Strange results of the FIVB plebiscite. They forgot about Leon and the others. “It’s a symbol of the big game”

– The websites of the company run by FIVB in cooperation with CVC Capital Partners and aimed at developing volleyball and investing in the sport – look as if the federation wanted its own in the style of the “France Football” magazine. With all the controversy, strange elections, only no gala in Paris, but who knows what will happen after the pandemic. It is a pity that the FIVB showed how much it wants to achieve its marketing and political goals in all of this.

The FIVB disgraced itself with the results of its plebiscite. Difficult to explain

What are the results? From a European perspective, even ridiculous.

The MVPs of the most important tournament – the Olympic Games – are at best in third place (among men it is third from France, and for women only fifth from Jordan Larson from the USA). The ranking practically does not take into account the European championships and club competitions in Europe – there is not a single player of ZAKSA Kędzierzyn-Koźle (winner of the Champions League), there is only one player of Imoco Volley Conegliano (winner of the Champions League) and only one player and one player of champions and European champions from Italy.

The point is not that the ranking should be entirely European (this is what the CEV ranking is for), but to say that a few elections are difficult to explain is like saying nothing. Why do American volleyball players have as many representatives as the Brazilians, when at the Olympics in Tokyo they clearly won with them in the final 3-0, and throughout the tournament the USA was second to none? Where did the nomination for the “twelve” for Yuki Ishikawa from Japan come from, since his only real success in 2021 was winning the Challenge Cup (the third league of European volleyball cups) and becoming the best host of the Asian championship, which he did not even win against the Japanese team? Why was there even no twelfth place for the one who broke the world record in the number of service aces in a single match, won the silver medal of the Nations League – FIVB games, as well as the bronze medal of the European championship and reached the semi-finals of the Champions League? With such choices, the Volleyball World plebiscite is compromised.

Even leaders elected strangely. Heroes were appreciated, not the best players

The positions of the leaders of both rankings are slightly less controversial, but still strange and debatable. It would be best to call them non-obvious.

Anthoine Brizard won in men. He is the reserve setter of the French Olympic champions, who in Tokyo changed their game in the quarter-finals with Poland and then led to gold. However, one should wonder: if Earvin N’Gapeth became the MVP of the tournament and Luciano De Cecco was the best playmaker, why now make the greatest hero out of Brizard? It is worth appreciating it, but is it that way?

It is similar with the ladies: the winner was Kim Yeon-koung, who led an average team to the medal zone during the Olympic Games. The fourth place they eventually took was a great achievement. Especially that the 36-year-old is a living legend of Asian volleyball, and local fans recognize her as the goddess of sport. Only again: during the Olympics, she did not fit into the team of the tournament’s dreams. Perhaps because it was based on the results of this particular Olympic tournament, and not the athlete’s entire career. It must be appreciated, but this plebiscite was probably not the right place for it. An Italian, Paola Egonu, or one of the Americans – the aforementioned Larson, or even Jordyn Poulter – could be a better choice.

The plebiscite is just a symbol of the great game. A radical change of direction and activities

The results are the results. Volleyball World did not provide any details about the plebiscite. It didn’t even say who voted in it. It was only reported that “the 12 best players of each gender were selected in 2021, looking at major events including the volleyball League of Nations and”. This is to draw attention to what should be especially looked at in the case of each of the featured characters, but not to emphasize that the ranking was created only on the basis of these events. Here the company leaves a certain gate.

Why do the results look like they do? It is not hard to guess that it is a symbol of a great game. The world and European federation, and the CEV, often cannot agree on the dates of the overlapping meetings of the tournaments of both organizations, so it is difficult for their conflict, dissenting opinions of activists, or other unkindness not to affect such a ranking. The FIVB did not want to explicitly include players who are successful in Europe. This is a political game towards rivals from CEV, showing them a place in the row. However, it is a considerable loss for volleyball itself, where most of the strongest clubs, players and players are associated with this part of the world. In the football world, even despite not the best connections between UEFA and FIFA, the results of the international federation’s plebiscites are very often based on the results of European competitions.

So where does such a step in volleyball come from? FIVB is trying to enter the Asian market, which has been used in a small way, in the best possible way, and also to develop cooperation with the South American market. This is why players playing in the local teams are included in the ranking for 2021, although it only causes laughter in many people from the environment. It is easy to notice this direction of the federation’s expansion also after the organization of the last events. and also the League of Nations this year. The coronavirus pandemic is not slowing down at all, and the FIVB has decided to turn its flagship safe bubble tournament from last year’s restrictions into a festival of long journeys from continent to continent. Hence, the several-day LN tournaments will be held in one European city for men (Sofia in Bulgaria) and two for women (Ufa in Russia and Ankara in Turkey). This is a radical change compared to previous years, when the national teams were able to play up to four tournaments in Europe.

The conflict between FIVB and CEV will not be good for volleyball

Is that a bad move? No, even logical. This is where volleyball has great potential for development. This solution has its advantages – for example the discovery of a new audience such as die-hard fans of volleyball in the Philippines, where this discipline is a kind of phenomenon and thousands of fans come to the matches. But also disadvantages – a lot of travel, the risk of infections and depleted staff, the need for replacements in the squad, and therefore the possibility of lower sports-quality meetings. And the neglect of the European market due to too radical changes. In the case of FIVB activities, it is no longer a risk, but a result of the actions taken.

This is a big risk, which can bring the FIVB a lot of profits from Asia or South America, but also even greater rage of European activists and lack of trust on their part. And yet the last world championship organized entirely outside Europe was the 2006 one in Japan. Disagreement between an international and a European federation in a given sport can always benefit one of the parties. However, keep in mind that in this case it is unlikely to benefit the entire discipline. And no one would like volleyball to suffer, because FIVB and they have to get stilettos. For example, a plebiscite of the best players for 2021, symbolic for the whole conflict. It can get worse later. As in the case of the club world championship, which the best European team did not fight for last year, and it was largely due to the actions of the FIVB and the lack of agreement with CEV. There can only be more such situations.