I don’t understand this “athletic” logic.
To start with, there are plenty of good FINTA players. I was at the Hell’s Bellxs and Berlin Mixed, I can confirm that.
On the second hand, IF that was not the case and IF that would lower the tournament level, that would mean that it would be the case for every teams. If you lower it for everybody, then it’s the same difficulty for everybody also, so the athletic logic would say that it’s still the same difficulty to win a tournament.
Max, you understood exactly what I said, and the last part of your message proves it 
To be perfectly clear about the reality of the issue in a European Championship with 40 teams, the current proportion of FINTA players is around 10% (probably less, though I don’t have the exact numbers). By making roster mixity mandatory, we would be enforcing a minimum of 25% FINTA players, or even more if some decide to team up together.
This gap creates two major issues. What happens to the 15% of players who will get dropped from their teams just to make room ? Without generalizing, this is a reality we need to confront some FINTA players will be picked up solely to tick a regulatory box, rather than for the team’s competitive goals. Personally, I play within a mix of competitive drive and genuine friendship you know how it is in Perpignan, we were friends long before polo, and we will be long after. Men only.
Factually speaking, are there currently 40 FINTA players able to meet the athletic and technical demands of this level ? The reality on the court speaks for itself: if you look at the top 10 from the last Euros in Perpignan, there wasn’t a single FINTA player.
but what level are we talking about? it’s completely arbitrary..
like, in polo you would probably count me as one of those who have a “right” to play euros; yet I never train and would be kicked out of any 3rd league football team.
there are 48 high level polo teams in europe if it’s not mandatory mixed, you say?
and of course it’s sad for og teams if they have to split up (for this one tournament) because of change of format, but who knows, maybe you will make new friends along the way 
And yet, it feels like we don’t say the same thing. My point is that if that was the case, the difficulty remains the same. It will anyway be as difficult for any team to win the tournament. That doesn’t make the tournament easier.
Hi,
Thank you everyone who got involved in this process and that are motivated to make things move.
Here are my 2 cents regarding this topic.
It’s only about organization and not about the “the answer”.
First of all, I’m very surprised of how few people are involved and how everyone complained about EHBA in the past (including me) and now are doing exactly the same thing without having been elected not even a single time.
The idea of Remi and many others to first structure or re structure EHBA sounds good.
To me it also looks like one of Berlin argument is “you don’t make an omelette without breaking eggs”. I’m not sure bike polo is in good health enough to risk loosing players for whatever reason.
Then, regarding the time plan. We are at the middle of August and the answer is wanted for September with a few messages on Poloverse and one on Telegram. It has been seen in the past that big surveys use to take much more time to get a big amount of answers.
Regarding the method, I’m worried about the control of the results. I think France is the only country in Europe with a fully functional committee and it doesn’t even have a proper count of players. Even in clubs it’s sometimes hard to know who is in or not. The result will be very highly dependant on the representative people and nobody knows how they were chosen. Promoting a fully democratic tool by starting this way sounds a bit weird.
Then comes the “question” itself.
There are basically 4 choices with two “yes” and one “no”.
The question is clearly orientated written that way and forces a first interpretation in the count of the results. It also turns the “no” in a kind of wrong answer.
The example is stupid but what if someone wants mandatory mixted for 2027 and not for 2028 ?
The Yes are on two timings (yes now, yes later) which is good btw.
I get that Berlin has a very strong position about all of that but this rush doesn’t look good to me, knowing that there is another plan (MTP) and that structured committees seem to work (with more time of course).
To finish : I hope I don’t offend anyone and it’s not an attack in any way. English is not my mother language so if there is anything that sounds really bad in the text above don’t hesitate to tell me.
Thank you.
Yes, good point!
And what about someone who would like to answer: yes for X editions.
(I know people who would like to try it for at least 2 or 3 editions, to see how it would evolve; which btw is something I like too).
Thanks to everyone for taking the time to write this out.
Whether mandatory mixity is desirable is ultimately a (political) question of what we want the Euros and the development of our sport to achieve. That’s precisely why I think it should be decided collectively, rather than assuming that one set of possible consequences automatically determines “the right way”. The fact that there are currently fewer FINTA players at Euros level doesn’t necessarily mean that there aren’t enough capable players. It may also be a consequence of the opportunities and incentives created by the current system.
The country/local reps are facilitators, not gatekeepers of the result. Their role is to make sure eligible players receive the link (for the vote) and help validate participation, they don’t need to be elected or part of a formally functioning committee to perform that role (also expecting every country to first establish a formally elected committee before someone can send out a voting link might mean we’ll be voting sometime around 2050).
The (vote-) question isn’t designed to make “no” a wrong answer. It reflects the actual options that have been discussed: mandatory mixity now, mandatory mixity later, or no mandatory mixity. These are three different positions, and “no” remains a completely valid answer.
