MLB/Olympic stupidity.

First of all, there's no reason the Olympics need major leaguers for baseball to be an Olympic sport.

Second, if the lack of major leaguers is what got baseball booted from the Olympics, then why was softball also eliminated? Is there some Softball Major League I'm unaware of that, like MLB, also refused to halt play during the Olympics?

Third, why go to all this trouble just to jam an Olympic baseball tournament into "four or five days"? If the Olympics are so damn important, why be in such a hurry to get the games over with? And what happens if it rains for three days in Chicago and the Olympians don't get back to MLB in time? Do teams play short-handed? Do dozens of MLB games get postponed?

Total circus. I'd expect nothing less with the dopes from the IBAF and IOC involved.

I agree entirely. A total circus on the part of the IBAF, IOC and MLB. This has the potential to do more damage than simply not bothering with trying to get baseball back in the Olympics as a 4 day circus will probably not allow baseball to be showcased properly and if it were readopted for 2016 (especially if it rains), then after 4 days the IOC may ask why they bothered and just drop it again, with the prospect that it may not get readopted for a sometime.

I think this announcement by the MLB is half-hearted at best and may well be too little, too late.

[Richard]

MLB has already announced that twenty-four nations will be involved in the WBC and I would be shocked if the they kept baseball out of the Olympics after that.

[NotAboutEgo]

This is just more stupidity on top of what was already a record amount of prior MLB/Olympic stupidity.

First of all, there's no reason the Olympics need major leaguers for baseball to be an Olympic sport.

Second, if the lack of major leaguers is what got baseball booted from the Olympics, then why was softball also eliminated? Is there some Softball Major League I'm unaware of that, like MLB, also refused to halt play during the Olympics?

Third, why go to all this trouble just to jam an Olympic baseball tournament into "four or five days"? If the Olympics are so damn important, why be in such a hurry to get the games over with? And what happens if it rains for three days in Chicago and the Olympians don't get back to MLB in time? Do teams play short-handed? Do dozens of MLB games get postponed?

Total circus. I'd expect nothing less with the dopes from the IBAF and IOC involved.

There is a women's pro softball league in the U.S. and also ones in other countries/regions. The one in the U.S. doesn't get as much publicity as MLB does (although its publicity seems to be growing), and it's not financially backed by MLB (as far as I know), but it's still a pro league. I don't think this league's stance is the same as MLB's as far as the Olympics go.

http://www.profastpitch.com/

[NotAboutEgo]

MLB has already announced that twenty-four nations will be involved in the WBC and I would be shocked if the they kept baseball out of the Olympics after that.

I saw a special on HBO about this topic a few weeks ago, and it did state that the reason the IOC wants to pull softball and baseball out of the Olympics is because of anti-American views around the world, and people consider baseball and softball to be mainly American.

[Paula59]

....that the reason the IOC wants to pull softball and baseball out of the Olympics is because of anti-American views around the world, and people consider baseball and softball to be mainly American.

I don´t think this is the reason because if you have a look at the official meaning of the Olympic Symbols you will find this:


...The Olympic symbol expresses the activity of the Olympic Movement and represents the union of the five continents and the meeting of athlets from throughout the world at the Olympic Games.

I am pretty sure you can find some more and better facts that are against the anti-american reason in the Olympic Charter.
I think this statement (whoever it stated) was just made because of ignorance.
Maybe someone can find the last vote of the olympic program where BB and SB were voted out. Maybe this is the key to the whole story - because from what I heard here in Europe it was a decission because of money, sponsorship, etc. and no agreement about that.
I also heard that the US IOC delegate voted against the sports!

I will have a look if I can find somwhere the votings.

btw. at the same time they excluded BB and SB for the games 2012 (maybe because of anti-us reason) they voted for a US-Supporter as host city with London and left Moscow (this would be the biggest anti-us reason) and Paris out of.

[DownUnderDodger]

It would be very interesting to hear comments from any of our English based members, especially in relation to available facilities in England to cope with an Olympic level baseball tournament, as I am quite confident that the lack of availability of facilities and costs to upgrade current or provide new facilities for the Olympcs in 2012 had a strong bearing on the decision.

As the reason being anti-American......that to me is rather outlandish statemant. I don't think the IOC members even considered that baseball was an American stronghold when making their decision, especially as the USA is not that strong in Olympic baseball, and even with MLB players are not the WBC champions.

I would suggest the bottom line was logisitcs and costs vs future benefits in England/UK.

Just a thought.....hypothetically, what if cricket were an Olympic Sport? Would USA (and I mean Chicago based on their bid to get the 2016 Games) have the available cricket ovals to host that sport and if not would there be any justification in building purpose built grounds just for the Olympics.....or would the USa seek to have the sport removed?

[ShawnC]

MLB has already announced that twenty-four nations will be involved in the WBC and I would be shocked if the they kept baseball out of the Olympics after that.

I don't think the WBC will matter to the IOC either now or then. Twenty-four nations are supposed to be in the 2013 WBC, but by 2013 a number of baseball associations around the world may have to have gone without government Olympic-based funding for 5 years *4 and 1/2 years for those lucky enough to have qualified for the Beijing games). That kind of funding drought may well kill the competitiveness of some teams (check out the Russia story that Agente Libre posted in another thread). So if baseball is not back on the roster for the 2016 games, then by 2013, some of those 24 nations (and by extension the WBC) may well look like a joke to the IOC committees. Other than the top 10 or 12 teams in the world, the rest that have featured in the WBC have been "okay". I can't imagine what any of the other eight teams to be picked for 2013 would be like after 5 years without money (and having teams like that be bulldozed mercilessly is not my idea of a wonderful, competitive tournament).

[NotAboutEgo]

I don´t think this is the reason because if you have a look at the official meaning of the Olympic Symbols you will find this:



I am pretty sure you can find some more and better facts that are against the anti-american reason in the Olympic Charter.
I think this statement (whoever it stated) was just made because of ignorance.
Maybe someone can find the last vote of the olympic program where BB and SB were voted out. Maybe this is the key to the whole story - because from what I heard here in Europe it was a decission because of money, sponsorship, etc. and no agreement about that.
I also heard that the US IOC delegate voted against the sports!

I will have a look if I can find somwhere the votings.

btw. at the same time they excluded BB and SB for the games 2012 (maybe because of anti-us reason) they voted for a US-Supporter as host city with London and left Moscow (this would be the biggest anti-us reason) and Paris out of.


Taken from HBO's web site http://www.hbo.com/realsports/stories/2008/episode.135.s2.html...

Last Licks

When the U.S. Women's Softball team entered the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta, they went from unknown athletes to "golden girls" overnight in softball's first-ever appearance as an Olympic sport. Now, after only 12 years, the International Olympic Committee has chosen to remove softball from the Olympic Games after 2008, making it the first sport to be eliminated in more than 70 years. While many believe this decision reflects the game's lack of international appeal, others wonder if it was aimed more directly at the U.S. for reasons unrelated to sports. Correspondent Andrea Kremer investigates this unfortunate situation and visits with members of the U.S. Women's Softball team as they prepare for what could likely be their final Olympic competition.

I don't remember who the guy is they interviewed about it, but he point-blank stated that the reason they are taking softball and baseball out is because of anti-American feelings around the world. It doesn't surprise me one bit with the antics of our government and "leaders". I'll stop there...

Here's an article stating the same thing...
http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/8504326/site/21683474/

Here's a USAToday article...
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/2005-07-08-baseball-softball-dropped_x.htm

[NotAboutEgo]

It would be very interesting to hear comments from any of our English based members, especially in relation to available facilities in England to cope with an Olympic level baseball tournament, as I am quite confident that the lack of availability of facilities and costs to upgrade current or provide new facilities for the Olympcs in 2012 had a strong bearing on the decision.

As the reason being anti-American......that to me is rather outlandish statemant. I don't think the IOC members even considered that baseball was an American stronghold when making their decision, especially as the USA is not that strong in Olympic baseball, and even with MLB players are not the WBC champions.

I would suggest the bottom line was logisitcs and costs vs future benefits in England/UK.

Just a thought.....hypothetically, what if cricket were an Olympic Sport? Would USA (and I mean Chicago based on their bid to get the 2016 Games) have the available cricket ovals to host that sport and if not would there be any justification in building purpose built grounds just for the Olympics.....or would the USa seek to have the sport removed?

I think it would be ridiculous to have a sport removed from the Olympics just because one venue (country) may not have existing or adequate facilities to hold competitions for that sport. For most venues, many facilities have to be improved and built. For the Lake Placid, NY Winter Olympics in 1980, luge and bobsled runs had to be built.

When venues are considered for the Olympics, things such as logistics are considered up front... what facilities are currently available, how much travel would be involved to hold each sporting event, how many facilities would have to be built or upgraded, etc. I don't think the IOC would consider a location that doesn't have much of anything available in terms of facilities or that would require too much money to be spent on creating facilities.

I very highly doubt that the reason the IOC is pulling softball and baseball out of the Olympics is because of London. Do you really believe that it would pull 2 sports out just because of the venue for ONE Olympics?

[NotAboutEgo]

It would be very interesting to hear comments from any of our English based members, especially in relation to available facilities in England to cope with an Olympic level baseball tournament, as I am quite confident that the lack of availability of facilities and costs to upgrade current or provide new facilities for the Olympcs in 2012 had a strong bearing on the decision.

As the reason being anti-American......that to me is rather outlandish statemant. I don't think the IOC members even considered that baseball was an American stronghold when making their decision, especially as the USA is not that strong in Olympic baseball, and even with MLB players are not the WBC champions.

I would suggest the bottom line was logisitcs and costs vs future benefits in England/UK.

Just a thought.....hypothetically, what if cricket were an Olympic Sport? Would USA (and I mean Chicago based on their bid to get the 2016 Games) have the available cricket ovals to host that sport and if not would there be any justification in building purpose built grounds just for the Olympics.....or would the USa seek to have the sport removed?

I can pretty much guarantee that the U.S. wouldn't lobby to have cricket removed from the Olympics if it was an Olympic sport and if there were no existing facilities for it at a venue in the U.S. I've never heard of such a thing happening. If anything, it could spurn the development of a sport that currently isn't very mainstream in a particular area. People play all kinds of sports and variations of sports competitively and for fun here in the U.S. as a way to be active, to have fun, and to meet new people and socialize. We have dodge ball and kick ball leagues here amongst other sports. Why would cricket be any different?

[twinsfan09]

According to Harvey Schiller who was interviewed on Fox News said that baseball WAS NOT removed from the olympics due to anti-americanism. Watch it here http://www.foxbusiness.com/video/index.html and scroll down and search for "Olympics Strike Out".

[NotAboutEgo]

Did you miss the part where it was asked if anti-American feelings have anything to do with it, and the IBF president said they have to be careful with talking about that view... avoiding to give any answer either way? I didn't get any impression that anti-American feelings definitely aren't a factor or they are. The IBF president didn't give an answer one way or the other on it... which raises a lot of wondering.

Baseball and softball were voted out of the Olympics. There had to be a reason to have the vote in the first place considering to remove them. I don't think that venue has anything to do with it. Like I've stated, it would be ridiculous to eliminate a sport form the Olympics based solely on the venue of ONE Olympics.

Based on how the IOC has handled other issues with sports, like women's ski jumping not being added as an Olympic sport, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if the reason isn't political. And from past events involving the Olympics, we all know that politics are NEVER involved... right??? :noidea

[NotAboutEgo]

I also don't buy the "MLB doesn't care, and MLB players aren't allowed to play in the Olympics, therefore baseball AND softball need to be eliminated" reason. Why weren't basketball and ice hockey eliminated from the Olympics before NBA and NHL players were allowed to participate? It's no different. I think the IOC is using that as an excuse to cover up the real reason, just like the real reason for not allowing women's ski jumping to be added as an Olympic sport is covered up, and other issues are covered up.

[Richard]

I think the decision was absurd. The following nations play baseball at a very high level: USA, Cuba, Venezuela, PR, DR, Canada, Mexico, Panama, Nicaragua, Japan, Australia, Netherlands including the Netherlands Antilles, Taiwan, Korea and Colombia and at least thirty-three nations are represented in the minor leagues. I have read that baseball is slowly spreading to China, Brazil, India, parts of Europe and elsewhere. Little League baseball is played in eighty countries! Ridiculous!

[NotAboutEgo]

I agree. There also are plenty of countries that have competitive softball. And.. then there's the issue of women's baseball developing around the world. It was supposed to be considered as an exhibition sport in the Olympics in 2012. Now, that won't happen then and will be put off till who knows when.

[Paula59]

I still can´t believe that anti-us is the cause for the vote. I couldn´t find the result for this specific vote - interesting is that you can find a lot of results after this.
I only found this http://www.olympic.org/uk/organisation/commissions/programme/full_story_uk.asp?id=1657 vote. But this is not the vote that caused all of the trouble. If you compare the votes with the members of voting comitee you see that there must be a lot of friends of the us that must have voted against BB if it is a anti-us reason - so this can´t be the truth.

According to some statements I found this


In order for a sport or discipline to be in included on the Summer Olympics program (but not necessarily be contested at the Olympics), it must be widely practiced in at least 75 and 50 countries, on four continents, by men and women, respectively.

I think BB & SB can fullfill this easily!

So there must be an other reason. Interesting is that I found out that IOC voted that at OG is a max of 28 sports. This was voted shortly before the BB voting. Maybe they wanted to give another sport a chance but couldn´t find the rigth one

[NotAboutEgo]

I'm just simply stating what the Real Sports episode stated and what newspaper articles are saying. Also, the IBAF president talked about it being voted down. There are many articles stating that it was voted on... whether to keep the 2 sports or not... and they were voted down, along with 5 other sports. There has to be a reason/reasons why baseball and softball were put on the chopping block.

What do you surmise is the real cause for them dropping the 2 sports? I think there could be more than one reason, with anti-American feelings being one of them. I'm not accusing anyone. I just think it's very possible, and I wouldn't doubt it.

The whole MLB excuse doesn't make sense to me, for the reasons I've stated, and also because softball has nothing to do with MLB... so why chop softball along with baseball if MLB is the sole reason? Afterall, softball and baseball are different sports.

