towards a mixed-gender Euros

[emilio]

Hello Poloverse! This post comes from a current discussion that has happened so far in the usual channels, but that now could use some feedback from the community.

The Berlin Bike Polo community decided a few months ago that we are interested in hosting the Euros in 2027, and for a wide range of reasons would like to offer our bid on the condition that it happens as a mixed-gender-mandatory tournament. At some point we learned that Montpellier is also interested in hosting Euros in 2027, and both cities started chatting together with the EHBA.

Berlin’s initial proposal for the process was this:

• both cities put up a bid with their proposed format;
• EHBA organizes a vote;
• winner does it.

Berlin still thinks this is the way to go, but this proposal was not immediately adopted, mainly for two reasons:

• the EHBA doesn’t have currently an established process to guide a public vote.
• there were concerns raised that a vote on the mixed gender question should happen before a vote on the city.

Montpellier is not against having a mixed-gender mandatory tournament if that’s what the community agrees on. Berlin will not host it if it is not mixed-gender mandatory. Montpellier has never organized the Euros before, while Berlin stepped in in 2024. We need a decision until around September so the chosen city can take it over.

We will have a meeting next week and hopefully figure out by then a fair way of running a democratic vote on time, and in the meantime I would like to open the discussion here on Poloverse on the following points:

• should we vote bids head to head in a single vote or should the mixed gender vote happen first?
• how should a legitimate voting procedure look like? i.e. who can vote, who should validate it…

I would like to emphasize that this is a great point in time to get involved in the EHBA and improve its organizational capabilities, but it needs people’s active engagement to move such processes forward. Get in touch if you would like to get involved!

[Rita]

This is an idea for a legimate voting procedure to make polls across Europe:

I think we should do a direct vote process, where one person has one vote (instead each city has just one vote). So every persons vote counts.

Voting eligibility: Any person living in Europe who has played polo in the past, is currently playing, or is temporarily taking a break from the sport is eligible to vote. Each eligible person may cast one vote only.

Process: Votes are collected by the player’s club representative (or another designated person) because they know there players to avoid phantom votes. The representative/person is responsible for ensuring that each person votes only once before forwarding the verified votes to the country representative. Each club can make the poll according to the processes they usually use to generate consens (poloverse poll, telegram poll, WhatsApp, hands-up at pickups) as long it makes it possible that the votes can be allocated to a person and can be counted. The duration for such a poll could be one month from starting the poll till the end.

[aisling]

I think this is a great idea, and whilst I’m never going to be playing any euros, I’m very interested in getting more involved in this kind of thing because I do really care about representation in the sport at that level.

I also think Rita‘s proposal for voting is a smart one that balances the reality of managing the process fairly with tailoring it to individual clubs so as to maximise participation. If it was possible to decide on something like this ASAP, then it would potentially mean that it was possible for clubs to run any necessary AGMs if they needed to ensure that they had up-to-date chair and secretary? I know we have been talking about needing to do that in London for quite a while, this might be the kind of thing that would take us into gear to getting it done.

the chair and secretary would ultimately be the ones responsible for collecting the votes, standing by the legitimacy of votes, and generally being a point of contact if for whatever reason anything was called into question at the higher level. perhaps people could be required to consent for their name phone number and email address to be shared (although not recorded alongside their vote, so you wouldn’t see who voted for what, just a list of people in x club who voted) for the purposes of ensuring people have Trust in the process, and that information would only be accessible by the chair/secretary of the Club and whoever is on the higher body calculating/overseeing the process.

Personally, I think that the if there is going to be a vote as to whether it is mandatory mixed, that should come first, because Berlin have confirmed that they will not want to host it if it is not mandatory mixed. It doesn’t mean that it would then automatically go to Berlin if the vote was in fact for it to be mandatory mixed, but it would highlight how important that is to the community in general which may help the clubs who are keen to do it understand that this aspect of it is extremely important and that the Club should not take on the huge task of organising the euros if they are not confident that they can do this aspect of the tournament well. To be clear, this is in no way passive aggressive shade at Montpellier, I haven’t played there but have only heard good things & everyone I have met from there is great! But obviously hosting the euros is a huge job and especially for a Club doing it for the first time it’s important that they would feel confident and able to do it as a mandatory mixed if that was what the community decided.

