[Paul B]

Recently a few things to do with climbing funding/sponsorship have started to bother me, please don’t take the following as a personal attack or a belittlement of many people’s efforts and achievements, as I firmly believe that everyone in climbing should be entitled to do whatever they want within reason:

The general position of most climbing walls, offering free entry to British Team Members is one of the issues I feel strongly about. I feel its unreasonable that some people are granted this privilege free of charge where as for a lot of people (some of which are doing amazingly hard things outside) it is not financially viable.
I suspect that the answer I, or anyone else who feels the same will get to that statement will be along the lines of:

“Well compete in next weeks trials and maybe you too could gain that privilege..….”

 however I think it shouldn’t be necessary to compete and if this privilege is to exist it should be pointed towards the people who need it most.
A similar situation exists with boots and gear, with sponsorship being given to people who have never performed to a high standard indoors or out!
With the limited amount of money available within climbing this seems ludicrous to me, surely the manufacturers would prefer their products to be advertised in a similar way to that which they will be used e.g. outside? I for one can’t see there being much revenue to be generated from sponsoring purely competition based climbers rather than the British elite. British climbing would surely benefit from this money/gear to be passed on to climbers who are performing at the cutting edge where it matters, outside (Maybe a point of view to some people but I’m guessing not for most), therefore increasing the global awareness of British climbing talent and the gear that they use? 

I cannot see it being likely that the average Joe Blogs climber can be more inspired by a high competition placing rather than the latest hard boulder problem or trad route, whatever that may be.

If this is the way its going to be maybe someone should sponsor strong ed?   

I myself have definitely been an indoor devotee in terms of training but without something to aim for outdoors, be it a problem/route or a trip I’m sure I would loose interest, can you even be classed as a climber if you never venture out of a wall?

 Also am I the only one to believe that reporting Tyler’s recent repeat of Dreamtime in the same news item as a high competition placing result as almost blasphemous? I just hope it was for convenience sake…..

 (I get the impression from Tyler’s friction interview early this year that his view on the youth climbing scene and the direction its taking isn’t too far from my own…I also seem to remember an article in summit following the same kind of lines.)
Should the climbing youth not be encouraged to apply the talent that they have to real rock? Reading in an interview that this could be classed as detrimental to training seriously pained me.

Before posting this I sent it to a few people to check it wasn’t too offensive towards certain people or that it wasn’t JUST a plain old rant and it was suggested to me that I should try and offer solutions to the issues raised:

With regards to wall membership I believe that the Works’ plan of using top performing climbers to offer workshops in return for entry is a great way for both parties to benefit from one another and maybe other walls could do similar things. Maybe free entry to walls should be restricted to high international placers otherwise it can be plain frustrating to people that make financial sacrifices in order to train. (I’d also suggest walls don’t flip round problems on fixed boards just for a team training session, this can be really damn annoying.  )

With regards to sponsorship I first believe that it is necessary for newsworthy achievements to be reported in both magazines and online. I understand this can sometimes be tricky because of the unwillingness of some people to come forth with such news, however many noteworthy ascent’s/new boulder problems went unreported in a major way last year I’m sure, please correct me if I’m wrong.  A prolific new router would therefore instantly gain mass coverage for any would be sponsor.
Another alternative for sponsors would be to sponsor an effort such as the major North Wales slate re-bolting, or a crag clean up (or dare I say it the Peak Bolt Fund  ), Wouldn’t this win them major favour with a range of climbers?

Hopefully this will spark some kind of debate, maybe not, if it offends you or you feel it’s a personal attack on you (or a friend of yours), or even your efforts I apologise it is not meant to be. Neither is it meant to be a dummy spitting rant and if it comes across as such I apologise once again.

[unclesomebody]

Excellent rant Paul. Good to hear that these things are being discussed in public forums. Just thought I'd add something which I'm sure you are aware of but haven't written.

In no other sport is a person required to fund themselves all the way until they reach professional level at which point they are able to recieve sponsorship. I am constantly shocked when watching the sports channels how many sports are obviously funded and people make a living from. It is almost always the case that talent is spotted early and that talent is coached and nurtured until the athlete becomes world class. This simply doesn't happen in climbing. It takes one motivated individual to train so hard to reach the top of the game and then the sponsors come forward and say "hey, you're great, we'll back you". It's a very comfortable position for sponsors to be in, but one that I personally think is totally unfair. How good could some of the current crop be if their talent was spotted and trained to a professional level? Maybe then would be actually have some world class climbers in the UK. Besides McClure, Simpson (sport) and Gaskins (bouldering and sport) we have (in my opinion) no world class climbers in this country (sorry if I have forgotten some). We have people operating at great levels as far as the UK is concerned but how many brits are putting up new 8B+ or 8C blocs? Landman is fast rising to the top of the game and is on the verge of becoming world class. Pearson is moving in the same direction. But these talents need funding, need support, and can't be expected to simply become great without any help. Or is this the British way?