[NotAboutEgo]

I find it very interesting that MLB and USA Baseball are now connected through some kind of partnership, and that MLB has taken up an interest in the development of U.S. national teams (except for the women's national team, of course). How does that factor in with MLB "not being interested" in the Olympics? Affiliated minor league players are allowed to play in the Olympics.

[ShawnC]

Taken from HBO's web site http://www.hbo.com/realsports/stories/2008/episode.135.s2.html...

Last Licks

When the U.S. Women's Softball team entered the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta, they went from unknown athletes to "golden girls" overnight in softball's first-ever appearance as an Olympic sport. Now, after only 12 years, the International Olympic Committee has chosen to remove softball from the Olympic Games after 2008, making it the first sport to be eliminated in more than 70 years. While many believe this decision reflects the game's lack of international appeal, others wonder if it was aimed more directly at the U.S. for reasons unrelated to sports. Correspondent Andrea Kremer investigates this unfortunate situation and visits with members of the U.S. Women's Softball team as they prepare for what could likely be their final Olympic competition.

I don't remember who the guy is they interviewed about it, but he point-blank stated that the reason they are taking softball and baseball out is because of anti-American feelings around the world. It doesn't surprise me one bit with the antics of our government and "leaders". I'll stop there...

Here's an article stating the same thing...
http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/8504326/site/21683474/

Here's a USAToday article...
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/2005-07-08-baseball-softball-dropped_x.htm

Okay, but unless the guy interviewed was a part of the IOC or had any part in the vote, then what he says doesn't really matter because it would be little more than his own (personal) views. If the guy interviewed wasn't even a major figure in the USNOC then how can he even be expected to know what really went on?

And the NBC sports article link shows exactly what I mean. It states that the sports were removed due to an anti-American bias without actually quoting anybody relevant to such a claim (quoting Jacques Rogge himself would have been useful). Instead the reporter quotes: Lisa Fernandez (a 3 time gold medalist pitcher), Crystl Bustos (a batter), Dot Richardson (infielder), Jennie Finch (pitcher), Tommy Lasorda (former manager and a current pitcher) and Jose Contreras (a pitcher). Not one of these 7 interviewees actually knows what went on anymore than the fan in stands, because not one is on the USNOC or in the IOC or was present for the secret vote (or at least if they were present the journalist fails to mention that little fact). Taking what they say to be hard fact is like believing Kanye West's opinion that George Bush doesn't care about black people - there is no way to prove he's right, it's only speculation (and opinion does not constitute proof).

The USA Today article is better in terms of journalistic quality, but it still has some contradictions and points which don't necessarily prove anti-American bias:


Porter said the decision goes back to Mexico City in 2002 when Rogge tried — but failed — to get baseball, softball and modern pentathlon removed.

The modern Pentathlon is not an "American" sport under any definition. It was invented by a Frenchman (who also happened to be the founder of the modern Olympic Games) and was based off an event (the pentathlon) found in the ancient Olympics in Greece. If Rogge (a European) could advocate the removal of what is essentially a European sport (founded by a Frenchman, based off an ancient Greek Olympic event and first won by a Swede) then does that make him "anti-European"? And if he could advocate the removal of an event that was invented by the Olympic founder, does that make him "anti-Olympian"? That he could advocate the pentathlon's removal seems to indicate the removal of the pentathlon (and probably baseball and softball) has more to do with trying introduce new sports that may end up having greater commerical appeal (i.e. more money for the IOC) than to do with any particular bias (whether anti-American or anti-Eastern European where the pentathlon is most popular). More than likely some new sports will end up being trialled and if they don't take off commerically then baseball and softball may come back.



I also don't buy the "MLB doesn't care, and MLB players aren't allowed to play in the Olympics, therefore baseball AND softball need to be eliminated" reason. Why weren't basketball and ice hockey eliminated from the Olympics before NBA and NHL players were allowed to participate? It's no different. I think the IOC is using that as an excuse to cover up the real reason, just like the real reason for not allowing women's ski jumping to be added as an Olympic sport is covered up, and other issues are covered up.

Because with basketball, professionals of some sort (European and South American) had been allowed to play before 1992. Basketball is a much younger sport than baseball, but it would be ridiculous to deny that basketball is far more popular. And whereas the MLB's older arm was founded in 1876, the MLB has basically had exclusive control over major league baseball since 1915 (the end of the Federal League) or maybe the 1950s if you want to count the Negro Leagues as major leagues. The NBA on the other hand was founded in 1946 but only had exclusive control over major league basketball in 1976. However, in spite being a medal sport since 1992 (which happens to be the same year that basketball allowed NBA professionals to participate), MLB pros still haven't been allowed.....a full 16 years later. Does anyone really think that Olympic basketball (and through it basketball in general) would have been nearly as popular today if the Dream Team hadn't started playing in 1992? People who don't watch American major league sports would have been introduced to those stars in a big way in 1992 and would then have picked up more interest in the sport. If FIBA and the NBA hadn't allowed professionals from the NBA to participate back in 1992, basketball would probably be facing calls to be axed today.

And with Ice Hockey, professionals had been allowed to play since 1988, but NHL players couldn't participate even though they were eligible because the NHL was running at the same time. In 1998 the NHL began to shut down to allow NHL players to participate.

So in comparison - basketball has been played in the olympics since 1936 and had some pros playing before 1992 and allowed all pros to play in 1992. ice hockey has been played at the olympics since 1920 and allowed pros to play since 1988 and the NHL freed up player commitments in 1998. Baseball has been played at the olympics regularly since 1984 and intermittently from 1912 (and was introduced unofficially in 1904) and its major pro organization still doesn't allow professionals to play in the Olympics. In terms of participation in the Olympics, baseball and basketball have/had a similar run: basketball was in 11 Olympiads before NBA pros were allowed and baseball was in 10 Olympiads (or 11 if you count 1904). With no prospect for the MLB to allow pros by 2012 (until it's half-baked announcement after the sport was removed) or even 2016 which would have been baseball's 12th (13th) and 13th(14th) Olympiads, that surely didn't help baseball's cause. And now the MLB is trying to throw a bone (and even then half-heartedly) which ends up being absurd as others have pointed out. They should either do it properly or not at all.

[NotAboutEgo]

I never said it was hard fact. I said that's what the segment stated and that I wouldn't doubt it. I'll see if I can find out who the guy was that Bryant Gumbel interviewed. He certainly isn't some guy Bryant picked off the street.

[NotAboutEgo]

Okay, but unless the guy interviewed was a part of the IOC or had any part in the vote, then what he says doesn't really matter because it would be little more than his own (personal) views. If the guy interviewed wasn't even a major figure in the USNOC then how can he even be expected to know what really went on?

And the NBC sports article link shows exactly what I mean. It states that the sports were removed due to an anti-American bias without actually quoting anybody relevant to such a claim (quoting Jacques Rogge himself would have been useful). Instead the reporter quotes: Lisa Fernandez (a 3 time gold medalist pitcher), Crystl Bustos (a batter), Dot Richardson (infielder), Jennie Finch (pitcher), Tommy Lasorda (former manager and a current pitcher) and Jose Contreras (a pitcher). Not one of these 7 interviewees actually knows what went on anymore than the fan in stands, because not one is on the USNOC or in the IOC or was present for the secret vote (or at least if they were present the journalist fails to mention that little fact). Taking what they say to be hard fact is like believing Kanye West's opinion that George Bush doesn't care about black people - there is no way to prove he's right, it's only speculation (and opinion does not constitute proof).

The USA Today article is better in terms of journalistic quality, but it still has some contradictions and points which don't necessarily prove anti-American bias:



The modern Pentathlon is not an "American" sport under any definition. It was invented by a Frenchman (who also happened to be the founder of the modern Olympic Games) and was based off an event (the pentathlon) found in the ancient Olympics in Greece. If Rogge (a European) could advocate the removal of what is essentially a European sport (founded by a Frenchman, based off an ancient Greek Olympic event and first won by a Swede) then does that make him "anti-European"? And if he could advocate the removal of an event that was invented by the Olympic founder, does that make him "anti-Olympian"? That he could advocate the pentathlon's removal seems to indicate the removal of the pentathlon (and probably baseball and softball) has more to do with trying introduce new sports that may end up having greater commerical appeal (i.e. more money for the IOC) than to do with any particular bias (whether anti-American or anti-Eastern European where the pentathlon is most popular). More than likely some new sports will end up being trialled and if they don't take off commerically then baseball and softball may come back.




Because with basketball, professionals of some sort (European and South American) had been allowed to play before 1992. Basketball is a much younger sport than baseball, but it would be ridiculous to deny that basketball is far more popular. And whereas the MLB's older arm was founded in 1876, the MLB has basically had exclusive control over major league baseball since 1915 (the end of the Federal League) or maybe the 1950s if you want to count the Negro Leagues as major leagues. The NBA on the other hand was founded in 1946 but only had exclusive control over major league basketball in 1976. However, in spite being a medal sport since 1992 (which happens to be the same year that basketball allowed NBA professionals to participate), MLB pros still haven't been allowed.....a full 16 years later. Does anyone really think that Olympic basketball (and through it basketball in general) would have been nearly as popular today if the Dream Team hadn't started playing in 1992? People who don't watch American major league sports would have been introduced to those stars in a big way in 1992 and would then have picked up more interest in the sport. If FIBA and the NBA hadn't allowed professionals from the NBA to participate back in 1992, basketball would probably be facing calls to be axed today.

And with Ice Hockey, professionals had been allowed to play since 1988, but NHL players couldn't participate even though they were eligible because the NHL was running at the same time. In 1998 the NHL began to shut down to allow NHL players to participate.

So in comparison - basketball has been played in the olympics since 1936 and had some pros playing before 1992 and allowed all pros to play in 1992. ice hockey has been played at the olympics since 1920 and allowed pros to play since 1988 and the NHL freed up player commitments in 1998. Baseball has been played at the olympics regularly since 1984 and intermittently from 1912 (and was introduced unofficially in 1904) and its major pro organization still doesn't allow professionals to play in the Olympics. In terms of participation in the Olympics, baseball and basketball have/had a similar run: basketball was in 11 Olympiads before NBA pros were allowed and baseball was in 10 Olympiads (or 11 if you count 1904). With no prospect for the MLB to allow pros by 2012 (until it's half-baked announcement after the sport was removed) or even 2016 which would have been baseball's 12th (13th) and 13th(14th) Olympiads, that surely didn't help baseball's cause. And now the MLB is trying to throw a bone (and even then half-heartedly) which ends up being absurd as others have pointed out. They should either do it properly or not at all.

So, if basketball has been played in the Olympics since 1936, but it took until 1992 before all pro's were allowed to compete in the Olympics, and since hockey has been played in the Olympics since 1920, but pro's weren't allowed to play there until 1988, and NHL players couldn't play there until 1998... why weren't these sports yanked from the Olympics prior to that? There were a LOT of years in between them being put into the Olympics and when pro's were allowed to participate. That's why the MLB thing doesn't make sense to me. Why would the IOC committee all of a sudden be concerned about MLB players not being allowed to play in the Olympics when Olympic basketball and hockey existed a long time before their pro players were allowed to participate? Why didn't the issue come up before?

I don't feel that ANY pro athlete should be allowed to play in the Olympics. The Olympics weren't created for pro athletes. It's all about money now... and the greed for it is ruining it. I refuse to watch any Olympic sport that includes pro athletes. The Olympics are far less appealing to me than they used to be. Perhaps one day I won't even watch them at all, because it will be all about pro athletes.

[NewEnglandAmazins]

Money factor?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/olympics_2012/4658925.stm


The decision to exclude baseball and softball should save London at least £50m, as well as meaning Regents Park will not be used as a venue.

I'm not quite sold on the Anti-American angle because

1) Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez are big baseball fans and you can't get more Anti-American than those two.
2) Cuba has 3 of the 4 Gold medals.

[DownUnderDodger]

Money factor?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/olympics_2012/4658925.stm


I think this may give just a little credence to my thoughts that cost was a factor. I believe it is the host country who gets to put forward any recommendations for removing sports and introducing new ones, and a saving of £50m is one heck of a saving. And remember, baseball and softball were two of the newest sports and were 'dumped' to make way for two new sports, both of which could be staged for much less than £50m, however, in the end they unfortunately did not get enough support, leaving the 2012 Games 2 sports short of the maximum.

As voting was a secret ballot any speculation about why the majority voted the sports out will only be that...speculation. Comments from American reporters that it was an anti-American decision are undoubtedly purely personal feelings and purely because baseball (and softball) is so strong in USA. Many of the countries which voted probably preferred different sports to baseball at the time, bearing in mind the vote was in 2005, well before any MLB supported WBC.

And it must be remembered that there are 2 vacancies for new sports in 2016 so the Americans can, and undoubtedly will lobby for reinstatement of baseball and softball at the next round of voting. With both Chicago and Tokyo in line for the Games, and a much stronger presence of baseball in some other countries since 2005 (including China) there is every possibility they may return. Baseball probably has a stronger chance than softball, if what the commentators at a USA softball game I watched said hold true. The comments made were that USA was so strong because they had a fully professional league and most other countries did not have any professional leagues at all. I don't know much about softball except that Australia are reasonably strong without very much presence in our media (except if they do well at the Olympics), and China are also very strong. Perhaps softball sport will continue to grow a larger international presence as has baseball, in time for the next round of voting. Perhaps both sports will be seen to go hand-in-hand especially on a facility basis.

[Agente Libre]

This notion that anti-Americanism didn't factor into the removal of baseball and softball is beyond naive.

Softball could be played on a converted soccer field with temporary seating, so if the IOC wanted to keep softball, they could have easily and cheaply done so. Instead, they tossed out two "American" sports under the guise of "lack of professionals" and "weak steroid testing" and all sorts of other nonsense.

[ShawnC]

So, if basketball has been played in the Olympics since 1936, but it took until 1992 before all pro's were allowed to compete in the Olympics, and since hockey has been played in the Olympics since 1920, but pro's weren't allowed to play there until 1988, and NHL players couldn't play there until 1998... why weren't these sports yanked from the Olympics prior to that? There were a LOT of years in between them being put into the Olympics and when pro's were allowed to participate. That's why the MLB thing doesn't make sense to me. Why would the IOC committee all of a sudden be concerned about MLB players not being allowed to play in the Olympics when Olympic basketball and hockey existed a long time before their pro players were allowed to participate? Why didn't the issue come up before?

