Also until the economic climate improves things will slowly get worse imo, kids and family come first !
certainly agree Dodge .

– i’m lead to believe that Italy as well as deffo Hungary get state funded support, and in Italian case – the amount of company sponsorship in total would be nice to know. I’m guessing that perhaps Serbia also get some kind of state sport national funding.
Next year – its South Africa – and can’t see many teams being able to attend because of cost – lets face it – its only the S.Africans, Chinese and US teams on national member list that differentiate ‘world’ from ‘euro’ .
My suggestion- if practical, would be for all competing member national federations to pay into a central FIPS ‘pot’ which would be shared out equally for travel costs, in addition an agreed % of all sponsors could then also be paid into this pot.
Given wider economics and individual costs of competing – imo, think a funding ‘cap’ per capita should be eventually introduced to ensure a level starting base for future.

Even more ‘controversially’ perhaps – think only way that A.trust is going to work is to make membership compulsory as part of rod-licence fee. Rather than a separate ‘independent’ body- i’d objectively look to make it a national semi-quango regulatory body and intergrate officially within Sport England umbrella(as the ADB used to be) as part of Dept. of Sport, Culture and Media.

Very good poll idea Lewis, particuarly given your first hand knowledge of the England set-up and journalism.

Nevertheless, Kaggar-i fail to see why the idea of a shared pool we all pay for is somehow unrealistic – given that public services and taxation already work on that basis. The FIPS is the overall governing body and presumably we – via AT (from NFA) already pay some sort of subscription for membership and event running costs already.

As for that’s life – so tough – well that makes historical societal thuggery /exclusion and war justifiable by extension as well as class hierachies and unelected govt. – indeed i’d say it definitely is’nt life – as no species could evolve or survive on an individual random self-interest or indeed have evolved from molecular growth basis.

Getting back to the funding issue – particularly for youngsters- the home nations are always going to be disadvantaged by additional ferry/travel/distance costs involved in getting to continent when compared to continental EU teams. Certainly the revival of the six nations needs somehow bringing back- the only current vehicle with potential is the fisho weekend – which is limited to basically 16 plus 4 pegs. Could an england B and even C squad be entered against the seniors in the sensas challenge – or does a project involving Sport England, AT, FIPS, AFTA and major fishery owners need somehow instigating for future shared objective as dualy serving same future commercial self-interest as well as holistic public?

Certainly think Lewis’ poll makes a good start if similar could be arrange between AT and our Media. 🙂

Kagger-
since you do not disagree about the taxation need for basic public services, i’d point out that via tax or voluntary membership subscription, we pay for basic upkeep of rivers to EA or fishing rights by collective ability of group purchase for club fishing rights – unless you choose to fish only commercials at a premium.

As to why you should personally as an individual -contribute towards the cost of the England Team – that’s far harder to argue against or make a case for, i’d certainly agree.

Certainly, match-fishing and further level of international angling can’t easily justify as either a shared interest with a personal dividend or as you say – even wider involvement – and can understand your mates why your top angling mates may have this current opinion. Certainly cost or any involvement in other home nations seems to have a large element of cost/time for little return – as i’d also think actual team england anglers- despite being funded- must face to a large degree. I
Indeed its easier to make the case for some continental sides as apart from an element of state subsidy, then a named few those continental anglers mentioned in the article also, it could be argued, personally benefit from being involved in continental fishing across borders by having commercial, paid consultant and tackle market iat individual level -as well as partnered sponsorships.
Plus, like in most activities – dedication or will to succeed at top sporting level requires personal committment and either a sympathetic employer or working all year to basically help fund that next level.
That’s my point- if some teams get sponsorship or their own federation support- many smaller teams don’t – and once you factor in youngsters – then you need some sort of body to try and make basic entry and travel costs to attend event – on a relative equal basis – hence idea of increased host country member assoc. subscription into a common fund which must surely already exist at some FIPS organisationary and admin. venue event level?

Given the various angling disciplines and what interests or not should be prioritised or indeed contributed to. The AT and membership is a case in point- and even then legal protection over rights and from polluters and those opposed to angling or the use of land for that purpose might take priority.

Why should you contribute is hard to answer for your reasons stated – but then many might say same about ATrust – given membership entry cost and actual membership figures around 20,000 compared to rod licence sales. Even if you support need for the AT as a national governing body- its hard to find a means to convince significantly more to join – without going into the various entry member fees required for the big AT comps- that divides opinion and the merits of club membership levied allocation.
Hence, in my first post – you’ll see i make a suggestion for the AT to become more integrated with a regulatory existing public body(Sport England, with Dept of Sport, Culture and media possibly becoming more advantageous than the EA[water as a resource, drainage, sewage, planning,infrastructure supply and pricing is always going to take priority – even and because of private utilities])- instead of a charitable independent type- apart from opposing the legal problems – perhap’s because it may be easier to obtain an increased couple of quid on rod licence – for an integrated AT including a larger professional role in regulatory water users and environmental reg role.

Apart from english nationalism and that having an england FIPS team surely raises the bar for match-angling and the team element as a sport, and possibly bring commercial/industry benefits i can’t argue a case against your equally valid right not to contribute.

Perhap’s Lewis’ poll on a national level might help. Would i personally contribute a tenner for a voluntary fund – yes – but then i would’nt want to for any other sport on same voluntary basis.
My opinion is that Sport and national teams should form a component as is current- of public ‘cultural’ service provision – despite austerity- but proportional given it.

The argument then must focus surely on whether you see angling as a national sport with a competitive team component – or as many- an optional recreational leisure pursuit down to the individual. I’d cite the proven societal benefits of angling as to why it should be included as a public sport – but that’s only my opinion- and at current time – certainly could not justify any public spending as is why we should be interested or support the future structure of England at FIPS level- excepting that your argument is equally valid to many- guess a poll would help – but its hard to make an economic argument for FIPS team angling as an exception at this time – so perhaps the partnered commercial sponsorship in the article may make more sense at this time.

As much as i love match-angling and angling – think yes- you’re correct its peripheral to people’s priorities – and can’t be optimistic or really disagree.
– unless a commercially viable business case can be made and that’s going to be hard at current time- which leaves volunteers as mentioned in article and those anglers involved or interested.