Food for thought. Thanks Paul.

[r-man]

I cannot see it being likely that the average Joe Blogs climber can be more inspired by a high competition placing rather than the latest hard boulder problem or trad route, whatever that may be.

Very true. What inspires people is what goes on outside. For the majority of climbers, problems or routes on real rock are what climbing is all about. Comp positions are are a little meaningless to the general public. We want to see photos of people on amazing lines, on amazingly hard stuff.

On the other hand, climbing isn't a mainstream sport. There is something great about the fact that climbers are out there doing what they do because they love it, not because they have to please their sponsors.

Still, if top climbers can get money for what they do, I wouldn't begrudge them their earnings. It's just that I don't see why athletes necessarily deserve money for doing what they love any more than anyone else. If they get it, well done to them, but hey, I won't lose any sleep if they don't. Sorry. 

[Stubbs]

In no other sport is a person required to fund themselves all the way until they reach professional level at which point they are able to recieve sponsorship.

Hmmm this may be true for mainstream sports like football etc, but I'm pretty sure all sports outside the mainstream like snowbaording, surfing, skating, paddling, etc work in a similar way to climbing - you get good, get noticed, then get the product and the cash. 

I don't think there's anything wrong particularly with this way of doing things, except the lack of cash when you get to the top.  I think it's pretty sad in climbing that a climber could be top 50 in the world in their chosen discipline and still only just be able to eek enough money together to get by.

[fatdoc]

excellent description of issues that i had previous little knowledge on...

will ingest all the issues here when not full of pizza and fizzy wine (birthday tea)

and give a full unbiased, not too ranted reply tomorrow... cos i'm not workin and would otherwise die of boredom - oh no, wait.... i can *do lunch* at the climbingworks!!!

[Bonjoy]

In sports where people are funded in the development stage it is because there is money to be made from the sport. Where's the money to be made out of someone climbing hard outside?
 Yes it would be nice if there was money available to help developing top climbers, but who are you envisaging giving this money? Government are not interested in funding a non-commercial non-competitive sport (some dispute it can even be called a sport) with little/no mainstream news value in the UK. Commercial sponsors are businesses and will throw money around as they see fit, based on how much effort they can be arsed to put into research, who they think is good for their brand and who hastles them the most. Commercial sponsorship will never be fair and equitable, it's just not the nature of the beast and never will be. The BMC as far as I can tell has little/no money to give and the type of climbers who fund it seem in general to prefer this cash to go into access and guidebooks.
 Don't get me wrong I entirely sympathise with the plight of struggling top end climbers. I'm just not sure what people think should be done differently.
 There are upside to the situation, as far as reducing the number of tossers in climbing. Lack of big bucks means people who make it to the top end are their for the right reason. Also this lack of financial incentive means less reason for the unscrupulous to take advantage of the trusting unregulated nature of climbing and advance by fabricating ascents.
 

[AndiT]

I think the problem is, there is no/little advantage to companies to sponsor climbers. The benefits they get are little more than free advertising and that is if the climber actively seeks out getting photos in mags and on-line of newsworthy stuff and regularly. There would be no benefit for a company to pay lumps of money to climbers as they simply wouldn't reap the reward in my opinion.

For example if a boot manufacturer gave you some free boots and say £5000 this year, would your wearing of them boots in photo's in perhaps 3 or 4 magazines this year generate an increase in their profit margins of over that initial £5000, it is highly unlikely.

I really don't believe that there is a great slush fund out there for climbers to be paid. The pursuit of climbing simply isn't the commercial activity that Surfing/Snowboarding/Football etc is, which is a great thing I think and long may it remain so.

Obviously the chance to make money is greater in other countries (France for example pay quite a few of their climbers) as they see it more as a competitive sport and there are more household names. As for free entry to walls, well, for Joe Public it is attractive for them to hear about a wall which the British Team trains in as opposed Climber X who climbed something hard recently.

It will always be a matter of how much they can make out of it, and if it's not a bit more than they dish out then it's simply of no benefit to the sponsor.