I guess in my naivety I did not realise that euros were not already mandatory mixed, I guess partly because I know several great women who played last year, and I just assumed it was, having spent the year playing tournaments across Europe in a few different countries. I’m not sure how to best provide and manage discussion about why a tournament should or shouldn’t be mandatory mixed, which I think is essential if we are to have a vote on this, but hopefully what I’ve contributed can be of some use.

[alexfxd]

Establishing this process and querying results will take some time and we should poll as little as necessary.¹

For a most representative opinion of the whole community imho each person (see Ritas definition) should have one vote.

The central question to be decided by vote should be:

Would you rather have Berlin or Montpellier to host the upcoming 2027 Euros?

Where

• Berlin will have it mandatory mixed
• [put Montepelliers statement here]

¹) Skip the How would you rather have a vote polled for: By person, by club, by city and give every person a vote instead. Skip the Would you rather have the next Euros be mandatory mixed and let each bidding city decide for itself and see how the community liked it.

[emilio]

Berlin, Montpellier and the EHBA met again during the week, and I can say we really moved the process forward. Romain prepared a list of discussion topics, and we wrote down the minutes of the meeting following that structure. Here it goes.

DISCLAIMER: the wordings and timelines described here are not final, and there will probably be alterations in text, deadlines, etc until actual publication of the vote. This post serves the purpose of transparently showing you in which direction the discussion is going.

Participants: Emilio, Rita, Romain, Justine, Levin, Tristan

20:00 – 20:45: Decision making: how to provide a structure able to raise legitimate decision at European scale (45 minutes)

1a - Finding reps for each region:

• Tristan: „the EHBA doesnt really exist“. 3 years ago there was an attempt to vote, but covid stopped everything. It is time to have a better structure.
• Rita: we don’t necessarily need an elected list of representatives, but contact people in each. Do we have these contacts?
• Levin: he will make a telegram group with country reps that will collect the votes, the name of the person who votes will be only visible to the club rep and country rep to varify the existence and legitimacy
• Russia and Turkey are probably out. Istanbul polo doesn’t exist, and Russians cannot come to Europe, but could be a nice contact.

1-b: Defining who’s legit to vote

• Local context is important.
• There was an attempt to define a polo player and it is a bit open, and people in the meeting agree this is fair – even though there are people who would like a stricter definition on what is a polo player
• A global definition: someone who plays at least since a year and participates in tournament and is engaged in the polo community. Clubs have autonomy to validate a vote in edge cases (i.e. very engaged member who doesn’t play tournaments).

1-c: How to clearly phrase the questions and context:

• We discussed this topic already within other topics

1-d: how to settle a vote (calendar, todo list, volunteers to handle it, whatever)

• voting procedure: Individual votes gathered by the clubs on a poll created by the country rep, passed to the EHBA. Decentralized makes it more trustworthy, pre-validated by the country reps and/or club reps.

• Player names will be only visible to the club/country reps, not published to maintain privacy about the vote

• EHBA can ask if they need clarifications

• Necessary minimum info: name, city, answer.

• A timeline:

  • ASAP: EHBA figures out which representatives are alive.
  • End of July: Representatives known (Levin)
  • End of July: First vote draft (Emilio + Rita)
  • Beginning of August: Text finalized (all, during online-meeting on end July)
  • Mid August: Announcement for the poll about euros mandatory mixed, start of voting
  • mid-September: Votes submission, counting and decision announcement about Euros mandatory mixed.

• Depending on the results above, a second vote about the cities:

  • mid September: bids have to be online, voting starts
  • mid October: Decision announcement about the city

20:45 – 21:15: Mixed gender

2a: why does Berlin thinks now is the time for it.