You would have to re-read my post......

But essentially:

1. Pros from the NBA couldn't go to the Olympics before 1948 anyway because the NBA wasn't founded until 1946 and it certainly couldn't allow players to participate in 1936 if it didn't exist yet.

2. Baseball has been at the Olympics since 1912 (or 1904 depending on whether you want to count unofficial starts). So in addition to starting earlier, it allowed the other sports (basketball and ice hockey) to pull ahead in allowing pros in earlier. Baseball's showing before the 1980s was intermittent, but baseball was still at enough Olympiads to the point wherein by the end of the Beijing Olympics it would have gone through the same number of Olympiads as basketball did between the NBA's formation in 1946 and the NBA sending pros in 1992 - unlike that situation though there was no indication that the MLB was even considering allowing pros for 2012 or even 2016.

3. Basketball allowed pros prior to 1992, but from Europe and South America so if there was any clamouring for pros to play in the Olympics it would have been completing a change that had started before.

4. Ice Hockey allowed pros from 1988.

5. The IOC began picking up and the pro idea in the 1970s and 1980s because it felt amateurism was outdated and that allowing professionals would bring more interest in a number of games, so prior to that which sports sent pros didn't really matter, but when the IOC did pick up on that idea it allowed each international sport federation to decide how pros would be able to qualify - ice hockey, basketball and even football/soccer all came up with some way to send pros either in part or in full. Given that outside of the MLB, pro league baseball is hardly worth the name other than in Japan and maybe Korea, when the MLB doesn't send pros then essentially no pros play in the Olympics (not necessarily a bad thing).

6. Considering that 1988 (or even 1992) was a long time ago, a better question might be why baseball got such a nice grace period when other sports had been allowing in pros from the 1980s and 1990s.

I don't think the pro issue was the major issue however, but it probably contributed to to vote, as in this money-oriented era it was probably felt that more commercial sponsorship could be gained by bringing in "fresh" sports (with pros) which might bring in more commerical sponsors and viewership (there was a list of 5 that were waiting including rugby (union) and golf - 2 of those 5 weren't voted on to replace baseball and softball (but neither was golf or rugby). Rogge will probably still aim to get the modern pentathlon out next time around (he failed to do so in 2005).


I don't feel that ANY pro athlete should be allowed to play in the Olympics. The Olympics weren't created for pro athletes. It's all about money now... and the greed for it is ruining it. I refuse to watch any Olympic sport that includes pro athletes. The Olympics are far less appealing to me than they used to be. Perhaps one day I won't even watch them at all, because it will be all about pro athletes.

I agree. The professional aspect of many sports is getting out of hand in my opinion. There should certainly be professional athletes in this world, but when it becomes more about money than the sport itself, then the sport is ruined. The Olympics have also lost some of their appeal for me, as have a lot of sports overall (far too many people taking things too far because of the money). Plus of course when sports become overly politicized it just looks even more ridiculous to me - now everything is the target of a protest. They should just drop the Olympic flame relay - too much fuss and nobody remembers that it is supposed to be about peace and understanding through sport anyway. Besides that flame relay had some shady origins.

Hopefully however, the various baseball associations around the world will be able to pull through with a slash in funding. I would expect the major countries (USA, Japan, Korea, Cuba, DR, PR, Mexico, Canada, Taiwan, Venezeula and arguably Australia, Panama and the Netherlands) to pull through, as should the likes of Italy, Nicaragua, Spain, China (MLB interest) and South Africa, so the WBC should have some variety in years to come. :)

[ShawnC]

This notion that anti-Americanism didn't factor into the removal of baseball and softball is beyond naive.

Softball could be played on a converted soccer field with temporary seating, so if the IOC wanted to keep softball, they could have easily and cheaply done so. Instead, they tossed out two "American" sports under the guise of "lack of professionals" and "weak steroid testing" and all sorts of other nonsense.

Softball can be played on a converted soccer field, but then converting a soccer field isn't free (especially in London where everything is more expensive just because - it's sad really) - again it ties into cost. And without changing the seating or converting the field much, rugby (one of the sports on the waiting list) could be played on the soccer field more cheaply and without putting on a mound (very few clubs in London will be willing to have anything like that happen to their field......I can imagine the riots at Chelsea if the idea was even thought out aloud).

[Agente Libre]

Softball can be played on a converted soccer field, but then converting a soccer field isn't free (especially in London where everything is more expensive just because - it's sad really) - again it ties into cost. And without changing the seating or converting the field much, rugby (one of the sports on the waiting list) could be played on the soccer field more cheaply and without putting on a mound (very few clubs in London will be willing to have anything like that happen to their field......I can imagine the riots at Chelsea if the idea was even thought out aloud).

Sorry, but this is getting silly. These are the Olympic Games we're talking about, and cities spend tens of millions of dollars just competing for the *chance* to host them. The idea that baseball, and especially softball, were eliminated just so the folks in London can save money is patently absurd.

[Paula59]

I found a speech given by Mr. Shun-ichiro Okano, IOC member.
A translation of a speech given by Mr. Okano in March this year, and which appeared in an alumni magazine in Japan this month. Mr. Okano is the Supreme Advisor to the Japan Football Association and is an IOC member. This was sent to IBAF by Mr. Kazu Tawa, Executive Director of the Baseball Federation of Japan.

http://www.baseballeurope.com/uploads/media/Shun-ichiro_Okano_Speech_3_10_08.pdf

If you read it you will find the reason why BB and SB were excluded.
1. Rules - to many rules in BB
2. nearly half of 110 members are from europe - european sports like rugby and roller sports were chosen as replacements
3. Money - makes no sense to build BB facilitys that have no need after the games
4. Money world wide - BB is to expensive you need Bats, gloves etc wich some poor countries can not afford


They may be rigth with some of the points the one way but the other way they are totaly wrong -in my opinion it was just a political thing.

[DownUnderDodger]

Sorry, but this is getting silly. These are the Olympic Games we're talking about, and cities spend tens of millions of dollars just competing for the *chance* to host them. The idea that baseball, and especially softball, were eliminated just so the folks in London can save money is patently absurd.

To be quite honest I feel all this "anti-America" stuff is even more silly, and the fact that the host nation has to live with what they spend to host the games has to be a major factor. Just look at Montreal.....how many white elephants are there as a result of the Olympics there? To say that the sports were eliminated
just so the folks in London can save money is patently absurd is absurd is in itself. It is obviously not the only reason that these sports were dropped, but it is surely part of the reason. Yes the bidding nations spend a 'bomb' trying to get the Games, so why would they then want to spend another bucket load of money building facilities and trying to promote sports that at the time were of no interest or long term benefit to them, when they can recommend those sports be dropped for other more appealing (to them) sports?

Look at the big picture, from a world view, a view obviously shared by those who voted against these sports. Sports such as Squash (which I don't believe is very big in USA but does have an annual World championship, and numerous other international tournaments, involving a number of countries, for both men and women) and Karate (which I don't know much about but I believe has quite a large following around the world), were those nominated to replace Baseball and Softball. These were obviously put forward by the English OC, and were defeated, leaving the 2012 Games 2 sports short of the maximum.

Baseball (mens) dominates sport in USA in summer but it does not dominate in many other countries outside USA and maybe some of the Central American countries. It is also very strong in Japan. But it is certainly not a dominant summer sport in England, the hosts for 2012, or Europe and Africa. There are a lot of votes there. Baseball is not a widely played sport at International level, with the Intercontinental Cup and World Championshipship games being very low key, and is certainly not a sport played internationally by women to any degree whatsoever that I am aware of. The fact is that England, apparently with a consensus from a majority of other voting nations, felt that Baseball was not a sport which was going to attract much interest in England and hence felt that other sports may be better served as part of these Games. How that can be construed as "anti-American" is beyond me.

Also I again urge all to consider when this decision was made.......2005!! It was not made in the last few weeks or months, it was 3 years ago. Please get over the Anti-American sentiments, think outside the square, and hope that it makes a comeback in 2016.

[NotAboutEgo]

Baseball is not a widely played sport at International level, with the Intercontinental Cup and World Championshipship games being very low key, and is certainly not a sport played internationally by women to any degree whatsoever that I am aware of.

FYI... Women's baseball (I'm talking baseball here and not softball) IS played internationally and has been in the modern era since 2001. Furthermore, there is a women's baseball world championship every 2 years that is sanctioned by the IBAF that several countries send their official national teams to. An Australian club team, the Aussie Hearts, just competed in and won 2 tournaments in the U.S.... the 2008 Can-Am International Women's Baseball Tournament and the Women's Baseball Classic. There was a women's international baseball tournament in Hong Kong this past February... The Oregon Scientific Phoenix Cup. There will be an international women's baseball tourney in India in October.

These are just the most recent international women's baseball tournies. Japanese teams have played in the U.S. in the recent past, many U.S. teams have traveled to countries such as Japan, the Dominican Republic, Australia, Hong Kong, etc., Australian and Canadian teams have traveled to other countries to play, and there have been several other tournaments involving more than 2 countries.

Countries that will send their women's national teams to this year's women's world championship are Australia, Chinese Taipei, India, Japan, Canada, Hong Kong, Korea, and the U.S. (8 countries). In 2006, there were 6 countries that participated, so it has grown by 2 countries in just 2 years. When modern international women's baseball competitions began in 2001, there were only 4 countries that competed... Japan, Canada, Australia, and the U.S. So, the number of countries (official national teams or teams representing their countries before their country had a national team) participating in international women's baseball competitions has doubled since 2001. That, along with club teams participating in international women's baseball competitions, is proof of the growth of baseball (not softball) for women.

There are other countries that are working on developing women's baseball programs so that they can compete internationally as well... the Domincan Republic, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. Cuba's women's national team played in the 2006 Women's World Championship, and the Dominican played against an American club team in the recent past.

[NotAboutEgo]

I agree. The professional aspect of many sports is getting out of hand in my opinion. There should certainly be professional athletes in this world, but when it becomes more about money than the sport itself, then the sport is ruined. The Olympics have also lost some of their appeal for me, as have a lot of sports overall (far too many people taking things too far because of the money). Plus of course when sports become overly politicized it just looks even more ridiculous to me - now everything is the target of a protest. They should just drop the Olympic flame relay - too much fuss and nobody remembers that it is supposed to be about peace and understanding through sport anyway. Besides that flame relay had some shady origins.

I agree. Money... rather, the greed for it... is ruining MLB and other sports, and now it's ruining the Olympics. I'm just sick and tired of it all.

[DownUnderDodger]

FYI... Women's baseball (I'm talking baseball here and not softball) IS played internationally and has been in the modern era since 2001. Furthermore, there is a women's baseball world championship every 2 years that is sanctioned by the IBAF that several countries send their official national teams to. An Australian club team, the Aussie Hearts, just competed in and won 2 tournaments in the U.S.... the 2008 Can-Am International Women's Baseball Tournament and the Women's Baseball Classic. There was a women's international baseball tournament in Hong Kong this past February... The Oregon Scientific Phoenix Cup. There will be an international women's baseball tourney in India in October.

These are just the most recent international women's baseball tournies. Japanese teams have played in the U.S. in the recent past, many U.S. teams have traveled to countries such as Japan, the Dominican Republic, Australia, Hong Kong, etc., Australian and Canadian teams have traveled to other countries to play, and there have been several other tournaments involving more than 2 countries.

Countries that will send their women's national teams to this year's women's world championship are Australia, Chinese Taipei, India, Japan, Canada, Hong Kong, Korea, and the U.S. (8 countries). In 2006, there were 6 countries that participated, so it has grown by 2 countries in just 2 years. When modern international women's baseball competitions began in 2001, there were only 4 countries that competed... Japan, Canada, Australia, and the U.S. So, the number of countries (official national teams or teams representing their countries before their country had a national team) participating in international women's baseball competitions has doubled since 2001. That, along with club teams participating in international women's baseball competitions, is proof of the growth of baseball (not softball) for women.

There are other countries that are working on developing women's baseball programs so that they can compete internationally as well... the Domincan Republic, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. Cuba's women's national team played in the 2006 Women's World Championship, and the Dominican played against an American club team in the recent past.

Thank you for all the info. I knew that women play baseball here but was unaware of the team that toured USA.....mind you, you did say it was a club team not a national team. Anyway I am now much the wiser from your info which I appreciate. Again though it is played by limited countries with very little exposure, and IOC decision was to look for sports that are played by both men and women at a higher degree. They see Baseball and Softball as 2 different sports and Softball is basically more a women's sport at the international level I guess. That would have undoubtedly ruled against it.

[DownUnderDodger]

I agree. Money... rather, the greed for it... is ruining MLB and other sports, and now it's ruining the Olympics. I'm just sick and tired of it all.

Unfortunately just about all sports are now professional to some degree so if the Olympics were purely amateur there would be very few quality competitiors, hence no interest whatsoever. To be quite honest, as much as I enjoy most sports and like to watch the Olympics, I think that the Games may have almost passed their use-by date. The cost to hold them is exhorbitant and they are getting more and more politically motivated. But while they remain countries/cities will bid to host them and the money will continue to flow.

[Agente Libre]

I don't believe professionals should be allowed in the Olympics, but to say greed is killing MLB is just silly. The modern MLB game is as good or better than it's ever been, and MLB has set attendance records for many years in a row (and is on pace to set another record this year).

[NotAboutEgo]

Thank you for all the info. I knew that women play baseball here but was unaware of the team that toured USA.....mind you, you did say it was a club team not a national team. Anyway I am now much the wiser from your info which I appreciate. Again though it is played by limited countries with very little exposure, and IOC decision was to look for sports that are played by both men and women at a higher degree. They see Baseball and Softball as 2 different sports and Softball is basically more a women's sport at the international level I guess. That would have undoubtedly ruled against it.