[unclesomebody]

Once upon a time there was no money in skating, snowboarding, surfing etc. Once upon a time people had to beg, steal, and borrow to get by in all those sports. Then something changed. Now look at them. It is, in my opinion, only a matter of time until this will happen in climbing. Climbing is just 40 years behind these other sports but it will play catch up... and hopefully sooner rather than later. I don't think that the old school ethic of "less climbers the better" is a good one. I think climbing is a sport and as such should be pushed towards the limit of human performance. I realise I may be in the minority here.

[SA Chris]

The pursuit of climbing simply isn't the commercial activity that Surfing/Snowboarding/Football etc is, which is a great thing I think and long may it remain so.

I take offence at having Surfing and Snowboarding grouped with Football. Yes, there is considerably more commerce involved with Surfing and Snowboarding than climbing, but the money involved is buttons compared to what's involved in Football.

[squeek]

The general position of most climbing walls, offering free entry to British Team Members is one of the issues I feel strongly about. I feel its unreasonable that some people are granted this privilege free of charge where as for a lot of people (some of which are doing amazingly hard things outside) it is not financially viable.

As someone running a wall giving free entry to the British team is quite easy to do and you can be seen to be helping people who compete for the country.  I cannot see how you could give entry to 'people who climb very hard things outside'.  How would this work?  Fair enough if there is a local climber who is doing very well then the manager might know them and give them free entry, but how would it work at a wall they don't go to often?  Have a UK wide whitelist of hard climbers?  Present a video of them climbing something hard outside?  It's a good idea, but it's completely unworkable really.
It would be good if people climbing hard outside who couldn't afford the wall, got support though.

A similar situation exists with boots and gear, with sponsorship being given to people who have never performed to a high standard indoors or out!

To a business manager of a gear company giving free boots to someone who didn't climb hard but was in an article every two months in Climb/Climber, instead of someone who might do one world class climb every year could seem like a much better prospect.

If you're outside climbing very hard, the companies aren't just going to ring up and offer you the products either.  For the gear companies they will have a much better chance of actually meeting comp climbers (outdoor shoe at NEC for example) meaning it's much easier for them to say "we'll give you some free boots/tshirt/harness". 

With the limited amount of money available within climbing this seems ludicrous to me, surely the manufacturers would prefer their products to be advertised in a similar way to that which they will be used e.g. outside?

When I see Nike/Reebok adverts they don't say "New Hurricane trainers, look great whilst shopping, and buying a MacDonalds".  Advertisements don't have to be advertising the product where it's used, or even the product itself.  Look at a current beer advert, which has swallows flying in the air to music.

I cannot see it being likely that the average Joe Blogs climber can be more inspired by a high competition placing rather than the latest hard boulder problem or trad route, whatever that may be. 

Completely agree.

can you even be classed as a climber if you never venture out of a wall?

In my opinion yes, you're still climbing, you'd just be an indoor climber, which probably wouldn't gain as mush respect from the climbing community.

Although this might seem like I'm trying to disagree with your points, which I suppose I am a little, I do think that it would be good to see more support for the people who are performing outside, but could do a lot more with a little more support.  Who do you think should be getting this help at the moment, that isn't?

On a side note, I don't really like the whole "I'm climbing hard, but I'm not going to tell anyone" attitude.  There's a difference between blowing your own trumpet everytime you do something slightly hard, and letting some people know if you've repeated something very hard, or repeated it for the first time, and put put a new hard problem.

[Somebody's Fool]

Once upon a time there was no money in skating, snowboarding, surfing etc. Once upon a time people had to beg, steal, and borrow to get by in all those sports. Then something changed. Now look at them. It is, in my opinion, only a matter of time until this will happen in climbing.

I think the problem with this vision of the future is that to the layman watching, skating, snowboarding and surfing are not akin to watching paint dry.  Even as a climber I found the attempts to televise climbing competitions in the nineties excruciatingly boring.  Granted things like Hard Grit and the Dosages are less boring but their appeal is still much more limited to those who participate in the sport.
Also the fact is that a skating or snowboarding competition will attract a huge crowd of fashion conscious rich kids flashing their cash whereas a climbing competiton will attract a crowd that will be aghast that they've had to pay £3 to get in.  I think that is why there is a bigger incentive for sponsorship to occur in these sports which are undeniably more exciting for the spectators.

[Stubbs]

 

[Bonjoy]

Once upon a time there was no money in skating, snowboarding, surfing etc. Once upon a time people had to beg, steal, and borrow to get by in all those sports. Then something changed. Now look at them. It is, in my opinion, only a matter of time until this will happen in climbing. Climbing is just 40 years behind these other sports but it will play catch up... and hopefully sooner rather than later. I don't think that the old school ethic of "less climbers the better" is a good one. I think climbing is a sport and as such should be pushed towards the limit of human performance. I realise I may be in the minority here.