• Berlins statement: The question of why now is very personal and all supporters have their own reasons to believe in it, as many arguments also exist against it. We identified in Berlin that the political arguments revolve around fixing the basic structural problems that prevent proportional representation of groups that have been underrepresented in sports. It is also not just an opinion that exists in Berlin, but all around the community, such as in opinions expressed on Poloverse, the 2024 poll and by our exchanges with players from all over. We’ve done a poll internally and found out that Berlin right now has enough people interested in organizing it mixed mandatory and has the structure to do it, and we do not have enough people interested in organizing it open.

• Comments from the other participants: back then there was demand but no will to actually make it happen. In the other hand, the mandatory mixed idea might be moving too fast for proper team building, and also that the mixed gender teams are getting better at the same time. So there was the argument from Levin that there is no need for mandatory mixed Euros.

2b, on the results of the 2024 poll: Covered in the discussion above.

2c, on including more competitive FLINTA in this discussion: Justine expressed that for Euros 2027 FLINTA players might end up in rushed random teams, and that in 2028 it would be more fair and productive for FLINTA players.

2d, on the actual vote and phrasing:

• First a vote on the mixed gender question only, with the following question:

Should the Euros be mixed gender mandatory?
Options:
a) yes, preferably in 2027 and alternatively the next one
b) yes, but the next one
c) no

• Reasoning: If not now, commitment to the next one mixed, which would make organizing the calendar better, avoid random teams from forming. If “yes 2027” (a) wins, there is a bid between Berlin and Montpellier in a second vote. If „yes, but in the season after 2027“ (b) wins, Montpellier will make the Euros in 2027 as open. If „No“ (c) has less then 50% the majority of the community wants mandatory mixed, so it will happen either in 2027 or the season after 2027. „No“ (c) only wins with more than 50% of the votes.

21:15 – 22:00: How to chose one host over the other

3.a+b: why we can’t find consensus

• both cities wanna do it in 2027 and cannot fully commit to 2028, so bidding is the way to go.

3.c: which points should be differentiating/ clearly defined by the two candidates ?

• there is some time to clarify later if using the vote question from 2d.More or less this items:

  • Number of courts, surfa­ce
  • dates and program
  • streaming
  • accommodation
  • range of registration fee

[OGxBENJI]

@aisling montpellier did already organized similar events : french championships and worlds championships,and 2 to 3 courts events many time.

@alexfxd disagree with the last skip, people should vote for mandatory first , then bidders should comply with the community expectations.if a majority wants mandatory mixed and berlin bids fall off , its not to montpellier club to choose to enforce or not the mandatory mixed format. this should be a gold rule for all season events : qualifiers , nationals etc.

you are free to do your own format for any other tournaments tho.

i would also suggest the bidders to add

• format of the days : wildcard ? 2-3 days main ? team cap ? double elim ?
• reffing orga
• a prediction of the temperature and wich ball will be used

food , party and accomodation should be by default not provided and not impacting people decisions , but if there is an option its always welcome. imo the actual event orga would take most of the club ressource so it could be unfair if that weight in.

[julien]

Montpellier already published their bid : https://www.montpellierbikepolo.fr we will provide more informations if needed.

Why not defining “who’s legit” to a member of a local polo association (Clubs) :

• easy to define
• easy to count
• easy definition accros europe

It’s better to have a bit of frame than leaving full autonomy to clubs and taking the risk to have discredit in the poll procedure.

[Rita]

Not every active polo player is member of a club. They shouldn’t be excluded from voting.

I think this definition is the fairest: a polo player legit to vote is someone who has played for at least a year, is engaged in the community, and ideally participates in tournaments, while clubs can validate edge cases (e.g. highly engaged members who don’t compete).

Restricting voting rights, for example, to tournament players or club members only, gives one part of the community more influence than others, even though the outcome affects everyone. I don’t think that’s a fair approach.