Restructure EHBA? Great idea! But who is going to take the initiative? In a loosely organised community like ours, every improvement starts with people stepping up and trying to make things happen. I think we should support and help those who take that initiative before criticising the process without offering a concrete alternative and helping hands. The current process is simply an attempt to move forward on an issue that needs a decision now.
I´d say let’s use this process to see where we can improve things for the next vote and mobilise people who are willing to facilitate change.
Hi Rita,
Thank you for this complete answer.
I did not participate and I’m not choosing anything but I still disagree with the method.
Regarding the countries representatives, if they are not controlling anything, who will do it ? I understand that I don’t have the same point of view on the polo community and I fully respect how you see things. To me, people we trust (elected or whatsoever) should hold the thing.
For important matters like this you can easily have poor participation (or worst) if one representative is too lazy (or worst).
Regarding the question, what I describe is what I feel from that design. I spoke with a few people and I don’t think I’m the only one. I’m not saying it’s oriented on purpose to cheat of course. It’s just my feedback since Emilio invited people to speak here.
That’s it for me. Thanks again for having read and answered.
As someone from Montpellier who hopes to help organise the next European Championship, I joined the working group that prepared this vote, even though I still question its legitimacy. I oppose this vote for several reasons, and I want to explain them as constructively as I can.
On the mandatory mixed European Championship
I care deeply about a more diverse and inclusive FLINTA bike polo community. But I don’t believe that making the Euro a mandatory mixed tournament is the right way to get there.
Bike polo is many things at once: a sport, a community, a space to compete, whatever each of us needs it to be. Yet at its root it will always be a sport, with games, winners, losers and champions. I value having several dimensions to it, and I’d like to keep at least one space where the goal is simply for the best players and the best teams to win, whatever their identity or background. That’s only three tournaments every two years: country championships, Euros and Worlds. Everything else can be whatever we want it to be.
My concern is that the proposed approach is top-down and offers a single solution. The vote includes only this option, and leaves no room for those who imagine another way to grow the FLINTA bike polo community.
To me it would make more sense to build from the base: our training, our regular competitions (opens, leagues, and so on), and making those more diverse. That diversity would, in turn, produce strong players able to reach Euro finals and win MVP at Worlds.
This is already happening, thanks to the growing number of dedicated tournaments. In Montpellier, our biggest event for the past two years has been our mixed tournament across three courts. Berlin’s mixed tournament matters as much as the Euros to the people who play it and to the teams who win it. We simply need to give it a few years and look honestly at the results.
I understand the argument that our society is patriarchal, and that space is not shared equally between men and FLINTA players. But do we really believe that a mandatory mixed Euro will change the situation inside our clubs?
If we, as a community, want to apply positive discrimination, we could instead write a charter to that effect. Every club wishing to take part in the next Euro, to belong to the EHBA and to European bike polo, would sign it. That charter could set out good practices, and also require each club to show real FLINTA development at the local level: initiation sessions, tournaments, and so on.
On the next host for the Euro
We want a more diverse bike polo community, and I believe that statement would reach consensus. So why not apply the same principle to who organises the European Championship? Berlin has already hosted it at least once (I don’t know the full history). Montpellier never has. If diversity is our value, let’s live it in our choice of hosts too.
And to be clear about our own bid: in Montpellier we have not locked ourselves into a single format for the Euros we would host. They could be open, or mandatory mixed.
You can see our full bid here: montpellierbikepolo.fr
On building a proper European organisation
If we decide now who will host the next Euro, we give ourselves a little more time to organise the community and to debate, calmly, the direction we want bike polo to take. We wouldn’t have to make these decisions in a rush.
Yes.
It would help in many ways (non exhaustive list) :
I’ll ask the question in a different way : do we really believe that mandatory mixed euros won’t change the situation inside our clubs ?
to think that bike polo is more inclusive to flinta players because there isnt an other option to play anyway is a bit radical.
the sport itself , its rules and sport mechanism as a whole is an elitisite take , the actions performed by the athletes are highly demanding and at a same time , the format of games , the ruleset remains confusing in many ways.
for me the next step of thinking about inclusivity is a re work of the sport to dissolve what makes it , also , gender elitist , by doing so flinta players ( and most regular players ) will be fully included.
this is something i can develop more precisely but for the actual question of a mixed mandatory for this year berlin euro i would ask : what is the whbpc official bid and format saying ? are we looking at also making it mixed ? im all for mixed mandatory tournament where it works, where the flinta demands is growing , but what about clubs without them ? " go and hire them" is the regular answer , i find it again a bit radical.a lot of clubs , teams , countries will be obviously left out. non mixed tournaments will obviously keep on happening.
we would be proudly announcing that our main tournaments ( euro/ whbpc) are mixed tho , the “highest level play” finals would always count flinta players … but there still will be non mixed tournaments happening to fill the demand.
@MaxLeChef to answer imo mixed mandatory is the right thing to do “ethicaly” but without a real change in the games mechanism somehow i dont see it actually “changing our clubs” or the actual inclusivity of the game, in its core.
anyway all of this is just opinion ! lets vote about this and move forward ! mixed or not, bike polo still will be playable by everyone.