Who knows, you might be right about climbing going that way. I personally will be sad to see the exponential increase in ground and rock erosion, access problems, chipping, liars, money grabbers and celebrityism that this will cost. If the goal is the pushing of human performance to it's limit, why does it matter if this happens in our crowded little island? Your implied new (nu?) school alternative to "less climbers the better" is logically "more climbers the better" as a greater pool is more likely to produce the next breakthrough climber. Neither extreme is valid in my opinion. What's wrong with organic un-pushed growth in climbing standards? Anything achieved by force of numbers will be achieved with the benefit of time at some slightly later point anyway. Wouldn't it be preferable if things took a bit longer (or god forbid happened in a country more suited to the pressure) and hence not have to suffer so much of the downside of massive growth in climber participation?

[jfw]

was chatting with john arran last night - about  how brits are more psyched about climbing outdoors than competing. and how i personally found outdoors more motivating.

he said he found the "this is it" "one chance" aspect of competing really motivating - in a different way to going on trips, expeditions etc - of which he has done his fair share.

he said that when comps first started it was more of a cool and social scene with the likes of bens and jerry's doing quite well. our own failure to continue to do well has probably led to the current view of comps as uncool - just like we go through fashion stages of sport and trad and bouldering. this becomes a vicious circle of underperforming - as the most able don't want to be associated with something uncool.

sadly - sponsorship comes from televised events - and from competing - and winning.
having fashionable products that lay people buy - like clothes and hats (rather than technical products like rock boots etc) will also generate more revenue.

from a practical point of view - we don't have the facilities to fully support competition climbers - there aren't enough, good enough walls to  go round practicing onsighting. we do badly at competing - so less people get into it.

[AndiT]

I take offence at having Surfing and Snowboarding grouped with Football. Yes, there is considerably more commerce involved with Surfing and Snowboarding than climbing, but the money involved is buttons compared to what's involved in Football.

Different amounts of money, but still all commercial sports with a following who want to buy into the 'scene' whether it be baggy trousers or adidas trackies, without necessarily being part of the activity.

Climbing is just for climbers really. We as climbers tend not to wear climbing clothes outside of when we are actually climbing apart from perhaps our coats. Wheras the Surf/Snowboard look is taken away from the activity and into the highstreet, hence there is more money to be made for the companies who produce the clothing and equipment.

Like Somebody's Fool said, climbing just isn't 'hip' enough, it is slow and deliberate and generally not fiery enough. I'm sure there also isn't a lot of money to make out of Yoga or Powerlifting too.

What climbing needs is another outlet and a reason for companies to invest. Take Snooker for example, I don't know many actual Snooker Brands as such but I do know about the companies which support Snooker which are the betting companies.

Maybe we should start a climbers sweepstake, then watch the money come rolling in!

[SA Chris]

I think that to the majority of participants in surfing, what they do every weekend is as far removed from the professional competition circuit as the majority of outdoor climbers feel about indoor comps. In snowboarding it applies to a lesser extent because it is still very much a once a year holiday activity to the majority of people.

I think the difference is that surfing has been subject to mass marketing and gained appeal through it's visual impact and accessibilty to the masses. Which I don't think climbing will ever achieve.

[Monolith]

I'm sure there also isn't a lot of money to make out of Yoga

That's what I thought at first. An immaterial art with a spiritual affinity - how can one possibly generate any form of product when you don't actually need anything to do it?

Yogamad.com have managed to brand everything from eye bags, yoga mats and studio eqipment (you wouldn't catch a master yogi using any of that paraphenalia!) to yoga calendars.

As a world-view, I think it's proof that humans (at least in the developed world) are both obsessive and materialist. Where there is nothing, we have somehow managed to generate something.

Climbing is just for climbers really. We as climbers tend not to wear climbing clothes outside of when we are actually climbing apart from perhaps our coats.

My sentiments exactly, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

[Paul B]

To a business manager of a gear company giving free boots to someone who didn't climb hard but was in an article every two months in Climb/Climber, instead of someone who might do one world class climb every year could seem like a much better prospect.

Fair enough, all of your points are fair. The free entry at walls is always still going to bother me, even if its something that is meant to do the opposite.

Who do you think should be getting this help at the moment, that isn't?

Hmmm im going to avoid names im afraid, I don't think that will help the discussion much. To be honest it was just as much some people who shouldnt have it, that sparked me off initially ,potentially diverting sponsorship from more deserving people.