[pyuscherbakov]

Hi! I saw a discussion about representatives from each region. I think it’s worth considering Russians, since we can still travel to Europe. Visas for our citizens are still being issued.

[emilio]

Ah thanks for the update! We had the wrong info, I guess. I’ll bring it up in the next meeting.

[Romana]

As a person who fled Ukraine, cause it’s being heavily bombed by Russian people, I will make a statement here, which for sure don’t represent thoughts of the whole polo community but rather voices of Ukrainian players who are now in constant threat, can’t travel to Europe, wouldn’t be able to come and play Euros. A big part of Ukrainian polo community are serving now, risk their lives and health while protecting families and democratic values from Russia’s aggression. And simply try to survive.

Taking to consideration clubs from the country that makes genocidal politics, is imperialistic, and is far away from democracy, topics of gender and many things we try to develop here, seems for me unfair and goes against the common sense. I believe in collective responsibility, as well as I believe that sports and art, including polo, are always political, so seeing teams from Russia is inappropriate for me as a person from attacked country.

I would ask EHBP to NOT consider Russian clubs in voting and ban any Russian teams’ participation in Euros while war is going on, and to exclude a possibility of play under neutral flag.

And I would ask Russian players to skip the attempts to participate, being involved in organisational questions, simply from a solidarity perspective.

[pyuscherbakov]

I’m very sorry that you and your citizens have faced Russian aggression.

I don’t want to get into a political debate, but I don’t see anything in common between collective responsibility and democracy. It’s like blaming the citizens of North Korea or any other dictatorship for a government decision. I view Russian citizens as equally victims of government policy. There are no supporters of war among our players.

We participated in the WHBPC 2025 and it wasn’t a problem for anyone.

I’ve always believed that polo is apolitical, but we are ready to accept any decision by the EHBA.

[emilio]

Hi everybody. On Wednesday another meeting was held, and below are the agenda followed, including in italic the minutes of what was discussed. In the big block is the final version of the text of the vote on the mixed-gender question. In a few days the country reps will start collecting the votes, so spread the word in your club - especially among the last connected people.

We still look for country representatives for Hungary, Sweden, Slovenia and Denmark. Reach out.

Participants: Romain, Justine, Devora, Rita, Emílio, Trinidad, Tristan, Levin, Lisa

///// Chapter one “voting structure” :

1.a-Recap of national reps [Levin and/or anyone from EHBA] => does the timeline is still reasonable regarding feedback from local reps

Levin created a group, and there are a few missing. Reps are so far on board, generally.

Russian player reached out on Poloverse, and Russia never participated before in the Euros. Lisa raised that people who live in Russia should not come and participate, so the war has to be taken in consideration and a further decision has to be made by the EHBA. For the mixed-gender voting, we can collect their votes and decide later what to do with them.

1.b-Voting procedure

Baptiste could implement it on Poloperator without creating accounts. Two main options: one standardized tool to collect the votes (spreadsheet, poloperator, poll, whatever), or a distributed process where each country representative talks to the clubs and collects the votes however they see fit, delivering the votes to the EHBA. Because of the timeline, this could be implemented for the future.

Trini, bringing the spanish FLINTA consensus: Spain is retrograde regarding the mixed-gender stuff, and in Spain for example they would like to be able to trace names to votes. They are for direct, individual votes. Reason for traceability: data analysis and trend tracking. FLINTA integration in Spain has either been as tokens or ignoring FLINTAs. Spains has active competitive players that are not part of a specific club.

Romains proposal: one spreadsheet file per country, available to the respective country reps, who will do the legwork. The EHBA can see all of them and collect all of the results in a bigger european spreadsheet. Everybody agrees. Romain will set it up.

1.c Data gathered => the vote needs to be anonymous but we also need an attendance record//tracking, minimum data required: First and last name, club or region where person is active, answer. alternative data to be gathered ? [feel free to fill]

EHBA can only publish the votes and from which club/region they come from.