POLITICS
i just wanted to ask to @Romana and liza to read this with love and respect, as i cant understand what you are going through myself , only by following you accounts i can imagine the impact that war has on your life.
i would like to say tho that civilians are rarely the ones that vouch for war , imperialist forces are not resumed to a passport, and most of us should be ban from competing if we had to be accountable for our countries act.
unless a particular polo player is being vocal about validating such values like facism , imperialism , neo colonialism , i dont think a whole country should be banned…
thank u for reading
Hi everybody! Here with a few more news and updates from the process:
I’m editing this post as new information comes long. To find the post again, just click on the link currently on top of every Poloverse page.
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.
(if this option wins, Montpellier and Berlin publish bids for Euros mixed in 2027)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.
(if this option wins, Montpellier hosts the Euros open in 2027)c) no. The EHBC should not be mixed-gender mandatory in the next two seasons.
(if this option wins, Montpellier hosts the Euros open in 2027)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.
Hi Emilio,
Could you please add Ireland to the list? I’m sure Kropa, Fiona, Jimbo or Johnny could help with representatives. I can forward this to them if they have not reached out yet. Thank you
Yes! Please forward it to them, decide who can take the job and make sure someone contacts @Levin. Country reps will be responsible for collecting the votes in their region.
Hi emilio ! thanks for framing the public conversation and the recap.
i vouched for a different poll. i know its convenient to fit a few questions in one poll but it will definetly play against the “legitimacy” part
“should the upcoming euro be mixed mandatory asap” yes / no should be the only question.
each question is a party, actually each question is 2 party.
by adding 3 options + other you splitting the voting population into an infinity of partys.
having an “other” is the worst. if necessary we shall organize another turn of voting but i dont think you will obtain representative results.
hi benji,
i can understand your concerns on having too many options but the counting rule has already built in precisely this problem: (a) and (b) are added together and set against (c). This is not splitting. it is essentially a two-stage process within a single vote. first: ‘mixed yes/no’ (a+b vs. c), then, if ‘yes’, the tie-breaker question ‘when’ (a vs. b) which stays unclear in your proposal. Anyone who thinks ‘mixed, but it doesn’t matter when’ does not lose any weight as a result.
d) ‘other’ is explicitly not counted. It therefore cannot dilute the result at all it’s purely an additional information and gives non-voters a platform.
Structurally, the design already does what your are calling for and is not loosing any ‘legitimacy’.
Hay I’m the rep for Ireland and I will pass this to the club .
Hay I just want to add few thing . I’m involved in Bike polo for about 16 years , over that time few things I love about the sport was ( non political ) I’m strongly disagree with Russia politics or Belarus for that instance but growing up in east Poland during communism I would still include Russia in the vote as ordinary people who are citizens of those countries who fight their own battles back home .
Second is ( inclusive ) - I think the No vote would be seen as a community or individual against Flinta , people who know me know my position about this , I respect everyone the same , I never not play with someone because the gender, sexuality or any other reason . I play with anyone, for all my years I never deny anyone because they are Flinta but rather the level depending on the tournament.
For all my years Polo was inclusive as teams and or individual players form teams, it was always decided more into competitive tournaments ( Euros , Worlds ) where some people never wanted to be a part as they were to competitive, and more relaxed tournaments. People could choose the ones they want to participate in and form teams , I don’t see why making it mandatory accomplish anything. There are women , Flinta only tournaments and polo community never complained about this .
My fear is that we creating a problem that it wasn’t there . I play for many years in all levels and I’m never invited to some tournaments but I don’t hold the grudges as I’m not seen on the level required for them and that’s fine . I dont feel discriminated because I can’t play in Flinta tournaments and I respect everyone and I believe anyone is welcome to play and supported , I don’t see why creating mandatory mixed is more important that mandatory under 21 player in the team .
I love you all and support everyone player to the same extent and just want community to grow.
hi frie,
my proposal is "yes or no for mandatory mixed this season " of course , and the only when that matters is for the upcoming euro and organization for mtp or berlin to carry their bid.
your system is interesting but you will loose that through the voting process as people will use the form in all type of situation, with all type understanding.
even of you explain this system of voting in the form,
a percentage of people will get mislead by it , especially the “other” option might be understood by someone as a way to add something that was left out (like other types of inclusivness left out by the flinta focused season)
so really , making it a complex a+b vs c with a blank d is kinda dragging…
can we at least tell me why a simple one question poll isnt considered ? is this poll not about specifically berlin’s bid being mandatory mix ?
to me “would you like 2029 euros to be mixed gender mandatory” should be another different poll, that could be done now too, but a completely different poll.
it was considered, and evolved into the current one after a few rounds of conversation, as it seemed to be a push for “mixed but not right now” as well.
no. berlin initially offered to have a bid for mixed euros in 2027, but the committee decided that it would be better to separate the gender question from the city question. so this poll is not about berlin’s bid, but about the euros in general.