You're welcome. Yes, it was a club team from Australia that was here, but the team had about 7 of Australia's women's national team players on it, and I believe it had one from Japan and possibly one from Korea on it as well. Countries typically don't send their national teams to events unless they are sanctioned by some international governing body. Although the Can-Am tourney is an international one, it isn't sanctioned by the IBAF or any other governing body. This is the case for many other international tournies as well. The only international women's baseball event that is sanctioned by the IBAF is the Women's Baseball World Championship which occurs every 2 years in even years.

[NotAboutEgo]

Unfortunately just about all sports are now professional to some degree so if the Olympics were purely amateur there would be very few quality competitiors, hence no interest whatsoever. To be quite honest, as much as I enjoy most sports and like to watch the Olympics, I think that the Games may have almost passed their use-by date. The cost to hold them is exhorbitant and they are getting more and more politically motivated. But while they remain countries/cities will bid to host them and the money will continue to flow.

I agree completely. They have reached their shelf-life in terms of why they were started in the first place and with people who don't have an interest in the high-pressure marketing and money making from them. When I was a kid, before all the pro's were allowed to compete, they had a lot more appeal and zeal and meant a lot more. Now, they are just another sporting event that takes place every 4 years. I do enjoy watching certain events like luge, bobsled, speed skating, swimming and diving, and other sports that may not have a pro market, though.

[NotAboutEgo]

I don't believe professionals should be allowed in the Olympics, but to say greed is killing MLB is just silly. The modern MLB game is as good or better than it's ever been, and MLB has set attendance records for many years in a row (and is on pace to set another record this year).

Greed is why the Detroit Tigers have the 2nd highest payroll in MLB but struggle to play at .500, despite having a bunch of superstars on its team. The owner and GM want to win a World Series NOW, so they added over-priced players to the roster, but who knows if they'll even come close to making the post-season this season.

As soon as they signed the over-priced guys, they started their high-pressure marketing to get people to buy tix... way back in the winter. And, when the seaon started, the team fell flat on its face. To me, it was a slap in the face reminding them of their greediness to have a bunch of superstars on their team and win a World Series. They're draining their farm system of talent in order to get superstars. There is no above average catching prospect in its system right now. Pitching in the beginning of the season was horrible, and instead of trying to get a couple of solid relievers in the off-season, we got more position players.

If you don't think MLB is being ruined by greed and money, you must not be attending games. Salaries are ludicrous, players are more demanding and less thankful, owners aren't as loyal to their teams' traditions, etc. MLB is about the "big show" now, unlike in the past when it was about playing baseball. If you don't attend MLB games and aren't around it, you wouldn't know this.

[NotAboutEgo]

Thank you for all the info. I knew that women play baseball here but was unaware of the team that toured USA.....mind you, you did say it was a club team not a national team. Anyway I am now much the wiser from your info which I appreciate. Again though it is played by limited countries with very little exposure, and IOC decision was to look for sports that are played by both men and women at a higher degree. They see Baseball and Softball as 2 different sports and Softball is basically more a women's sport at the international level I guess. That would have undoubtedly ruled against it.

Yes, right now, women's baseball is played in a limited number of countries with little exposure, but the numbers are growing. Considering that 2001 was the first year in modern times that international women's baseball games took place, the growth isn't bad. Most of the international growth started occuring when the IBAF started sanctioning the first Women's Baseball World Championship in 2004. Before that, there was a Women's World Series that the American Women's Baseball Federation started and organized each summer. It was an unofficial (not sanctioned by any international governing body) event where Japan, Australia, Canada, and the U.S. were the only competitors in the beginning. I don't think there was any women's baseball being played anywhere else in the early 2000's. But, when the IBAF decided to sanction an international event, international growth started happening. Again, that happened in 2004... just 4 years ago. There were 5 teams in the first world championship in 2004, 6 teams in 2006, and this year, there will be 8 teams.

Since the IBAF started sanctioning this event, women's baseball has started in Chinese Taipei (Taiwan), Korea, India, Cuba, Hong Kong, the Dominican Republic, and possibly in Venezuela and other countries. This international event certainly has spurned the growth of international women's baseball, and this growth most likely will continue.

[Agente Libre]

Greed is why the Detroit Tigers have the 2nd highest payroll in MLB but struggle to play at .500, despite having a bunch of superstars on its team. The owner and GM want to win a World Series NOW, so they added over-priced players to the roster, but who knows if they'll even come close to making the post-season this season.

"Greed ruining baseball" would be if the highest payroll wins the World Series every year, but that hasn't happened even a *single time* this decade.


... There is no above average catching prospect in its system right now. Pitching in the beginning of the season was horrible, and instead of trying to get a couple of solid relievers in the off-season, we got more position players.

I doubt there are more than three "above-average catching prospects" in all of the minor leagues right now. As for relievers, that was obviously a weakness, but are you complaining the Tigers didn't spend even *more* money on relievers?


If you don't think MLB is being ruined by greed and money, you must not be attending games. Salaries are ludicrous, players are more demanding and less thankful, owners aren't as loyal to their teams' traditions, etc. MLB is about the "big show" now, unlike in the past when it was about playing baseball. If you don't attend MLB games and aren't around it, you wouldn't know this.

Ha ha ... Baseball fans have been saying the above since the beginning of time. It's not any more true now than it was in 1950 or 1910 or whenever.

[tinseltown]

Though the escalating costs of the Olympic games has been a concern for a while, I believe the cost of the 2004 Athens Games (exacerbated further due to increased security levels) may have been the final catalyst to cause baseball and softball (and minimally the cost of one ballpark with sufficient seating to host the championship games) to be dropped. Furthermore, there are many sports whose associations are clamoring to be included, but both for cost and time reasons (most days are packed with events, and the glamour signature events like the 100m are held at premium times, constraining the rest of the schedule) there's no space for new sports, unless existing ones get dropped. Thus the push to eliminate less popular sports like modern pentathlon, and sports like baseball that require costly venues and are at least perceived as not being a global sport.

[Paul Wendt]

>>
If you don't think MLB is being ruined by greed and money, you must not be attending games. Salaries are ludicrous, players are more demanding and less thankful, owners aren't as loyal to their teams' traditions, etc. MLB is about the "big show" now, unlike in the past when it was about playing baseball. If you don't attend MLB games and aren't around it, you wouldn't know this.
<<

Ha ha ... Baseball fans have been saying the above since the beginning of time. It's not any more true now than it was in 1950 or 1910 or whenever.
Let me gently second this. The beginning of time, no, but at least a generation before 1910. Pro baseball was in trouble by the mid- or late 1890s because the National League magnates were greedy men rather than the sportsmen our national game once enjoyed.

[Paul Wendt]

Back on page one someone said that competitive sports in the USA depend on the private sector. It is said to be difficult for us Americans to understand the role of the state.

That is because we Americans avoid social studies and don't reflect much. For more than one hundred years public high schools, colleges, and universities have been represented by competitive sports teams and they (players, alumni, governors) have considered it important to compete with the private sector on even terms at least. Soon after, early in the 1900s, the schools took over control of and responsibility for their sports teams. The people who arranged for funding public education, and the people who paid taxes and voted, were involved in state support for sports, big time.

In the USA (everywhere? most states? I don't know), everyone has handled a basketball and a bat as part of their required school program by fourth grade or so. It's called "physical education" or "gym class" but no way does it focus on physical culture and health, or on the basic athletic sports. Much of it is "universal" development of skills that are very specific to the favorite USAmerican team sports.

*Olympic* sports aren't crucial here in the USA. International competition may not be an important factor in determining our state-supported sporting education. We have field hockey for girls (most places?) and lacrosse for boys (Northeast?), but the Olympics have field hockey for men so we don't compete there. That "failure" doesn't influence our state-supported programs much or at all; the USA is so big and relatively oblivious that our state sports programs do not follow Olympic or international trends and competitions closely. Maybe that is an important difference. But state support for team sports? My guess is that the USA social system developed big state support for team sports earlier and faster than anyone else.

(I say social system because it operated at a grass roots level and the USAmerican state, meaning the national one, was not involved at all until comparatively recently. Probably it's relatively meager support has been directed chiefly to Olympic sports.)

[tinseltown]

Dayn Perry's take on the status of baseball in the Olympics (from Baseball Prospectus):
http://baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=7860

[Paula59]

Last nigth they showed on public tv here in germany a really good 30 min. documentation about olympic sports.
The main chapter was about what it needs to be an olympic sport etc.

They started with popular track and field disciplines from the early beginnings like "Sackhüpfen" - sack race to Baseball and Softball and showed how the disciplenes lost their spot and why.

For BB/SB they ask some Sport scientist. They reported that the problem of BB/SB is that the sport only went into the program because of economic pressure of some sponsors of the games. Now the pressure isn´t big enough anymore and the IOC voted against BB/SB because to give other sports (european sports) a chance.

They reported some more facts but in their eyes not that important like SB not played everywhere; no mens SB no women BB worldwide; no tv coverage outside the main BB/SB countrys etc.

[Richard]

Why are badmitten and ping pong Olympic sports?

[Williamsburg2599]

Why are badmitten and ping pong Olympic sports?

Synchornized swimming takes the cake in any discussion on what should logically go.

[-Kyle-]

I know, ping pong over bowling. What crap. :(

[Williamsburg2599]

I know, ping pong over bowling. What crap. :(

As long as it's Candlepin. ;) (Inside New England joke)

[DownUnderDodger]

Synchornized swimming takes the cake in any discussion on what should logically go.

I believe Greco Roman Wrestling is more boring than Synchronized Swimming :yawn: And Ping Pong (or Table tennis as it is internationally known) is huge in the Asian countries, as is Badminton. I doubt Bowling has anywhere near the international following :noidea Baseball would be much more internationally played than Bowling I would imagine.

[Paula59]

I found a list where you can see who voted for or against BB at the Olympic Program Voting

http://www.baseballeurope.com/fileadmin/Publications/IBAF_Countries_and_IOC_Members.pdf

as you can see a lot of "friends" of the USA voted against BB - so it can´t be an Anti American deccision

[jalbright]

Back to a discussion of baseball, please.

[Paula59]

Oh I thought I am talking about Olympic Baseball

If not let´s get back to BB

[Mischa]

I found a list where you can see who voted for or against BB at the Olympic Program Voting

http://www.baseballeurope.com/fileadmin/Publications/IBAF_Countries_and_IOC_Members.pdf

as you can see a lot of "friends" of the USA voted against BB - so it can´t be an Anti American deccision

Weird. Peru and Hungary in favor of Olympic baseball, the Netherlands opposed?

[Paul Wendt]

Skimming the list I see only one vote NO in the Western Hemisphere, Barbados.

And I see 17-6 against baseball in Europe incl Russia, Ukraine, Israel.
namely Spain, Italy, Greece, Hungary, Czechia, Germany

Who votes? is a background issue.

[jalbright]

Oh I thought I am talking about Olympic Baseball

If not let´s get back to BB

We'd gotten into talking about synchronized swimming and Greco-Roman Wrestling a bit there, and I want to keep it to baseball.

[ShawnC]

I found a list where you can see who voted for or against BB at the Olympic Program Voting

http://www.baseballeurope.com/fileadmin/Publications/IBAF_Countries_and_IOC_Members.pdf

as you can see a lot of "friends" of the USA voted against BB - so it can´t be an Anti American deccision

Very interesting list Paula59. By my count baseball had the support of 28 (37%) countries in the IOC and the opposition of 48 (63%). And oddly, the Netherlands didn't support Olympic baseball, well not all of the Dutch IOC member delegates....which brings us to the other count: support by delegates. In that count 46 IOC member delegates (41%) voted to keep baseball, while 67 (59%) voted against.

Either way the vote indicates something must have changed since 2002 when baseball had been kept.

[ShawnC]

Last nigth they showed on public tv here in germany a really good 30 min. documentation about olympic sports.
The main chapter was about what it needs to be an olympic sport etc.

They started with popular track and field disciplines from the early beginnings like "Sackhüpfen" - sack race to Baseball and Softball and showed how the disciplenes lost their spot and why.

For BB/SB they ask some Sport scientist. They reported that the problem of BB/SB is that the sport only went into the program because of economic pressure of some sponsors of the games. Now the pressure isn´t big enough anymore and the IOC voted against BB/SB because to give other sports (european sports) a chance.

They reported some more facts but in their eyes not that important like SB not played everywhere; no mens SB no women BB worldwide; no tv coverage outside the main BB/SB countrys etc.

Well, if BB/SB only went into the program because of economic pressure by sponsors, maybe we better hope those sponsors can have influence in the future.

NotAboutEgo provided info on women's BB, but even that seemed to indicate that relatively speaking women's BB is rare. And men's SB is probably just as rare, if not rarer. Were there men's SB teams ever at the Olympics or was it that BB was considered the men's version of the game and SB was considered the women's version? If so then any attempt by the BB and SB governing bodies to correct the misconception may have been a minor factor in some delegates voting against those sports since it may well appear that all along what they thought were men's and women's versions of the same sport were actually two different sports in the Olympics in which only one sex was predominant.

[Paula59]

I think the IOC Members see BB and SB as two different sports and this could be the main point.
Well there migth be some differences but all over all it is the same sport. If you have a look at the Olympic site http://www.olympic.org/uk/sports/index_uk.asp
you see 38 sports (origin it should be 28) but some of the sports are under one leadership of a federation/sport like gymnastics; swimming; strengh sports etc.

If you have a look at the official list of events http://en.beijing2008.cn/sports/baseball/index.shtml you will see BB is listed as Baseball Men and SB http://en.beijing2008.cn/sports/softball/index.shtml Softball Women
For example http://en.beijing2008.cn/sports/basketball/index.shtml is listed as Basketball Men and Women.

Both sports (BB/SB) have different governing bodies not like the other sports where it doesn´t matter if men or women.

If the IBAF and the ISF can unite for the olympic games as a one federation and as one sport played by men and women I see a chance of get our sports back but only by using one of the 28 spots for men and women.
I don´t know if this is possible because of some diversities of the field etc. and I don´t know if it is in the olympic charter that men and women have to have the same distances, rules etc.
but this should be in my opinion the starting point for the federations to get the sports back in the Olympics 2016.

[NewEnglandAmazins]

Does anyone know what are the requirements for a nation to join the IBAF? It is dissapointing to see that most of the IOC members that voted against baseball are from IBAF member nations.

