Commentary by Sonia | Page 3 | Golden Skate

Commentary by Sonia

Joined
Jun 21, 2003
I would be interested if anyone here can offer some facts into the state of ISU finances to show I am wrong and that ISU is indeed very prosperous.

Here are a couple of articles that discuss this. Phil Hersh wrote in January of this year:

"The International Skating Union, the sport's global governing body, is becoming more dependent than ever on its share of International Olympic Committee TV revenues -- about $6.5 million a year. As for ISU president Ottavio Cinquanta: 'He better hope the IOC gets more money from the Olympics because he is no longer getting that kind of money for his own product on television in the United States or Canada,' {David] Raith [executive director of the USFSA] said."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/sports_blog/2009/01/ten-things-i-kn.html

It is my impression that the ISU per se does not get very much money from television deals for popular skating events in Japan and Korea, such as the World Team Trophy and the recent Yu-na Kim show featuring Michelle Kwan.

Janetfan said:
BTW, the old US TV deal through ESPN used to pay what % of ISU's total income? Was it more than Japan and Europe combined?

I remember reading that the U.S. television money accounted for somewhat over 50% of the ISU's total budget, back in the glory days, 1994-1999. According to this Sonia Bianchetti article from 2007, the ABC contract that expired in 2004 was for $22,000,000 (for four years). The ESPN contract that went from 2004 to 2008 paid only only $5,000,000.

http://www.soniabianchetti.com/writings_openletter.html

As for the current situation, Cinquanta ended up giving NBC the television rights for Los Angeles Worlds last year for free. As far as I know the ISU does not get anything at all from U.S. television currently. (?)

About the USFSA, , the old ABC contract (1994-1999, then extended to 2007), was for $12,000,000 per year for television rights to U.S. events alone. The details of the present contract with NBC are a little fuzzy, but it seems to be based on revenue-sharing if they are able to sell enough sponsorship, rather than hard cash flowing from NBC to the USFSA's coffers.
 
Last edited:

janetfan

Match Penalty
Joined
May 15, 2009
Thanks for posting the financial information mathman and for providing links to the sources..

Hopefully this downward trend will bottom out and a new and better cycle will begin soon. Honestly though, having to give Worlds broadcast rights away for free reflects as much on ISU management/buisness skills as it does on skating interest in the USA.

USA skating fans better get down on their knees and pray for another M. to come along soon :p (sorry, I coudn't resist :))
 
Last edited:

gsrossano

Final Flight
Joined
Nov 11, 2006
YourETA gsrossano, thanks for pointing out the correction. I think it's pretty lame for Ms. Bianchetti to correct her column without noting what the revision was (which is standard practice for journalists and for many bloggers). Ending her column with the dig about the math being too difficult for the ISU, when she herself obviously didn't bother getting it right, is not something for her to be proud of, either.

I am the lame person in question since it is my responsibility to fact check what appears on my site and missed it, as my friend nylynnr noted. And I am the one who added the note that that particular graph was revised without stating what was revised.

And despite the original error in a couple of the numbers in that graph, it's main point (one that I agree with) is that the fundamental math of IJS is all screwed up and the ISU is unwilling to open that can of worms and correct it.

Along the lines of what someone else said about debating techniques, there can be errors in one's arguments, but that does not necessarily mean the point being made is wrong. It may only mean that some of the facts to support the point is wrong. In this case my view is the point being made was/is correct, and the example to support the point at first had some errors but now is also correct.
 
Last edited:

Buttercup

Record Breaker
Joined
Mar 25, 2008
And despite the original error in a couple of the numbers in that graph, it's main point (one that I agree with) is that the fundamental math of IJS is all screwed up and the ISU is unwilling to open that can of worms and correct it.
Oh, I agree with that in principle, though I'm sure we each have different ideas regarding the specifics. I didn't see it as the main point of the article, and I actually think it would have been more interesting to expand on that topic, because the rest of it, well, I've read before. Thanks for your response to my previous post and for the clarifications...
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Under 6.0, based on their performances, Evan and Jonny's positions would have changed in Torino. To say they wouldn't have is really quite a stretch imo.