Trini and Tristan are for gathering more dimensions in the poll to get to know better the community. Berlin thinks we should stick only to the decision of “mixed or not”.

Minimum info: Full Name, City, Vote

Optional info: gender, time playing, age, e-mail, do you want to be contacted to get involved in the EHBA?,

1.d who’s legit to vote => a definition has been proposed by [rita] “A global definition: someone who plays at least since a year and participates in tournament and is engaged in the polo community. Clubs have autonomy to validate a vote in edge cases (i.e. very engaged member who doesn’t play tournaments).” to be cleared is the rigidity of this definition, to avoid the last sentence giving too much space.

Julien proposed alternative one where it’s “being a member of a club”. we need to settle this.

Discussed more in chapter 2.

///// Chapter two “Phrasing the question”

2.a the question(s) itself [rita & Emilio & me] proposed to work on it before the call] we should maybe recap (basically, reading one or more proposals)

Emílio and Rita provided a draft, edited by all and registered in the proposed vote text below.

2.b the answers

last time we proposed three answers :

a) yes, preferably in 2027 and alternatively the next one

b) yes, but the next one

c) no

I got some feedback proposing as an alternative, two questions as following:

“Should the Euros be mixed gender mandatory?” => Yes or No

"When should it happen? " => “Next Euros (2027)” or “the season after next Euros”

It is basically two different ways to adress the same question, but it might introduce differents biases depending the way it is asked.

[personal opinion Romain]: we need to make it the clearer and easier to answer].

Emílio and Rita provided a draft, edited by all and registered in the proposed vote text below.

2.c - How to handle “non expressed voices”, there’s two kind in voting: Abstention, and blank vote. it has been debated here already and in Bern if I remember correctly.

[Personal input (Romain): I don’t think we can take care of abstention since we don’t have a sense, knowing the actual size of te community, but we could add a blank vote in the answers]. If blank vote is added, what happens if it reachs the greater number? (we need and answer to that if we want to provide a blank vote).

It was discussed that having the option to abstain but not counting it seems unfair. Having it there without counting it is a way of registering and acknowledging the opinion of people who don’t believe in this vote. Taking into account a majority of abstentions has the same effect that when (c) wins. Having a not counted abstention vote is a nice to have datapoint, anyway, complementing the “aditional info” listed above.

There could be an open text field for people to justify their abstentions if they want to, as this answer would be for people who don’t agree with the decision making procedure being adopted by the EHBA. We voted in the meeting to keep the abstention with a free text field.

2.d - Introduction text We’ll need to present the vote, it possible issues and the way it has been constructed to be as transparent as possible. This links both chapters (depending on the “platform” used to vote and it will conclude the work since it will be a clarification of all other questions.

Emílio and Rita provided a draft, edited by all and registered in the proposed vote text below.

VOTE TEXT:

context: This votes serves to answer whether the EHBC should be held as a mixed-gender mandatory tournament within the next two seasons. It is designed to collectively reach a decision by involving the European bike polo players who are interested in the competitive side of the sport. Votes are counted individually (one vote per person) to make it the most democratic as possible. This vote is organized and legitimized by the European Hardcourt Bikepolo Association (EHBA) in collaboration with the clubs who are interested in hosting the EHBC and other volunteers. The EHBA will contact the country representatives, which in turn will gather votes from the clubs in each region.

mixed-gender: teams members are not all of the same gender.

who is eligible to vote: Players who have played tournaments for more than a year. Local context is important, and clubs can validate edge cases.

the question: Should the European Hardcourt Bikepolo Championship (EHPC) be played as a mixed-gender mandatory tournament?

the answers:

a) yes, ASAP. The EHBC 2027 should be mixed-gender mandatory, or alternatively I want the next edition after that to be mixed-gender mandatory.

b) yes, but only after this season. The EHBC 2027 should be open, but I want the next edition after that to be mixed-gender mandatory.

c) no. The EHBC should not be mixed-gender mandatory in the next two seasons.