[DownUnderDodger]

We'd gotten into talking about synchronized swimming and Greco-Roman Wrestling a bit there, and I want to keep it to baseball.
Guilty :sorry: But I was indirectly trying to relate popularity and spectator interest between these sports and others in relation to baseball.

[DownUnderDodger]

I think the IOC Members see BB and SB as two different sports and this could be the main point.
Well there migth be some differences but all over all it is the same sport. If you have a look at the Olympic site http://www.olympic.org/uk/sports/index_uk.asp
you see 38 sports (origin it should be 28) but some of the sports are under one leadership of a federation/sport like gymnastics; swimming; strengh sports etc.

If you have a look at the official list of events http://en.beijing2008.cn/sports/baseball/index.shtml you will see BB is listed as Baseball Men and SB http://en.beijing2008.cn/sports/softball/index.shtml Softball Women
For example http://en.beijing2008.cn/sports/basketball/index.shtml is listed as Basketball Men and Women.

Both sports (BB/SB) have different governing bodies not like the other sports where it doesn´t matter if men or women.

If the IBAF and the ISF can unite for the olympic games as a one federation and as one sport played by men and women I see a chance of get our sports back but only by using one of the 28 spots for men and women.
I don´t know if this is possible because of some diversities of the field etc. and I don´t know if it is in the olympic charter that men and women have to have the same distances, rules etc.
but this should be in my opinion the starting point for the federations to get the sports back in the Olympics 2016.

I am quite sure that is the main point....they are two different sports, one played predominantly by men (even though NotAboutEgo made relevant points about women's baseball it is far from a recognised international sport) and Softball is played predominantly by women. I am sure there are men's Softball competitions but again not really recognisable as an international sport.

Sadly the British must have seen fit not to want them in the Games (and I am sure cost of facilities was a huge factor given the recommended replacements) and they obviously gained a lot of support from other nations. Just looking at the list of nations, it is not hard to believe that a large number, particularly the African and Island nations would have no interest in Baseball or Softball whatsoever. It is surprising that some of the Europeans voted nay, including Netherlands and Belgium, however again we must factor in the time of the vote....2005, pre WBC.

Bring on the votes for 2016, and give it to Chicago.....then bring back Baseball & Softball.

[NotAboutEgo]

I think the IOC Members see BB and SB as two different sports and this could be the main point.
Well there migth be some differences but all over all it is the same sport. If you have a look at the Olympic site http://www.olympic.org/uk/sports/index_uk.asp
you see 38 sports (origin it should be 28) but some of the sports are under one leadership of a federation/sport like gymnastics; swimming; strengh sports etc.

If you have a look at the official list of events http://en.beijing2008.cn/sports/baseball/index.shtml you will see BB is listed as Baseball Men and SB http://en.beijing2008.cn/sports/softball/index.shtml Softball Women
For example http://en.beijing2008.cn/sports/basketball/index.shtml is listed as Basketball Men and Women.

Both sports (BB/SB) have different governing bodies not like the other sports where it doesn´t matter if men or women.

If the IBAF and the ISF can unite for the olympic games as a one federation and as one sport played by men and women I see a chance of get our sports back but only by using one of the 28 spots for men and women.
I don´t know if this is possible because of some diversities of the field etc. and I don´t know if it is in the olympic charter that men and women have to have the same distances, rules etc.
but this should be in my opinion the starting point for the federations to get the sports back in the Olympics 2016.

Baseball and softball are NOT the same sport. If you think this is true, then ask all MLB players to start playing softball instead of baseball, and see what they say. Although they have similarities and thus can be thought of as "related", they are very different sports. If you haven't played both, then perhaps you are unaware of this. The IOC (along with the IBAF), THANKFULLY, recognizes that the two are different sports.

The only reason women started playing softball on a large scale is because of sexism. And now, we are fighting that and the stereotyping that goes along with it... hence, the continual development of women's baseball worldwide. If women would have never have gotten pushed into playing softball, things in the baseball and softball world would be much different than they are today.

If this wouldn't have happened, there would be both softball and baseball everywhere for both men and women, with no stereotyping involved (well, in regards to people thinking that softball is the equivalent of baseball for women, which is completely ridiculous).

[Paul Wendt]

Baseball and softball are NOT the same sport. If you think this is true, then ask all MLB players to start playing softball instead of baseball, and see what they say. Although they have similarities and thus can be thought of as "related", they are very different sports.
"very different sports"
Right.
They are not precisely identical games but they are very similar games indeed.

But that is beside the point of recognition as an Olympic sport. The women's heptathlon (a composite scored by a point system), 100-meter dash (a tournament of races against/among people, ending in a final race among all the qualifiers), and men's hammer throw (man against tape measure) are all one sport. The 100-m backstroke and the 1600-m freestyle relay are one sport.

There should be no hope that baseball and softball, or baseball played by men and women, or fast- and slow-pitch softball, or etc, will be recognized as a single sport with the autonomy enjoyed by track and field athletics (eg, to add, revise, subtract medal events).

Should men's baseball federate with women's baseball, women's softball, men's slow-pitch softball, etc? Basic questions for any deliberations about such mergers should be In what countries to women play baseball seriously? . . . play softball seriously?, and so on. --not the differences among the games.

[NotAboutEgo]

"very different sports"
Right.
They are not precisely identical games but they are very similar games indeed.

But that is beside the point of recognition as an Olympic sport. The women's heptathlon (a composite scored by a point system), 100-meter dash (a tournament of race among people), and men's hammer throw (man against tape measure) are all one sport. The 100-m backstroke and the 1600-m freestyle relay are one sport.

There should be no hope that baseball and softball, or baseball played by men and women, or fast- and slow-pitch softball, or etc, will be recognized as a single sport with the autonomy enjoyed by track and field athletics (eg, to add, revise, subtract medal events).

Should men's baseball federate with women's baseball, women's softball, men's slow-pitch softball, etc? Basic questions for any deliberations about such mergers should be In what countries to women play baseball seriously? play softball seriously? etc. --not the differences among the games.


There will be 8 countries in this year's Women's World Championship of Baseball. The number of countries participating in women's baseball in major international events has doubled since 2001 (there actually were 1 or 2 others that participated in 2004 or 2006, but they aren't participating this summer... probably for money reasons).

While the current number of countries participating in international women's baseball may not be enough to warrant the IOC reinstating softball and baseball into the Olympics soon, the important part of this is that women's baseball is growing around globe. If this growth continues and enough countries end up participating in international women's baseball, then the IOC would have to reconsider reinstating baseball, at least. If they find that not enough countries participate in softball, then maybe it stays out of the Olympics. I don't know how many countries currently participate in international softball.

So, for that reason, people need to understand that women do play baseball internationally, and that softball is not the female equivalent of baseball. The reason I brought up the part about asking MLB players to switch to softball is because most people would be able to understand it's not the same as baseball, and therefore, people should be able to see that men's baseball and women's softball aren't the only two "diamond" sports affected here. Most people don't even know that women play baseball and that it's growing all over.

I've been hearing for at least 4-5 years that the IOC was considering adding women's baseball as an exhibition sport in 2012. Obviously, that will be affected now, since baseball and softball are not in the Olympics this summer. If women's baseball ever did make it to the Olympics, it could help its growth tremendously.

So, in knowing that, it IS important to point out the differences between baseball and softball.

[Paula59]

Maybe you are rigth that BB/SB are 2 different sports http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_baseball_and_softball

but

the origins of BB/SB are the same.George Hancock invented Softball as Baseball that can be played at a gym.
We can say BB/SB are the same sports - at the moment SB mostly played be women >>> SB is the women type of BB

I do not know if you get the whole problem.
The IOC only wants at the games 28 different sports. An Olympic sport must be played by men and women in most of the world (most of the member countries.
BB and SB each blocking a spot out of these 28 sports at the moment>>>not like cycling disciplines; swimming etc.
BB/SB isn´t played by women (BB) and men (SB) in most of the world>>>no right to exist at the games anymore.

The only chance to keep BB/SB at the games is to call SB the women type of BB or other way (doesn´t matter to me); have 1 governing body for the sports at the Olympics.
With that the sports are using only 1 out of 28 spots and give the IOC the oalternative to get another sport into the games easily and we bypass the rule "played by women and men"!


If you think this is true, then ask all MLB players to start playing softball instead of baseball, and see what they say.

I really don´t care what a MLB player says about this whole story. They are not even competing at the Olympics! And they are not asked to stop playing BB and start playing SB!
>>> at the Olympics MEN PLAY BASEBALL and WOMEN PLAY SOFTBALL as 1 sport played by MEN and WOMEN!

[NotAboutEgo]

Maybe you are rigth that BB/SB are 2 different sports http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_baseball_and_softball

but

the origins of BB/SB are the same.George Hancock invented Softball as Baseball that can be played at a gym.
We can say BB/SB are the same sports - at the moment SB mostly played be women >>> SB is the women type of BB

I do not know if you get the whole problem.
The IOC only wants at the games 28 different sports. An Olympic sport must be played by men and women in most of the world (most of the member countries.
BB and SB each blocking a spot out of these 28 sports at the moment>>>not like cycling disciplines; swimming etc.
BB/SB isn´t played by women (BB) and men (SB) in most of the world>>>no right to exist at the games anymore.

The only chance to keep BB/SB at the games is to call SB the women type of BB or other way (doesn´t matter to me); have 1 governing body for the sports at the Olympics.
With that the sports are using only 1 out of 28 spots and give the IOC the oalternative to get another sport into the games easily and we bypass the rule "played by women and men"!



I really don´t care what a MLB player says about this whole story. They are not even competing at the Olympics! And they are not asked to stop playing BB and start playing SB!
>>> at the Olympics MEN PLAY BASEBALL and WOMEN PLAY SOFTBALL as 1 sport played by MEN and WOMEN!

I get your point now. If women's baseball ever makes it to the Olympics, then it would be easier... at least from the standpoint of both men and women playing baseball. Then, perhaps softball would be dropped if enough countries aren't participating in it internationally.

[Paula59]

I get your point now. If women's baseball ever makes it to the Olympics, then it would be easier... at least from the standpoint of both men and women playing baseball. Then, perhaps softball would be dropped if enough countries aren't participating in it internationally.


Exactly but I think it is easier to make one sport out of these two played by men and women (type softball) then recruit/develop womens BB or mens SB all around the world to fullfill the guidelines of the IOC.
Don´t forget the next vote about the program of the Olympics 2016 will be in autumn 2009!

[NotAboutEgo]

Exactly but I think it is easier to make one sport out of these two played by men and women (type softball) then recruit/develop womens BB or mens SB all around the world to fullfill the guidelines of the IOC.
Don´t forget the next vote about the program of the Olympics 2016 will be in autumn 2009!

True. Why do they vote so far ahead of time? That's 7 years before it may be in the Olympics again. A lot can happen in that time.

[ShawnC]

Softball may have evolved to be a different game from baseball, but the differences are minor compared to other related sports out there such as rugby union v. rugby league, Gaelic football and association football or even rounders and baseball or british baseball and baseball.

For instance, how many rugby boards oversee both rugby union and rugby league in the same country? With baseball and softball a number of countries actually have one governing body that oversees both sports (e.g. Confederacão Brasileira de Beisebol e Softbol or the Brazilian Baseball and Softball Confederation).

Looking through the full name of the IBAF members this is how it breaks down:

Total members: 100+ (either 107 as listed on their site or 114-117 as found elsewhere on the web)
Number of members that govern baseball and softball: 30+-40+ (depending on if the 107 figure is correct or the 114-117 is correct; I counted 44 out of a list of 115 full and provisional members)

And the greatest number of these "baseball and softball federations" are in Europe and Africa (where they form the majority of such baseball governing bodies on both continents). In France the governing federation used to oversee baseball, softball and even cricket but now it appears that they only oversee baseball and softball. Unless the use of the name "softball" in the names of these governing federation is a remnant from earlier times, it would appear that a significant portion of countries run baseball and softball under one roof which probably makes it hard to delink baseball and softball internationally (both in perception and in things like IOC votes or introducing them to new countries).

And the ISF website lists 131 member confederations, but given that some IBAF members oversee baseball and softball, it is not hard to imagine that out of the 131 ISF members anywhere between 30 and 45 are actual members of both the IBAF and ISF.



The only chance to keep BB/SB at the games is to call SB the women type of BB or other way (doesn´t matter to me); have 1 governing body for the sports at the Olympics.
With that the sports are using only 1 out of 28 spots and give the IOC the oalternative to get another sport into the games easily and we bypass the rule "played by women and men"!

and


Exactly but I think it is easier to make one sport out of these two played by men and women (type softball) then recruit/develop womens BB or mens SB all around the world to fullfill the guidelines of the IOC.
Don´t forget the next vote about the program of the Olympics 2016 will be in autumn 2009!

Paula59, you mean something like having the IBAF and ISF form an umbrella body (maybe the "IBSF") which would oversee Olympic participation for men (under the term "baseball") and women (under the term "softball") until women's baseball and men's softball developed sufficiently for the two to argue for separate Olympic spots?

If that's the idea, it would certainly be "outside the box" in terms of ingenuity, but it could work.

The good thing is that the next IOC vote should be after the next WBC right?

By the way, after autumn 2009, will there be another vote about the sports in the Olympic program before the 2016 Olympics? If so when?

[NotAboutEgo]

I just hope women's baseball grows and develops enough so that softball is seen as separate while women's baseball is still there. Then, I could care less what happens to softball. If enough people want to develop men's softball more internationally, then fine... but I don't know how many other countries have men who play softball on a large scale. In the U.S., fast pitch used to be popularly played by guys, too, but now most play slow pitch. For some reason, the men's fast pitch leagues dried up. Slow pitch softball would be nothing but a joke in the Olympics. It's all about who can hit HRs.... no bunting, no stealing, no leading off, no pass balls, messed up rules like having a 3-2 count as soon as you step up to the plate (some leagues here are like that), etc. And most people who play it are half tanked while playing it.

I don't know anything about the differences between the different types of rugby or other games that were mentioned, because either I never have seen them or I haven't seen enough of them.

