2025-12 – AGM 2024 – Resolution 6 – Requiring registered/licensed players to be “active” to count towards the minimum player numbers needed for a country to qualify as an MNA, AMNA or MNA-P

Preamble

Proposal: To require registered/licensed players to be “active” to count towards the minimum player numbers needed for a country to qualify as an MNA, AMNA or MNA-P, and to define “active” in the Official Handbook.

Background:

The Official Handbook sets out in detail the criteria for countries to qualify as MNAs, AMNAs and MNA-Ps. This includes minimum player numbers. Currently, an MNA must have a minimum of 10 registered players (and 1 registered club), and an AMNA and MNA-P must have a minimum of 5 registered players.

There is currently no requirement that registered players are active for them to count towards these minimums. As part of a broader resolution put to the 2024 Congress proposing that the minimum number of players in each category of membership be increased, it was proposed that the players should be “active”, and that “active” would be defined in the Handbook. However, the proposal to increase the membership criteria was narrowly defeated, and the minimum player numbers were maintained (and a minimum of 5 registered players for AMNAs added to the Handbook for 2025-26, consistent with the existing minimums for MNAs and MNA-Ps).

Given the outcome of the recent Congress vote, no proposal is being made to increase the minimum playing numbers required to qualify as a member. However, the Board thinks that there is still merit in introducing the requirement that these registered players be classified as “active”.  As noted in the background paper to the relevant resolution for the Congress, for most associations there is a huge gap between the number of registered players and the number of active players.  Typically, fewer than half of all registered players are recorded as being active, and often it is a lot less.  Another issue is that there is no agreed definition of “active”, and MNAs take varying approaches; some MNAs do not even classify players as active or inactive, despite the Form 20 (National Registration Form) requiring it.

While total registrations are important, the Board believes that the more important statistic is how many players are actually playing – that is, active players. There is no point having 500 registered players if none of them are playing in practice.  Therefore, the Board proposes that the relevant requirement in section 2.1 of the Handbook should change from “registered players” to “registered, active players”.

As to the definition of “active”, the Board proposes the following:

1. The player has participated in at least one event on the FISTF tour in the last two seasons; or
2. The player has participated in at least three non-FISTF events (for example, a national competition or a club/WASPA competition organised by a FISTF-registered club) in the last three seasons.

This definition would be broadly consistent with the definition of an “inactive” player currently set out at section 2.1.5(d)(vi) of the Handbook as a player “who has not participated in at individual or team competitions for a minimum of three consecutive seasons”. For consistency, we suggest that this definition should be changed to a player “who has not participated in at individual or team competitions for a minimum of two consecutive seasons”.

If agreed, the Board will draft additional text, to be included in the Official Handbook for the 2026-27 season, for MNAs’ consideration as part of the preparation of the Handbook

(Submitted by S Dettre, President and E Kennedy, General Secretary, FISTF)

Voting

AGM 2025-12 – Resolution 6 – Requiring registered/licensed players to be “active” to count towards the minimum player numbers needed for a country to qualify as an MNA, AMNA or MNA-P

Vote: To accept or reject Resolution 6

> I agree to authorize the Board to draft additional text in the Official Handbook to require registered/licensed players to be “active” to count towards the minimum player numbers needed for a country to qualify as an MNA, AMNA or MNA-P, and to define “active” in the Official Handbook.

> I do not agree to authorize the Board to draft additional text in the Official Handbook to require registered/licensed players to be “active” to count towards the minimum player numbers needed for a country to qualify as an MNA, AMNA or MNA-P, and to define “active” in the Official Handbook.

> I abstain

As per the FISTF Statutes, a majority vote of 66.67% is needed to carry this resolution.
Abstention is not a cast vote (it was voted but will not be considered in the final results)

Discussion:

Eliot Kennedy outlined the resolution, which had been part of a broader resolution put to members at the 2024 Congress which was narrowly rejected.  No change is being proposed to the minimum player requirements (1o players and one club for an MNA, 5 players for an AMNA or MNA-P), but it is being proposed that players should be not just licensed but also active, and that “active” should be defined.

Steve Dettre and Eliot Kennedy discussed the challenges of ensuring associations have active players and the potential benefits of the proposal.

Manfred Joseph (AUT) and Simon Stewart (NIR) expressed concerns about the possible impact of the proposal on smaller countries and the definition of “active” players, including on their participation in the World Cup.  Daniel Matos also advised that most events in Brazil were held at a club or national level and were neither FISTF nor WASPA events.

Steve Dettre and Eliot Kennedy acknowledged the concerns and suggested that the voting period will allow for further discussion and possible adjustments to the proposal.  Steve also stated that FISTF was very keen to work with MNAs to help them to grow their membership, including through the new Development Fund.  The main thing is that we want to see players playing, whether in FISTF or other events. 

There was also discussion about the need to validate whether a player is active.  Roger Trouillard noted that the World Ranking database could be used to monitor whether a player had participated in a FISTF event over the previous two years (as per the proposed definition of “active”), but that we did not have similar information for non-FISTF events, for example national or club events. We would need to rely on MNAs to monitor this.  Steve Dettre noted that for non-FISTF events, the proposal does rely on MNAs having systems in place to know whether their players are playing, and to be honest about it when classifying them as active or inactive.  Yves Peremans (Belgium) noted that WASPA keeps a record of players’ participation similar to FISTF which would pick up participation in those events, leaving only national and club events, and some MNAs do keep a national ranking.