UK Athletics affiliation

[Bladerunner]

'so your club wants to replace one bunch of suits with a new bunch of suits'

Well if you accept there has to be some kind of organisation to administer the system re insurance etc. the new bunch of suits are much fewer, much cheaper and don't want to know what every club member had for breakfast and the colour of their underpants

[XRunner]

As I understand it, the clubs that are not affiliated to England Athletics their members will have to pay the unattached levy fee in road races. It will be interesting how they will administer this policy (as most races organisers won't have a clue which clubs have affiliated or not !)

This unattached levy will also apply to cross country and trail running.

So far the FRA had resisted any attempt to apply an unattached levy, although some organisers chose to apply it to their events.

I have to agree with you that it is a logisitic nightmare to check and collect.

So far I have resisted any attempts to collect this unattached levy at events I have organised and I have never needed to pay it back to the NoEAA. However I understand that this situation will not be tolerated for long.

[XRunner]

It's a bloody mess isn't it?

There are a number of Associations who want obtain control of athletics and all believe that they can do a better job for their affiliated Clubs than other organisations.

Some of these Associations have recognised the need for an umbrella and now work with UK:Athletics, others are fiercely independent. e.g.

Road Runners Club

British Milers Club

Fell Running Association

100km Association

British Open Fell Running Association

British Association of Road Runners

Trail Running Association

Association of Running Clubs

Association of British Athletic Clubs

This phenomena is not new...at other times in the history of our sport when changes have been implemented, people have resisted and attempted to set up rival organisations. Very few of these break-away organisations have survived.

I would expect that several of the above associations will disappear when people realise that this plethora of organisations is fragmenting the sport and not contributing to the well-being of the athletes they are supposed to represent.

It is interesting to note that only those organisations that have learnt to work with England Athletics or UK Athletics have survived for any length of time!

[wycoller]

I actually agree that everyone should work together, however I'd disagree that only those working with English Athletics survive - what about BOFRA and the fact that many of it's races go back to Victorian times.

[XRunner]

I actually agree that everyone should work together, however I'd disagree that only those working with English Athletics survive - what about BOFRA and the fact that many of it's races go back to Victorian times.

BOFRA illustrate what is both the best and the worst apects of these small organisations.

BOFRA is a small association who represent a limited number of athletes in a geographically small part of the UK.

Despite its title, it is in fact a closed organisation:

Whilst the races are open to everyone, championship points can only be scored by B.O.F.R.A. members.

How does the BOFRA championships compare with the FRA British Championships?
Does fell running need two British champions each year?

It is unclear from their website how to become a member of BOFRA or the costs of affiliation.

[FRAFixtures]

So far the FRA had resisted any attempt to apply an unattached levy, although some organisers chosen to apply it to their events.

Organisers of fell races in England should not be collecting unattached levies for their events. Permits and associated UKA insurance for fell races in England are obtained through the FRA and there isn't any mechanism in place for collecting levies.

The situation for fell/hill/mountain running in Scotland and Wales is different.

In Scotland, Scottish Athletics (equivalent of England Athletics and part of the UKA family) provide the Permits and organisers are expected to collect a £2 unattached levy from anyone who isn't an Individual Member of Scottish Athletics. Individual membership of Scottish Athletics costs £15 if you are a member of a club and £27 if you aren't!

Some race organisers in Scotland choose not to obtain a Permit from Scottish Athletics but to get insurance through Scottish Hill Runners (not affiliated to UKA). In this case an unattached levy will not be charged.

In Wales, Welsh Athletics is the equivalent body to Scottish Athletics in Scotland. I understand that they also expect unattached levies to be charged for races they Permit. However, insurance for a high proportion of races in Wales is obtained through the Welsh Fell Runners Association (not affiliated to UKA) and these races don't have Permits from Welsh Athletics and unattached levies are not charged.

[dominion]

Organisers of fell races in England should not be collecting unattached levies for their events. Permits and associated UKA insurance for fell races in England are obtained through the FRA and there isn't any mechanism in place for collecting levies.

The Rivington Pike race needs kicking into touch then! They're charging £2 extra for unattached runners.

[david]

The Rivington Pike race needs kicking into touch then! They're charging £2 extra for unattached runners.

I have personally boycotted that race for a long time for that very reason.

[Bladerunner]

'as I understand it members of clubs unattached to UK Athletics will have to pay the £2 levy'

As I understand it races affiliated by ARC will accept affiliation to either ARC or UK Athletics to claim the £2 reduction in fee. It would make sense if UKA did the same thereby making race organisers lives easier.

[dominion]

UKA are not generally known for backing down! No one is going to have a clue which clubs ar affiliated to who, let alone which athletes belong to which club. It's a mess.