I do think rugby would be very cool in the Olympics, though. I also think lacrosse would be cool in them. I don't know how popular lacrosse is around the world.

[Paula59]

Paula59, you mean something like having the IBAF and ISF form an umbrella body (maybe the "IBSF") which would oversee Olympic participation for men (under the term "baseball") and women (under the term "softball") until women's baseball and men's softball developed sufficiently for the two to argue for separate Olympic spots?

Yes!
However it will work I´ll take it. At the Olympic charter it says "one governing body for a sport men and women! So as result of >>>if we say SB women type of BB or other way there can be only one governing body>>>Maybe Olympic Baseball and Softball Federation
With this all IOC and Olympic Charter requirements are fullfilled



The good thing is that the next IOC vote should be after the next WBC right?


That is true. Because of that the IBAF moved the WC from Cuba to Europe.
It will be played all over Europe http://www.baseballeurope.com/345/?tx_ttnews[pS]=1207000800&tx_ttnews[pL]=2591999&tx_ttnews[arc]=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=620&tx_ttnews[backPid]=616&cHash=7c4d434095 to spread the game to more people and to show the european IOC Members the spirit of BB and help them to change their opinion about BB.



By the way, after autumn 2009, will there be another vote about the sports in the Olympic program before the 2016 Olympics? If so when?

The venue and the olympic programm is choosen on a congress 7 years (all 4 years [Olympic Rhythm]) before the Games (see Olympic Charter). The vote about Bejing was in 2001; for London was 2005 (BB/SB were voted out of the programm) the next will be autumn 2009.
This is because the elected country/city has to have enough time to build all the infrastructure needed for the games for that you have to know which sportsfacilities you need.
There can be another vote (1/2 year later) but first it will be voted if there will be another vote http://www.olympic.org/uk/organisation/commissions/programme/full_story_uk.asp?id=1657


If you have a look at the past IOC session you see following:
http://www.olympic.org/uk/news/events/117_session/full_story_uk.asp?id=1437

BB/SB were voted out >>> at the same session it was voted about if other sports (Karate; Roller Sports; Rugby; Squash; Golf) take this place. It was no new sport selected >>> OG 2012 London only will have 26 sports in program

So if they decide to vote for 2 other sports for the games 2016 there is no chance to get BB/SB back until 2020 earliest.

A lot of time! At the moment I don´t know where I will be at next weekend :)

[ShawnC]

The only chance to keep BB/SB at the games is to call SB the women type of BB or other way (doesn´t matter to me); have 1 governing body for the sports at the Olympics.
With that the sports are using only 1 out of 28 spots and give the IOC the oalternative to get another sport into the games easily and we bypass the rule "played by women and men"!

and


Exactly but I think it is easier to make one sport out of these two played by men and women (type softball) then recruit/develop womens BB or mens SB all around the world to fullfill the guidelines of the IOC.
Don´t forget the next vote about the program of the Olympics 2016 will be in autumn 2009!

and


Paula59, you mean something like having the IBAF and ISF form an umbrella body (maybe the "IBSF") which would oversee Olympic participation for men (under the term "baseball") and women (under the term "softball") until women's baseball and men's softball developed sufficiently for the two to argue for separate Olympic spots?

and


Yes!
However it will work I´ll take it. At the Olympic charter it says "one governing body for a sport men and women! So as result of >>>if we say SB women type of BB or other way there can be only one governing body>>>Maybe Olympic Baseball and Softball Federation
With this all IOC and Olympic Charter requirements are fullfilled


Well Paula59, perhaps you should throw this idea at the Virtual Olympic Congress thread since that seems to be the place to discuss (and advocate) baseball and softball returning to the Olympics after 2012.



BB/SB were voted out >>> at the same session it was voted about if other sports (Karate; Roller Sports; Rugby; Squash; Golf) take this place. It was no new sport selected >>> OG 2012 London only will have 26 sports in program

Yes, and I've read somewhere that the sports nominated to replace baseball and softball (Karate and Squash I think) actually got a majority of votes in the secret vote following the dumping of BB/SB but it seems this wasn't enough as the addition of a sport seems to require an amendment to the Olympic Charter which in turn requires a two-thirds majority......this brings up the question of what might need to happen for BB/SB to actually get back in - would they need a 66% majority of votes to get back in for 2016 or would they only need a simple majority since they were in the Olympics before?

If BB/SB would both need to get 66% of the votes to re-enter the Olympics, it would require a greater effort, especially since the link you provided seems to indicate that BB lost out with basically 40% in favour in 2005.

[Paul Wendt]

Softball may have evolved to be a different game from baseball, but the differences are minor compared to other related sports out there such as rugby union v. rugby league, Gaelic football and association football or even rounders and baseball or british baseball and baseball.
Is there a distinct modern "British"=UK baseball? or pre-anglo saxon "British"=Celtic? or something between?

For instance, how many rugby boards oversee both rugby union and rugby league in the same country?
probably not, partly because they originated as a social class division within one society --or a regional division that soon became a social class division?
What happened when British (UK Great Britain & NI) sports with class associations or regional associations were exported throughout the empire?

[ShawnC]

Is there a distinct modern "British"=UK baseball? or pre-anglo saxon "British"=Celtic? or something between?

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_baseball

It's basically Welsh baseball as it is now mainly played in Wales and one county in England. It is related to rounders, but has 11 players instead of 9 and uses a bat with a flat surface unlike the baseball-type bats for rounders (British baseball also shares other similarities with cricket)

In addition the governing bodies are different - there are two: The Welsh Baseball Union and the English Baseball Association (and together they form the International Baseball Board) - these are distinct from the National Rounders Association in England and the British Baseball Federation (which runs common baseball in England, Scotland and Wales).


probably not, partly because they originated as a social class division within one society --or a regional division that soon became a social class division?
What happened when British (UK Great Britain & NI) sports with class associations or regional associations were exported throughout the empire?

Well, until World War II rugby union players who played league rugby were usually not allowed to play rugby union again (at least at any high level), so that pretty much means that from the time the two split in 1895 until the 1940s (some 40+ years) it would have been basically impossible for any governing body to oversee both forms of rugby, so that trend would have continued until today resulting in differing governing bodies. This is entirely unlike softball and baseball, where softball was devised to be supplementary to baseball (not the result of a dispute between amateurism and professionalism). Hence as softball ("indoor baseball" originally) was never in conflict with baseball and for a time was considered just as a form of baseball, then it only made sense for some bodies to oversee both and even today the similarities between them (and the fact that the ISF and IBAF don't hate each other) means for some places it just makes sense to lump them together (especially where neither sport is properly developed as in large parts of Africa and Europe) and in others they probably never really separated. But even then the various form of bat and ball games in the UK don't have the same governing bodies even though there wasn't any historical animosity between the different forms (so there is a Welsh Baseball Union, an English Baseball Association, a National Rounders Association, the British Baseball Federation, the British Softball Federation and the England and Wales Cricket Board). However, both the BBF and BSF make use of a development agency (BaseballSoftballUK) which aims to increase participation and skills of baseball and softball in the UK at all levels.

[Paul Wendt]

Thanks!
Canadian baseball used 11 players on a side and 11 outs per inning --put every one out or, probably, stranded on base. That's cricket.

The New York game crossed the isthmus from NY state to Ontario in 1859.

source: William Humber, Diamonds of the North, Oxford U P, 1995
not the only copy on auction at e-bay (http://cgi.ebay.ca/Diamonds-of-the-North-by-William-Humber-1995_W0QQitemZ320190294442QQihZ011QQcategoryZ378QQ cmdZViewItem)
(heartily recommended)

[DownUnderDodger]

I don't know anything about the differences between the different types of rugby or other games that were mentioned, because either I never have seen them or I haven't seen enough of them.

I do think rugby would be very cool in the Olympics, though.

Rugby (as in Rugby Union) is the game supposedly started at Rugby College in UK when a rather bored footballer (aka Soccer) named Webb-Ellis picked up the ball and ran with it. It was the only form of Rugby till late in the 19th century, and totally amateur. Some workers in northern England wanted some compensation from the game for injuries which kept them off work because their companies did not pay if they were off work due to football injuries. As a result a breakaway professional 'league' was formed and the rules were changed for this form of the game which became known as Rugby League. After its beginnings in northern England it took off in Australia and the first Rugby League competition started in 1908 (this is the Centennary Year). Rugby Union and Rugby League remain totally seperate organisations, even though Union has recently become professional and players can now move freely between codes.

Rugby Union has 15 players per team and has become a genuinely international competition with a World Cup every 4 years, which includes a reasonable number of countries who genuinely play the game. Rugby League is played with 13-a-side however is basically limited to England (and mainly the north), Australia & New Zealand and is also played in France and some of the Pacific Islands. They remain seperate controlling bodies I doubt they will ever become joint organisations.

Rugby (Union) used to be an Olympic Sport and the last gold medal was won by the USA in 1924 defeating France.

If you want to know more about Rugby please refer to the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rugby_union

I hope my long winded diatribe above has not upset the topic, but I guess I am using this as a correlation between Baseball and Softball, which are 2 unrelated sports as far as the controlling bodies are concerned and will probably never become joint bodies, the same as the 2 codes of Rugby will probably never get in bed together.

As for Rugby in the Olympics it is a case of "been there done that" and if it ever comes back it will probably be in the short form of the game known as the "Sevens" (7-a-side), which is a faster and shorter version of the original game, and is probably played by more countries internationally than either Baseball or Softball.

[ShawnC]

Rugby (as in Rugby Union) is the game supposedly started at Rugby College in UK when a rather bored footballer (aka Soccer) named Webb-Ellis picked up the ball and ran with it. It was the only form of Rugby till late in the 19th century, and totally amateur. Some workers in northern England wanted some compensation from the game for injuries which kept them off work because their companies did not pay if they were off work due to football injuries. As a result a breakaway professional 'league' was formed and the rules were changed for this form of the game which became known as Rugby League. After its beginnings in northern England it took off in Australia and the first Rugby League competition started in 1908 (this is the Centennary Year). Rugby Union and Rugby League remain totally seperate organisations, even though Union has recently become professional and players can now move freely between codes.

Rugby Union has 15 players per team and has become a genuinely international competition with a World Cup every 4 years, which includes a reasonable number of countries who genuinely play the game. Rugby League is played with 13-a-side however is basically limited to England (and mainly the north), Australia & New Zealand and is also played in France and some of the Pacific Islands. They remain seperate controlling bodies I doubt they will ever become joint organisations.

Rugby (Union) used to be an Olympic Sport and the last gold medal was won by the USA in 1924 defeating France.

If you want to know more about Rugby please refer to the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rugby_union

I hope my long winded diatribe above has not upset the topic, but I guess I am using this as a correlation between Baseball and Softball, which are 2 unrelated sports as far as the controlling bodies are concerned and will probably never become joint bodies, the same as the 2 codes of Rugby will probably never get in bed together.

As for Rugby in the Olympics it is a case of "been there done that" and if it ever comes back it will probably be in the short form of the game known as the "Sevens" (7-a-side), which is a faster and shorter version of the original game, and is probably played by more countries internationally than either Baseball or Softball.


Well the IBAF and ISF have nothing to do with each other as far as they are concerned and they probably wouldn't get into bed together (even temporarily), however, given the history of the IBAF itself Isuspect a very remote chance exists. After all, the IBAF itself had split and reunited in the 70s (and gone through more acronyms than probably any other sport governing body). And unlike the two codes of rugby, I don't know of any outright hostility between baseball and softball at any point in time - after baseball players who played softball were not thereafter banned from playing baseball again were they?

[Paul Wendt]

And unlike the two codes of rugby, I don't know of any outright hostility between baseball and softball at any point in time - after baseball players who played softball were not thereafter banned from playing baseball again were they?
Is it true that "indoor baseball" one hundred years ago was essentially the game we call softball, played indoors? Reading some news only days or weeks ago, I didn't understand that.

In Chicago around 1900, "indoor baseball" was a winter sport and "baseball" a spring sport. At least some high schools and some clubs (adult men) fielded teams in both seasons. I have never checked to see how many. There were some girls indoor baseball teams in high school.

The games are competitors for players and for public space. Of course there is tension. Hostility would date from the time softball moved outdoors or softball became established in school physical education programs (outdoors for men and women). For adult women, where so few have played any team game, I am sure it has been a source of great frustration to baseball and softball players for generations, wherever they coexist.

The "problem" after a generation of growth for women's baseball in the USA and elsewhere is that numerous players and organizers in several countries know their own good, mediocre or poor prospects of competing strongly in both games --and thus their own prospects of converting successfully. Even a tiny difference between games, less than the small difference between baseball and softball, is enough to tip the balance at high level competition. Look at rule changes in major league baseball. When they moved the pitchers box back in 1893 --only 5 feet, less than 10%-- some pitchers adapted well and others poorly.

[Paul Wendt]

Rugby (as in Rugby Union) is the game supposedly started at Rugby College in UK when a rather bored footballer (aka Soccer) named Webb-Ellis picked up the ball and ran with it. It was the only form of Rugby till late in the 19th century, and totally amateur. Some workers in northern England wanted some compensation from the game for injuries which kept them off work because their companies did not pay if they were off work due to football injuries.
. . . Rugby League is played with 13-a-side however is basically limited to England (and mainly the north), Australia & New Zealand and is also played in France and some of the Pacific Islands.
This fits my hypothesis if played prominently in AU and NZ alone among the big countries of the former British Empire. Sports and games with working class associations (stigma to some) would be played today where the British colonized by emigration, having moved with British people. Where the British only ruled without settling, the natives would learn and perhaps naturalize only the sports and games of the ruling classes.

Squash racquets and rugby league make a strong stereotypical example pair. Pakistan and Australia for countries.

[NotAboutEgo]

Is it true that "indoor baseball" one hundred years ago was essentially the game we call softball, played indoors? Reading some news only days or weeks ago, I didn't understand that.

In Chicago around 1900, "indoor baseball" was a winter sport and "baseball" a spring sport. At least some high schools and some clubs (adult men) fielded teams in both seasons. I have never checked to see how many. There were some girls indoor baseball teams in high school.