If the placements in each phase of the event had been the same and if the event had been scored under with factored placements for short program plus long program, the overall standings for the top 5 men in Torino would have been as follows:

Plushenko 1 1 1.5
Buttle 6 2 5.0
Lambiel 3 4 5.5
Weir 2 6 7.0
Lysacek 10 3 8.0

In other words, assuming the placement in each program was the same, Buttle would have been able to pull up further with his good long program, but Lysacek would not have been able to pull up quite as far and would not have passed Weir in the standings.

How the factored placements worked out would all depend on how the other skaters placed in relation to the skaters we're looking at.

And how the skaters placed in each program would depend on what ordinals the judges gave them in relation to all the other skaters.

With results as mixed up as these, undoubtedly there would have been place switching during the long program as a result of factored placements changing with each subsequent skater, and quite likely standings within the long program itself would have changed as the ordinals got mixed up further with subsequent skaters.

There likely would have been mixed ordinals -- even if all judges had Lysacek ahead of Weir in the LP, how many had Lambiel ahead of Lysacek, or Lambiel or Savoie behind Weir or Joubert ahead of him might also have changed the long program standings.

Also, exactly what the results of each program would have been, given a set of 9 or 10 or 12 judges' ordinals, might have been different depending on whether results were calculated by majority (as used up to 1998) or by OBO (as used 1998/99-2004), and which judges' marks, if any, were randomly selected not to count in the final standings (as in the "interim system" of 2003 and 2004).

So it's really impossible to say exactly what the results of the Torino men's event "would have been" if judged under 6.0, aside from first place.
 

janetfan

Match Penalty
Joined
May 15, 2009
If the placements in each phase of the event had been the same and if the event had been scored under with factored placements for short program plus long program, the overall standings for the top 5 men in Torino would have been as follows:

Plushenko 1 1 1.5
Buttle 6 2 5.0
Lambiel 3 4 5.5
Weir 2 6 7.0
Lysacek 10 3 8.0

In other words, assuming the placement in each program was the same, Buttle would have been able to pull up further with his good long program, but Lysacek would not have been able to pull up quite as far and would not have passed Weir in the standings.

How the factored placements worked out would all depend on how the other skaters placed in relation to the skaters we're looking at.

And how the skaters placed in each program would depend on what ordinals the judges gave them in relation to all the other skaters.

With results as mixed up as these, undoubtedly there would have been place switching during the long program as a result of factored placements changing with each subsequent skater, and quite likely standings within the long program itself would have changed as the ordinals got mixed up further with subsequent skaters.

There likely would have been mixed ordinals -- even if all judges had Lysacek ahead of Weir in the LP, how many had Lambiel ahead of Lysacek, or Lambiel or Savoie behind Weir or Joubert ahead of him might also have changed the long program standings.

Also, exactly what the results of each program would have been, given a set of 9 or 10 or 12 judges' ordinals, might have been different depending on whether results were calculated by majority (as used up to 1998) or by OBO (as used 1998/99-2004), and which judges' marks, if any, were randomly selected not to count in the final standings (as in the "interim system" of 2003 and 2004).

So it's really impossible to say exactly what the results of the Torino men's event "would have been" if judged under 6.0, aside from first place.

Thankyou for such an interesting and thorough analysis gkelly.
Without having your knowledge and expertise (or memory) I do think the way you positioned Johnny and Evan feels about right. My thought was that there was no way Johnny would be on the podium after his LP and either would Evan. It is not such a big deal if 6.0 might have flipped them from 4-5 and 5-4. On the other hand it could have led to a controversy of sorts had a medal been involved and it was 4-3 and 3-4 placements that had changed in the final standing.

Reading your analysis, I think I will ease up on the argument that CoP is too complicated. :yes:
Understanding 6.0 was no picnic either, especially the part of "I am ahead of you now, but if such and such beats the other guy then I will pass you." Sorry to phrase that so poorly but American-English is my mother tongue :laugh:

Thanks again for your fine explanation.
 
Top