d) other. I want to register my reasons to not choose from the options above. [FOLLOWED BY A FREE TEXT INPUT FIELD]

how it will be counted: We look at the proportion of votes between options (a), (b) and (c). If there are more votes for (a) and (b) combined than for (c), it is decided that the EHBC will be held in a mixed-gender mandatory format. In this case, if (a) has more votes than (b) it will happen in 2027; and if (b) has more votes than (a), in the season after that. If option (c) has more votes than (a) + (b) combined, the EHBC will still be held in open format in the foreseeable future. Inputs in (d) are registered but not counted towards the result. Each person can only vote in one of the options.

privacy disclaimer: Country representatives have access to the collected information from their respective countries, and the EHBA has access to data submitted by all countries. From the required vote information, the EHBA will publish the amount of votes per region. The optional information is for secondary use, and the EHBA might publish derived content from this data. The EHBA will not publish any identifiable private information (such as names and e-mail addresses).

We discussed about how to enforce the legitimacy of the vote, and wrote that the EHBA will support it, but it depends on everybody a little bit to “be the EHBA” and make sure that the results of the vote are enforced.

what’s next:

• Levin sends Romain a list of countries.
• Romain creates the forms and spreadsheets and adds the instructions on the text above.
• We test it on the group
• We release it by mid-august.
• Vote deadline probably 15 of September.

Please let me know if I misrepresented something in this post. I can edit it.

[flat_humour]

Thanks again to everyone for your efforts!

Keep in mind that no vote will ever be perfect, but it is better to have an imperfect one over none. And in any case, the main thing will be to get maximum participation and then it shouldn‘t depend on two or three fringe cases anyway.

I would like to ask if we want to include a question about EHBA elections? It has been a topic for a while and we could use this oportunity to finally bring it to the table. I think we shouldn‘t let that pass! Something like:

„Are you in favor of holding elections for EHBA board in (proposed timeframe) within the same voting structure“

What do you think?

[diMeh]

Hi everyone,

I’m opening this thread to share a few thoughts on the proposal for mandatory FINTA quotas at major championships. The desire to grow our community and foster inclusion is completely legitimate and shared by all of us. However, I strongly believe that forcing this rule introduces serious core issues that we need to address honestly before anyone casts a vote on the matter.

If we take an objective look at the FINTA player pool in France today, the numbers speak for themselves: out of roughly 40 female/FINTA players, only one is an ‘A-hat’ player (a level she reached well before mandatory mixed tournaments became common). A few are ‘B-hats’, while the vast majority are ‘C-hats’. In contrast, the male player pool consists of about thirty A-level players, many Bs, and plenty of Cs.

Trying to enforce a FINTA quota with this ratio is a mathematical impossibility for high-level competition. It mechanically forces A-level teams to pick up B or C players, creating a massive skill gap within rosters.

This will lead to frustration across the board:

• For A-level players: whose competitive ambitions and years of hard work get constrained.

• For C-level players: who are thrust into a pace and intensity that don’t match their current skill level.

This analysis relies on the French player pool because that’s where I live and play every day, these are the local numbers and realities I know firsthand. But on a European scale, the picture is even blurrier: there is no comprehensive census of players and FINTA representation across the continent.

We are about to vote blind. We don’t even know if having one FINTA player per team is mathematically possible at the European level or within each domestic championship. There has been no structured debate or discussion across Europe, and if data exists, it has never been effectively shared. I understand the urgency linked to upcoming organization deadlines (such as Euros 2027 in Berlin or Montpellier), but the process feels deeply flawed.

Mixed-gender formats have been encouraged or enforced across many tournaments for over two years now. What is the actual outcome? Beyond individual talent, the real question is: what ingredients are actually being put into daily growth (training volume, consistency, technical drills) ?

Experience shows that simply multiplying mixed options at tournaments doesn’t magically create an elite player pool. You don’t raise the overall level by top-down decree, but through hard work on the court.