The games are competitors for players and for public space. Of course there is tension. Hostility would date from the time softball moved outdoors or softball became established in school physical education programs (outdoors for men and women). For adult women, where so few have played any team game, I am sure it has been a source of great frustration to baseball and softball players for generations, wherever they coexist.

The "problem" after a generation of growth for women's baseball in the USA and elsewhere is that numerous players and organizers in several countries know their own good, mediocre or poor prospects of competing strongly in both games --and thus their own prospects of converting successfully. Even a tiny difference between games, less than the small difference between baseball and softball, is enough to tip the balance at high level competition. Look at rule changes in major league baseball. When they moved the pitchers box back in 1893 --only 5 feet, less than 10%-- some pitchers adapted well and others poorly.

Actually, softball was not invented to be an indoor version of baseball. It actually happened by accident, sort of. Some guys were in a gym one day, and they started hitting a boxing glove around with a broom handle. From that, they got the idea to play a form of baseball indoors. Then, it eventually went outside for whatever reason. No one set out to invent another form of baseball.

The reason a softball field is smaller in dimension is because of it being invented inside, and the reason the ball is bigger is because of originally using the boxing glove as a ball.

[ShawnC]

Is it true that "indoor baseball" one hundred years ago was essentially the game we call softball, played indoors? Reading some news only days or weeks ago, I didn't understand that.

In Chicago around 1900, "indoor baseball" was a winter sport and "baseball" a spring sport. At least some high schools and some clubs (adult men) fielded teams in both seasons. I have never checked to see how many. There were some girls indoor baseball teams in high school.

The games are competitors for players and for public space. Of course there is tension. Hostility would date from the time softball moved outdoors or softball became established in school physical education programs (outdoors for men and women). For adult women, where so few have played any team game, I am sure it has been a source of great frustration to baseball and softball players for generations, wherever they coexist.

The "problem" after a generation of growth for women's baseball in the USA and elsewhere is that numerous players and organizers in several countries know their own good, mediocre or poor prospects of competing strongly in both games --and thus their own prospects of converting successfully. Even a tiny difference between games, less than the small difference between baseball and softball, is enough to tip the balance at high level competition. Look at rule changes in major league baseball. When they moved the pitchers box back in 1893 --only 5 feet, less than 10%-- some pitchers adapted well and others poorly.

Well naturally softball and baseball compete for players and public space, but that happens with all sports - baseball competes with all outdoor sports for players, time and space. Having players being banned from playing one sport because they participated in another takes things to another level entirely - that's hostility. If anyone here played baseball and then happened to be spotted playing in a softball game during some spare time, then their baseball career wouldn't immediately be ruined. However with the two codes of rugby that used to be the case. And even though all sports compete for players, time and space most of them don't ban players from participating in other sports(or from participating in their own sport because the played another sport) which is why some people play more than one sport even up to fairly high levels. So it would be entirely okay if someone wished to play softball and baseball because the IBAF, ISF, national baseball governing body, national softball governing body (the last two of which may be one and the same in some places) and the clubs/teams can't really do anything about it unless the person basically signed away their entire life or unless the teams were willing to risk losing a potential good player by forcing him/her to choose between two sports the player likes. The clubs/teams usually just take advantage of the fact that the players usually wouldn't have time to play other sports (assuming they liked other sports in the first place). Softball evolved from not competing with baseball for players and space or time (being an indoor version in a different season) to competing in all areas and given the time at which it started competing and the attitudes with regards to women and sports at the time (and even today), softball ended up being the sport that women were encouraged to play (or not given a choice and could either play softball or nothing, but not baseball). Thus baseball and softball now compete for time and space (at which softball will lose it out more often than not) but now they don't really compete for players since baseball is played primarily by men and softball is played primarily by women (or at least played seriously by women; men play it primarily for recreation).

[Paul Wendt]

Well naturally softball and baseball compete for players and public space, but that happens with all sports.
Practically they use the same developed fields. The backstop and usually dirt infield is the main thing. Bases can be and are pegged at different distances on the same diamond.

Thus baseball and softball now compete for time and space (at which softball will lose it out more often than not) but now they don't really compete for players since baseball is played primarily by men and softball is played primarily by women (or at least played seriously by women; men play it primarily for recreation).
The sharp tension and likely hostility that I see is between women's baseball and women's softball.

Not so many girls as boys develop bat, ball, and glove skills and a much smaller share keep up their skills as young adults. Availability of baseball and softball probably increases the pool a little, but mainly the two games compete. Among men it must a very small city where that competition threatens viability of the game. But in a city of 1M, I suppose, or a region of 10M, another guess, the revival of baseball may threaten viability of softball league competition and the popularity of softball of may prevent even a single game between two baseball teams. If you have enough players to make one serious league of 4 teams, and one-third of the players switch to baseball, you don't any longer have a softball league and don't yet have a baseball game.

This is merely an observation about one obstacle. In the USA it would have been easier a generation or two ago [how long is one adult women's team sports generation?] for men's baseball and women's softball to join forces and governance, and ignore women's baseball.

The "problem" after a generation of growth for women's baseball in the USA and elsewhere is that numerous players and organizers in several countries know their own good, mediocre or poor prospects of competing strongly in both games --and thus their own prospects of converting successfully.
Although about bat, ball, and glove skills are general at high levels of competition the differences must be great enough that many players are practically committed to one game or the other. And that must be true of countries, too, although there may be too few women's baseball countries to matter.

[NotAboutEgo]

Practically they use the same developed fields. The backstop and usually dirt infield is the main thing. Bases can be and are pegged at different distances on the same diamond.

I don't know the situation where you're at, but in 99% of the places I've played, in Michigan and other states and in Canada, baseball and softball are not played on the same fields. Most baseball fields are grass infields, and no softball fields that I've ever seen are grass infields. Also, adult regulation baseball fields are MUCH larger than softball fields. There are some city fields here and there that have skin fields that will accommodate both softball and baseball, but this is not the norm. It's only here and there. Most softball diamonds are not big enough to play baseball on, because of the difference in distance between bases and also the distance from the pitching rubber to home plate.

I don't enjoy playing baseball on skin fields. I've only played one game on a skin field, and the rest have been on grass infields. Baseball is meant to be played on grass infields and not on skin fields.



The sharp tension and likely hostility that I see is between women's baseball and women's softball.

If there's any tension between women's baseball and women's softball anywhere, it's more on a personal level with people on either side who are intolerant of the other side. I don't know of any women's baseball organizations that have friction with women's softball organizations. However, I do know that a lot of softball coaches will fret when the thought of their players being asked or wanting to play baseball is mentioned.

Any kind of hostility from the women's baseball side usually only comes when women and girls are told they should be playing softball and shouldn't be playing baseball or aren't allowed to play baseball. That's not a hostility toward women's softball, but rather is a hostility towards people who are insecure and controlling about women and girls playing baseball.



Not so many girls as boys develop bat, ball, and glove skills and a much smaller share keep up their skills as young adults...

I don't agree with you on this at all. Gender doesn't have anything to do with it at all (if you are comparing gender here rather than numbers playing). Rather, experience, talent, and amount of time spent on developing one's skills determines how far one will go.



This is merely an observation about one obstacle. In the USA it would have been easier a generation or two ago [how long is one adult women's team sports generation?] for men's baseball and women's softball to join forces and governance, and ignore women's baseball.

What is the obstacle you are talking about? I'm not sure what you mean by the above statement.

[DownUnderDodger]

This fits my hypothesis if played prominently in AU and NZ alone among the big countries of the former British Empire. Sports and games with working class associations (stigma to some) would be played today where the British colonized by emigration, having moved with British people. Where the British only ruled without settling, the natives would learn and perhaps naturalize only the sports and games of the ruling classes.

Squash racquets and rugby league make a strong stereotypical example pair. Pakistan and Australia for countries.

On the other hand Rugby Union has expanded to nations outside the realm of the British Commonwealth, such as Argentina, Japan and Romania to name just a few, and if the "Sevens" version of the game were put forward as an Olympic sport it may get a better hearing than baseball even though it is basically played at that level by men only.....women do play Rugby but not at a level to be of interest at Olympics, and in fact I don't know of an international women's "Sevens" tournament.

There is also talk of a push for Cricket at the Twenty20 level to be included, possibly from the 2020 Olympics. This is a relatively new version of the game but is quick and exciting and is becoming very popular even beyond the traditional cricketing nations.

Both Rugby and Cricket are sports which promote international competiton involving the highest level of players, which, outside the last and obviousy future WBC, is something which Baseball has not embraced. The best players are never available for Olympics because they are hamstrung by the MLB (and/or club franchise) hold on them.......and until the MLB embraces international competition including the Olympics, Baseball will struggle to get it's place in the Olympics. If MLB wants to place its competition ahead of any other competition such as the Olympics, and refuses to allow its contracted players to participate in this competition the sport at Olympic level will obviously suffer. Baseball cannot expect to be appealing while its best players are unavailable to compete......one cannot have their cake and eat it as well. So the bottom line is really nothing more than 'make the best players available and allow the sport to become appealing to spectators, and sponsors'.

This is a situation which has eventuated since professional athletes have been permitted to compete at Olympic Games. It is most doubtful that Tennis for instance would be an Olympic sport if it were not open to professionals. The traditional Olympic sports were able to keep the Olympics alive because they were all totally amateur sports until a couple of decades ago when sports such as Athletics and Swimming started to go professional the IOC had no choice but open the door to the professionalism, and that opened the door for other professional sports such as Tennis, and even Baseball. The problem with Baseball has been that even though it got its start in the Olympics, with its semi-professional players, the top liners were still missing, and therefore the crowd appeal was not the same. Look at the increase in interest in Basketball when it allowed professional players into the Games, thus allowing the likes of the "Dream Team" to play. The big interest this year in Basketball, from an American, and probably from an international outlook, is the so-called "Redeem Team".

Imagine the world wide interest in Baseball if all the MLB superstars were available for their countries at the Olympics....given that the Olympics, like it or not, are probably the most watched sporting tournament world wide. If the stars are permitted to play, the sport may well get a reprieve in the Olympics, if they are not, it is the death knell for the sport at Olympic level. Therefore, reverting to the heading of this thread (MLB open possibility of MLB Players in Olympics) , the ball is entirely in the dugout of the MLB if they are truly interested in promoting Baseball thru the Olympics they have no choice but to open the door to their contracted players.

[NotAboutEgo]

If the Olympics end up going "all pro", I will boycott ever watching and supporting them again. As it is, I can't stomach watching certain events, because they're nothing more than a stage for pro's... who already have their stages outside of the Olympics. The Olympics, for the most part, are not that important anymore because of this. They've been ruined and have lost their appeal for me.

Why do we need another pro stage when each pro sport already has its stage???

:disbelief:

[Paul Wendt]

Originally Posted by Paul Wendt View Post
> Not so many girls as boys develop bat, ball, and glove skills
> and a much smaller share keep up their skills as young adults...

I don't agree with you on this at all. Gender doesn't have anything to do with it at all (if you are comparing gender here rather than numbers playing). Rather, experience, talent, and amount of time spent on developing one's skills determines how far one will go.
Yes I do mean numbers. Men's baseball and softball can coexist relatively easily without sharp rivalry or envy in large and medium-size cities because even a medium-size city probably may have enough adult men who continue playing baseball to have a league. But even a large city may have few enough adult women who play softball, losing only a few to baseball may hurt their league.

[good questions.
no time for more. I'll return.]

[NotAboutEgo]

Yes I do mean numbers. Men's baseball and softball can coexist relatively easily without sharp rivalry or envy in large and medium-size cities because even a medium-size city probably may have enough adult men who continue playing baseball to have a league. But even a large city may have few enough adult women who play softball, losing only a few to baseball may hurt their league.

[good questions.
no time for more. I'll return.]

Actually, a lot of adult women play softball in my area, which is a huge metro area. There are leagues all over the place. Just about every suburb has a coed and/or women's leagues. It's the women's baseball that still is in development, because of the sexism that has existed in relation to it in the U.S. since the 1800's. Once youth girls' baseball is well-established, then all other levels of women's baseball will grow.

[cutchemist42]

I'm also wondering too IF in the case MLB allows it's pros to play; what does that mean for the quali rounds? I have no doubt if the D.R. could have all their best players not locked away in the MLB system that they would never miss an Olympics. Up to this point (I think) one of the world's best baseball countires has failed to qualify for the Olympics?

If MLB allowed pro's, would they qualify too or just replace the qualifying players with the MLB players later on?

[NewEnglandAmazins]

I'm also wondering too IF in the case MLB allows it's pros to play; what does that mean for the quali rounds? I have no doubt if the D.R. could have all their best players not locked away in the MLB system that they would never miss an Olympics. Up to this point (I think) one of the world's best baseball countires has failed to qualify for the Olympics?

If MLB allowed pro's, would they qualify too or just replace the qualifying players with the MLB players later on?

Yes, D.R. has participated in only 1 Olympic Tournament (1992). Its best young players are busy playing the Minor Leagues and the DSL every Olympiad.

[DownUnderDodger]

If the Olympics end up going "all pro", I will boycott ever watching and supporting them again. As it is, I can't stomach watching certain events, because they're nothing more than a stage for pro's... who already have their stages outside of the Olympics. The Olympics, for the most part, are not that important anymore because of this. They've been ruined and have lost their appeal for me.

Why do we need another pro stage when each pro sport already has its stage???

:disbelief:

I woud be very interested to which sports if any in the Olympics are still strictly amateur? I doubt there are any!

[NotAboutEgo]

I woud be very interested to which sports if any in the Olympics are still strictly amateur? I doubt there are any!

Even bobsled and luge??? Women's ice hockey isn't pro.

[Paula59]

Back to topic

http://www.sportbusiness.com/news/167624/mlb-s-2016-return-in-doubt

Without the MLB Season Shutdown no MLB Player will be available for the games

[DownUnderDodger]

Even bobsled and luge??? Women's ice hockey isn't pro.

I had not even considered winter Olympics as they are irrelevant to any argument about Baseball & Softball being reinstated to the Games.

[jalbright]

We're not here to debate professionalism in the Olympics outside of baseball. I will say that I doubt there's a lot of pros in the equestrian or sailing events, for instance. How about karate, judo and fencing? There are Olympic sports which are not populated by pros, even in the summer. Now, can we please get back to a discussion of baseball? If people don't want to do that in this thread, perhaps it needs to be closed.

