Women The business in USAG

[munchkin3]

I have been reading many posts of uptraining, and quitting and evil coaches (inc. my own...lol) and gym styles etc.
I like to discuss the USAG business with our head coach who is from Eastern Europe, and we giggle at the USAG enterprise. I find it interesting ( not bad in any way) Back in his day, you would compete only at high levels and the thought of L2 so L3 competing is just silly. I understand the USAG is privately funded, and nothing comes from the govt.

My question is, how in tune are you, or your coaches or your gym for that matter with the business part of it?
I'll explain. Gyms need registered participants to pay $ for the facility, coaches etc. and athletes pay annual USAG fees to compete. After all, like my coach says, it isn't real gymnastics until you get to optionals. So why do so Many gyms and coaches stifle progress at low levels. Is it just wanting to win? Getting titles so that more kids register? Why only compete the strongest athletes, and keep the weaker ones behind only to quit. You are still loosing a paying customer.
It seems rather pointless to me to force young lower level kids out. And when I say force out, I mean making kids unhappy and leaving. I know there are plenty of gyms that overcharge, and keeps kids down in order to continue paying....

Not every kid or family can be pleased, but un the US the model is $ based and the bigger the lower levels, the more you have to fund your optionals.....why not just be rather flexible at the lower levels?
I just want to know how aware are coaches of this........I know most parents are absolutely clueless about the business of it.
There is such a delicate balance here.

 

[munchkin3]

BTW I certainly know very little myself....that's why I'm asking....is the business side if it part of training?

 

[OzZee]

My question is why should gymnastics only be about the high levels.
Why shouldn't kids be able to participate in the lower levels, have the fun of going to competitions and getting some ribbons and quit at level 4 or 5 or 2 or wherever they want to. If the aim is only to produce high level athletes then what about all those kids who don't have that potential/commitment - should they not do gymnastics? Why should they miss out on the time they want to spend in the sport.
If the kids are having fun, getting fitter, learning skills and loving the sport, what is the problem? Yes recreational/lower levels makes more money so therefore the whole thing can run but it doesn't negate what these kids get out of it.

 

[munchkin3]

I agree! That is why I want to know if coaches get actually trained int he business side of it.
I hear of so many coaches pushing kids out, or failing to address the average gymnast. These are the bread and butter of everything!
Sometimes I feel like it is all about that 'special' kid.....who cares about the 20 decent ones.

 

[Gymkateer]

Not every kid or family can be pleased, but un the US the model is $ based and the bigger the lower levels, the more you have to fund your optionals.....why not just be rather flexible at the lower levels?
I just want to know how aware are coaches of this........I know most parents are absolutely clueless about the business of it.
There is such a delicate balance here.

It would make financial sense to be more flexible at the lower levels but having more gymnasts means needing more coaches. It can be pretty hard to attract and retain coaches so coaching becomes a factor that limits team size. If you have a limited team it makes sense to only train the gymnasts you think can be the most successful.

My question is why should gymnastics only be about the high levels.
Why shouldn't kids be able to participate in the lower levels, have the fun of going to competitions and getting some ribbons and quit at level 4 or 5 or 2 or wherever they want to. If the aim is only to produce high level athletes then what about all those kids who don't have that potential/commitment - should they not do gymnastics? Why should they miss out on the time they want to spend in the sport.
If the kids are having fun, getting fitter, learning skills and loving the sport, what is the problem? Yes recreational/lower levels makes more money so therefore the whole thing can run but it doesn't negate what these kids get out of it.

If the guy is Eastern European, the focus over there used to be producing gymnasts that could win. As I understand it, only athletes that the coaches thought might become successful gymnasts were even chosen. Gymnastics wasn't about having fun so much as it was a job. In that system no, kids didn't get to participate just because they want to. The coaches were being paid to produce winners, not help kids have fun.

 

[LJL07]

Interesting post. I think some of the gyms (our first one) are more motivated by the business side. That gym wanted many of the girls (ages 6&7) repeating level 1 next year. They had a score cutoff they were using as move up. I guess it's good for business to have their girls winning on the podium to recruit new kids, and a few of those girls probably won't be able to progress past level 3, so repeating also keeps more families paying both the gym and USAG.

My daughter actually seemed to be getting sloppier rather than improving (I think she was bored. She already had skills to move up but was being held back due to "form."). We switched to a new gym, and she is happily training level 3 and is excited to be learning new skills. My child would have dropped out repeating level 1, and if she is able to clean up her form, she is a kid who could keep moving up. So, it is a balance, and that first gym was clearly all about the gym and not the kids.