By imposing a quota during a shortage of A/B profiles, we risk abandoning the heart-team model built on friendship, strategic chemistry, and genuine human connection.

The negative side-effect is direct: tokenizing the few A and B players, turning them into simple ‘pawns’ that teams scramble for just to validate their registration spot.

The court should first and foremost operate on sporting logic and competitive integrity. Ensuring polo is a safe place for everyone is a given, but ideology shouldn’t take precedence over the sport itself, especially when we are already preaching to the converted.

Instead of imposing a top-down rule that weakens both elite competition and community ties, I propose a two-speed approach:

1. Major Championships (Euros, Worlds): Maintain a strict OPEN format to safeguard pure athletic performance, respect roster freedom, and allow the best teams to emerge.

2. Grassroots & Development Tournaments: Multiply minor alternative tournaments, workshops, training clinics, and dedicated events. It is by supporting daily progression from C to B and A levels that we will build a strong, sustainable, and legitimate FINTA pool.

To conclude, I don’t pretend for a moment to have all the answers, some information may have escaped me or never reached me. The point of my message is neither to create discord nor to cast doubt on anyone. I want to stress that I have deep respect for those taking initiative here, but asking these questions still feels completely legitimate.

Curious to hear your thoughts, the stats in your respective regions/countries, and where you stand on this !

[MaxLeChef]

If 40 is the number of FLINTA players, then it’s more than enough for french qualifiers and euros.

There is also a rule that says you need at least 3 out of 4 players to be from the said country. I can assure you that any team would find FLINTA players in euro countries without too much difficulties.

The idea of pushing mandatory mixed is also for clubs to organize “come try polo” sessions for FLINTA instead of just waiting for them to appear magically.

Because the society is made the way it is, sometimes we have to force things to help them change, like this matter. No one wants that, but this is needed.

[diMeh]

Thanks for your feedback Max, but I think there’s a misunderstanding regarding my previous message.

I never brought up the number of FINTA players to claim that forming teams was materially impossible. My point was solely about the reality of the current player pool to highlight the skill gap this creates in competition, especially in France.

Intro sessions, outreach, and integrating FINTA players belong to the community life of each individual club, depending on the energy and time local members can commit. How does imposing a rule on a purely competitive event like the European Championships relate to the internal management and development of local clubs ?

Polo has been inherently mixed ever since I started playing. I understand the rationale behind these proposals, but conflating local development with access rules for an international competition is not the right approach.

[flat_humour]

You are right about the fact that there is no census, but it feels like FINTA numbers have gone up a lot in the last couple of years, somehow parallel to mandatory mixed tournaments.
Numbers are also increasing more rapidly in places that hold those tournaments and sometimes even do FINTA only trainings.

I also have anectodal evidence it works..

Also, please take into consideration that no one (I would know) is proposing mandatory mixed forever. The vote now would be about one year, after that let participants decide if the idea was good or bad?

I am completely okay with the decision if we decide to keep the format open, but very happy that we get to decide. I am just answering your points @diMeh

[flat_humour]

I think the feeling of some people is that the format was always open, maybe once we can try something else..

[diMeh]

Yes, the mandatory mixity would only be for one or two years if I understood correctly, which is what I was also pointing out in my first message. There really is a noticeable improvement in the number of FINTA players, which I also see thanks to the growth of new mixed tournaments and “legacy” tournaments that have sometimes adopted the format.

What I clearly wanted to get at is that, in my view, having more mixed tournament options is a great thing. So are local initiatives aimed at giving FINTA players the best environment to develop, like dedicated training sessions, access to safe spaces, small development tournaments (like the Ligue du Soleil in France and Northern Spain, for example), FINTA-only tournaments, and so on. I think that’s where we’ve made huge progress in Europe since 2024.

I simply believe that national championships, EH and WHC should follow an athletic logic rather than an ideological one. Like you, I’ll back whatever the majority decides, whichever way it goes. Great reading your thoughts, bro !