[Richard]

I think the WBC will become so huge within the next fifteen years that the Olympic commitee will appear to be stupid and irrelevent.

[ShawnC]

Hey, after 2008, baseball and softball should end up at the World Games again right? For 2009 the World Games are to be played in Taiwan so they should certainly have venues available for baseball and softball. And 2013 games are due to be played in Germany.

[NewEnglandAmazins]

Hey, after 2008, baseball and softball should end up at the World Games again right? For 2009 the World Games are to be played in Taiwan so they should certainly have venues available for baseball and softball. And 2013 games are due to be played in Germany.

Baseball is not listed yet on their program, but it has been a World Games event in the past. :crossfingers:

[Paul Wendt]

Actually, a lot of adult women play softball in my area, which is a huge metro area. There are leagues all over the place. Just about every suburb has a coed and/or women's leagues. It's the women's baseball that still is in development, because of the sexism that has existed in relation to it in the U.S. since the 1800's. Once youth girls' baseball is well-established, then all other levels of women's baseball will grow.

What I had in mind is something like this, recognizing that there may be regions where summer climate knocks everyone down a level

huge metro area
women's softball readily available - see below
men's baseball readily available - not thriving everywhere but there are numerous leagues in the h.m.a. and some leagues are available by public transportation
women's baseball shaky - any team must travel and host visitors (intercity)

large city
women's softball readily available - see above
men's baseball league - assured of operating every year
women's baseball desert - no team; some local women may travel to play on teams based elsewhere

medium city
women's softball league - assured of operating every year
men's baseball shaky - any team must travel and host visitors (intercity)
women's baseball desert - no team; some local women may travel to play on teams based elsewhere

small city
women's softball shaky - any team must travel and host visitors (intercity)
no men's baseball desert - no team . . .
women's baseball desert - no team . . .

Maybe this is exaggerated. Of course there are hotbeds where leagues or teams operate with lower population bases. Is this generally too gloomy? Do New York-NJ, Chicago, SF-Oakland, and LA-Anaheim have women's baseball leagues? My understanding in Boston is that teams here must travel for games. Comparable to men's vintage baseball --baseball by 19th century rules-- which has some hotbeds sponsored by historical societies but also has zero teams in some h.m.a. and generally teams must travel to get games.

I wonder whether anyone knows the state of baseball and softball in this sense. What size are the populated places where about half have a women's softball league? where about half have a men's baseball league? Even at 5 Million, I do half of the h.m.a. have a women's baseball league?

[NotAboutEgo]

What I had in mind is something like this, recognizing that there may be regions where summer climate knocks everyone down a level

huge metro area
women's softball readily available - see below
men's baseball readily available - not thriving everywhere but there are numerous leagues in the h.m.a. and some leagues are available by public transportation
women's baseball shaky - any team must travel and host visitors (intercity)

large city
women's softball readily available - see above
men's baseball league - assured of operating every year
women's baseball desert - no team; some local women may travel to play on teams based elsewhere

medium city
women's softball league - assured of operating every year
men's baseball shaky - any team must travel and host visitors (intercity)
women's baseball desert - no team; some local women may travel to play on teams based elsewhere

small city
women's softball shaky - any team must travel and host visitors (intercity)
no men's baseball desert - no team . . .
women's baseball desert - no team . . .

Maybe this is exaggerated. Of course there are hotbeds where leagues or teams operate with lower population bases. Is this generally too gloomy? Do New York-NJ, Chicago, SF-Oakland, and LA-Anaheim have women's baseball leagues? My understanding in Boston is that teams here must travel for games. Comparable to men's vintage baseball --baseball by 19th century rules-- which has some hotbeds sponsored by historical societies but also has zero teams in some h.m.a. and generally teams must travel to get games.

I wonder whether anyone knows the state of baseball and softball in this sense. What size are the populated places where about half have a women's softball league? where about half have a men's baseball league? Even at 5 Million, I do half of the h.m.a. have a women's baseball league?

Chicago has a 4-team women's baseball league that started its inaugural season in 2007, the Bay Area has had a women's league for several years, SoCal has 2 women's travel teams (I believe one team plays in a men's league, too), the SoCal area had other women's teams and leagues in the past, NY has had a couple of different leagues and a new one is starting this summer, the East Coast has had many teams and leagues... the North American Women's Baseball League, the East Coast Women's Baseball League, the Eastern Women's Baseball Conference in the D.C. and Baltimore areas, Denver had a women's league, Florida had a women's league, there's a loose league in the Great Lakes area, and there are several travel teams around the country that go to tourneys... teams are in Michigan, Indiana, Florida, Washington State, the Pacific Coast, Arizona.

The areas around Detroit that have women's softball leagues are suburbs of various sizes. There are also coed leagues, and inner city Detroit has coed leagues. I don't know about women's leagues much. I don't research it, because I'm not interested in softball. I know where a lot of the leagues are from people who play in them telling me and from the baseball/softball facilities that my women's baseball team practices at.

There is a Detroit MSBL and some suburbs that have men's baseball leagues... but in general, there aren't a lot of men's baseball leagues. Outside of big metro areas, there aren't many. There are far more softball leagues than baseball leagues.

Women's baseball is still in development. The one thing that we need to help it progress a lot more are girls' youth leagues. Without them, it will be hard to make women's baseball grow on a large scale. It takes people to get out and start them and cities to be open to them.

[NotAboutEgo]

Oh, forgot... Philly has had a 4-team women's league for at least 5 years.

[NotAboutEgo]

I don't know if this is true or not, but yesterday I heard that the reason the IOC is pulling baseball and softball out of the Olympics is because there is no women's baseball there, and it doesn't consider softball to be the same. Like I said, I don't know if this is true or not. It's interesting, because I'd heard for quite a while, from within the women's baseball community, that women's baseball was supposed to be an exhibition sport in 2012.

[Paula59]

I don't know if this is true or not, but yesterday I heard that the reason the IOC is pulling baseball and softball out of the Olympics is because there is no women's baseball there, and it doesn't consider softball to be the same. Like I said, I don't know if this is true or not. It's interesting, because I'd heard for quite a while, from within the women's baseball community, that women's baseball was supposed to be an exhibition sport in 2012.


If you have a look here http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=80464&page=3 we allready talked about that problem

[NotAboutEgo]

That's right. I forgot about it. But, it's interesting in the way that, if they were going to put it in the 2012 Olympics as an exhibition sport, why would they take it out before that happened? That defeats that whole purpose.

[remind]

How about men's softball?

[DownUnderDodger]

I have read an article here in Oz (Alpha Magazine, an Aussie Sports monthly)during the Olympics that the main reason for the dropping of Baseball & Softball was lack of facilities.

[Paula59]

I have a question on my mind for a couple of days now. Maybe someone can help me with this.

Doping; HGH etc. is one of the problems Baseball is blamed for and one of the reasons that are mentioned for BB (MLB Players) not being at the Olympics.
So we had a couple of tournaments within one year and the only positive Doping test was the Taiwanese Player suspended before the Olympics.
We had EC; WC; AsianC; Olympic Qualifier and OG - a lot of doping test had been done and none was positive on any suspended drugs.

Here is the question:
Why isn´t this used and published by IBAF and/or any other federation?

or does anyone know something else about any suspentions because of doping use at the tournaments?

If there are no other positive test then these Taiwanese guy BB should be the/one of the cleanest sports at the Olympics.
Even horses have been doped and were suspended!

[Paula59]

We talked here before about the problem of being two different sports (BB and SB) and if it is a good idea/possible to call BB (mens) and SB (women) variante of one sport to occupy only one spot of olympic sports to higher chances of being reinstated into the Olympics.

As I read today the ISF made a really silly move in my eyes last week with the call of the national governing bodies to seperate from other sports then SB! This move is one step in the BackSoftball Campaign. ISF wants to be regognized seperate to BB and higher his own chances to get a spot at the Olympics.

Here is the press release from October 30

ISF announces landmark plans for all national softball federations to attain total independence

ISF President – ‘This is a vital step in the BackSoftball campaign’

Lausanne, Switzerland; 30th October 2008: The International Softball Federation (ISF) has today launched sweeping plans to ensure complete independence for all 131 national softball federations around the world.

This is seen as a crucial action in softball’s campaign to be reinstated onto the Olympic Program in 2016 after such a hugely successful Beijing Olympic Games this summer.

Legislation enacted at the ISF Congress decreed that ISF members (national federations) may not be constitutionally linked to a national federation of any other sport. The ISF has now set a timeline for
complete separation with a program offering assistance to help national softball federations achieve compliance within two years.

Currently, 35 of the 131 national federations around the world are aligned to other sports. This move is set to confirm the growing reputation of softball as a stand-alone sport of great stature across the globe. The move will also help eradicate any confusion in the Olympic Movement; it will clarify once and for all that softball is a fully independent international sport federation with independent national federations.

While here for the Beijing Olympic Games Debriefing for international federations, ISF President Don Porter said, “This is a vital step in the BackSoftball campaign. It is of fundamental importance that softball federations have complete autonomy in their territories in order to best ensure the sport continues to grow and maximize its potential. We’re confident that all our national federations are strong enough to stand on their own, and we will, of course, help ease them through the transition period.

“This move will also prevent some of the confusion that exists surrounding softball’s links with other sports. We will also provide comprehensive support to ensure this process runs smoothly.”

The ISF believes these plans are vital to the future development and growth of softball for adult women and men, youth development, and other disciplines of the sport, including Wheelchair, Beach, and Arena (indoor) Softball.

Softball was first featured in the Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta in 1996 and this year’s competition in Beijing, which was won by Japan, was hugely successful with a total attendance close to 180,000 and a continuation of the sport’s excellent record of no positive drug tests in major competitions.

This is a good statement of the Mister Baseball guys who are linked to european national federations and gives exactly the point


Mister-Baseball.com has supported the BackSoftball campaign to bring Softball back to the Olympics in the past year. However we cannot support the latest step by the International Softball Federation (ISF). In a press release from October 30, ISF president Don Porter calls out the National Softball Federations around the globe to declare independence from their current Federations. In Europe Softball is mostly connected with Baseball. Now the ISF says, they should file divorce papers from Baseball.

Instead to go side by side with the International Baseball Federation (IBAF), the move by the ISF looks like a last desperate attempt to get back into the Olympics at the 2009 IOC congress in Copenhagen. They could have started a combined concept to ensure a reinstatement into the Olympics. Now they are going into a complete different direction. The IOC is probably not happy about this new development.

The ISF, which is mostly influenced by the American Softball Federation, doesn’t see the necessity of European Softball to stay connected with Baseball. In most eyes on the old continent these sports aren’t two different ones. Softball clubs share their finances, playing fields, coaches, umpires and sometimes even players with Baseball. This isn’t perfect by all means, but most of the time this is working. Besides some teams in the Netherlands and in Italy, they have to go side by side or there wouldn’t be any Softball on a higher competitive level.

In North America or in Japan, this proposed concept might work, but they have much more money and tradition to live separately from Baseball. However they are not alone and if they want Softball to grow in Europe, they need their brother with the smaller ball. Of course, the ISF says, it will support these countries in the separation process, but for how long?

Sorry jalbrigth for maybe being outside of BB or the origin topic but I think it is all linked together and to complex to just keep it under a special thread

[jalbright]

Sorry jalbrigth for maybe being outside of BB or the origin topic but I think it is all linked together and to complex to just keep it under a special thread

Ahhh, threads get hijacked this way with some frequency. It's still about baseball, obviously. No worries. If we get a lot of discussion on the topic, we might split off a separate thread then, but I suspect you're right it won't happen.

[ShawnC]

I have to agree with you Paula59 (as well as the guys at Mister Baseball). This move by the ISF is likely to see some federations go bust - if not immediately upon separation then in a few years (especially when the ISF can't support them long-term). It almost seems like suicide.

These are the countries I counted last time that have "baseball and softball federations":

Africa:

Cameroon
Ivory Coast
Ghana
Lesotho
Liberia
Mali
Nigeria
Togo
Tunisia
Uganda
Zambia
Zimbabwe

(This is the majority of the African members of the IBAF with only Kenya, Morocco, Namibia and South Africa having baseball only federations).

I would think that softball in Zimbabwe would just vanish and it could well vanish in a lot of these African countries.

Europe:

Austria
Belarus
Belgium
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Italy
Malta
Moldova
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
San Marino
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
Ukraine

I would imagine softball would be okay in Italy and the Netherlands and Spain, Finland and Germany. As for the rest I have no idea.

Americas:

Bolivia
Brazil
Trinidad and Tobago

It would probably survive in these countries, but then apart from Brazil, I doubt it was at any level to write home about in the first place.

Oceania:

none. Completely separate already.

Asia:

Brunei
Indonesia
Kazakhstan
North Korea
Pakistan
Singapore
Sri Lanka

Not sure how it would fare in these countries.

[Paula59]

I would imagine softball would be okay in Italy and the Netherlands and Spain, Finland and Germany. As for the rest I have no idea.


I really don´t know if any of these countries will be able to run two different federations.
Germany for sure will not be able to seperate SB from the Federation and have a BB and a SB Federation.
With only 27.000 active players (7.000 SB) it also will make no sense at all. 99,9% of the German clubs are BB and SB clubs a seperation is not practicable.

I think even in the European Powerhouse IT and NL it is pretty much the same

[ShawnC]

I really don´t know if any of these countries will be able to run two different federations.
Germany for sure will not be able to seperate SB from the Federation and have a BB and a SB Federation.
With only 27.000 active players (7.000 SB) it also will make no sense at all. 99,9% of the German clubs are BB and SB clubs a seperation is not practicable.

I think even in the European Powerhouse IT and NL it is pretty much the same

In that case this move seems more like the ISF is cutting the dead-weight instead of trying to get a strong 131-member ISF. Could this lead to the ISF's membership dropping to something like 95? And if so, wouldn't that negatively affect any efforts to get softball back in the Olympics? I was under the impression that for a sport to be considered an Olympic sport it needs to be played in at least 100 countries.