[Somebody's Fool]

Why do you think that climbing wall owners should let you into their business for free just because of something you have done on a lump of rock?  That's not to belittle any ones achievements, I just can't see whats in it for them.  With the British team being let in there are issues involving hosting competions and maybe subsidies.  So it might make good sense for the owners of the wall to let them in.  At the end of the day people build climbing walls to make money.  Not to "push climbing to its human potential".

If you are genuinely psyched to take your climbing to this level then surely you wouldn't mind paying to do it.  After all someone has had to pay to build the wall.

[r-man]

To be honest it was just as much some people who shouldnt have it, that sparked me off initially ,potentially diverting sponsorship from more deserving people.

Why does anyone deserve money? Money isn't something you get for achieving personal goals, even if they happen to be world class. It's something you get in exchange for a service/product deemed to be profitable. Bar a few lucky people, money only comes to those who chase it. This is true for all walks of life - you might be the best plumber, musician, landscape gardener, writer, etc. in the world, but if you don't sell yourself no one is going to seek you out and ply you with money. If top climbers want money, they are going to have to sell themselves. Look at Dave Mac's website, his blog, the ways he earns his money... If climbers want to earn a living from what they do, they are going to have to get to grips with business. This will probably involve a lot of effort and time.

Everyone knows there isn't much money in climbing. And to be honest, that's the way most climbers like it.

[AndiT]

potentially diverting sponsorship from more deserving people.

After all is said and done, in the eyes of the sponsors those who deserve it are those who can make the company some money by being in the public eye. Sponsorship also needs actively seeking out, you need to sell your soul a little bit. It's one thing being a good climber, it's a totally different thing being one who will wear certain brands and ensure that they get photoed and in the mags.

I'm sure many of the very good climbers out there would rather be climbing than pratting around getting shots or searching for something news worthy.

All that is needed to reach the limit of human potential is focus and dedication. If you look at all the highly successful kenyan and ethiopean runners out there, they certainly don't get wods of cash when they are starting out but still push themselves and achieve. Any business out there is doing so to make money. I suppose a company could sponsor someone just to develop the sport and push the limits, but you know they would make a big deal out this and do it to make them money, nothing else.

If anyone wants to make money from climbing, the first thing they need to consider is what they can do for the company, not the other way round. If they can make the company money and maintain it's image, then they will more  than likely gain some reward from this.

[Houdini]

Who knows, you might be right about climbing going that way. I personally will be sad to see the exponential increase in ground and rock erosion, access problems, chipping, liars, money grabbers and celebrityism that this will cost. If the goal is the pushing of human performance to it's limit, why does it matter if this happens in our crowded little island? Your implied new (nu?) school alternative to "less climbers the better" is logically "more climbers the better" as a greater pool is more likely to produce the next breakthrough climber. Neither extreme is valid in my opinion. What's wrong with organic un-pushed growth in climbing standards? Anything achieved by force of numbers will be achieved with the benefit of time at some slightly later point anyway. Wouldn't it be preferable if things took a bit longer (or god forbid happened in a country more suited to the pressure) and hence not have to suffer so much of the downside of massive growth in climber participation?

I agree wholeheartedly. 

I think the real test will be when indoor climbing becomes an olympic discipline.  Business has this habit of ruining whatever it touches.  Yes, I know there are exceptions.

[SA Chris]

Kind of on the subject, how is Mike Weeks' climber's agency / management company going?

[Paul B]

Why do you think that climbing wall owners should let you into their business for free just because of something you have done on a lump of rock?  That's not to belittle any ones achievements, I just can't see whats in it for them. 

With regards to wall membership I believe that the Works’ plan of using top performing climbers to offer workshops in return for entry is a great way for both parties to benefit from one another and maybe other walls could do similar things.

 

[Somebody's Fool]

Sorry, I should have read your post more carefully.  What I was trying to refer to was the first part of your post where you express the opinion it is an injustice that British Team members can use facilities for free but high performing outdoor climbers can't.  What I was trying to say is that this arrangement is probably arrived at between the BMC and climbing wall owners so it is mutually beneficial to both sides.  Somebody who knows more about this may correct me if I'm wrong.  It just came across as little arrogant to suggest that being good at something should mean that somebody who you doesn't know you, or has any interest in your climbing, should make financial sacrifices themselves so that you can train.
If this is not what you meant then I apologise again, but that's how I read it.
Personally I think that the workshop idea is a good one but offers very little scope to anyone apart from a small handful at the very top of the sport.  Also a good climber does not necesarily equate to a good teacher.