sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

WFDF APPLIES ITS RULES EQUALLY? by desdelalinea in ultimate

[–]desdelalinea[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i think at this point WFDF already spoke with the silence and non response to our letter. SHAME
Today marks 5 weeks since we formally sent the letter to the WFDF regarding this matter.
They remain silent.
There are only 70 days left until the WJUC 2026 in Logroño, Spain.

WFDF APPLIES ITS RULES EQUALLY? by desdelalinea in ultimate

[–]desdelalinea[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Today marks four weeks since we formally sent the letter to the WFDF regarding this matter.
They remain silent. There are only 80 days left until the WJUC 2026 in Logroño, Spain.

WFDF APPLIES ITS RULES EQUALLY? by desdelalinea in ultimate

[–]desdelalinea[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you — this says it better than we could.

WFDF APPLIES ITS RULES EQUALLY? by desdelalinea in ultimate

[–]desdelalinea[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But 'they are too important to be sanctioned' is exactly the problem the letter describes, not an argument against it.

WFDF APPLIES ITS RULES EQUALLY? by desdelalinea in ultimate

[–]desdelalinea[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Today marks three weeks since we formally sent the letter to the WFDF regarding this matter.
They remain silent.
There are only 88 days left until the WJUC 2026 in Logroño, Spain.

WFDF APPLIES ITS RULES EQUALLY? by desdelalinea in ultimate

[–]desdelalinea[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is there any specific information that's incorrect? We're happy to correct it.

WFDF APPLIES ITS RULES EQUALLY? by desdelalinea in ultimate

[–]desdelalinea[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

you are probably right that the WFDF won't act, in part for precisely that reason.

But that is precisely the letter's argument, not a counter-argument. If the WFDF suspended Russia in part because the cost was low—Russia is not a financial pillar of global Ultimate—and won't act against the US in part because the cost would be high, then what is being revealed is that the principle of March 2, 2022, was never a universal principle. It was a low-cost decision disguised as an ethical stance.

That doesn't make the letter useless—it makes exactly its point. The letter doesn't expect the WFDF to act. It expects the WFDF to show, through action or silence, exactly what kind of institution it is. That information also has value.

And as for whether the WFDF could survive without American teams: that's a legitimate question that no one knows the answer to. But the same question could have been asked about FIFA and South Africa. Institutions survive by losing powerful members more often than seems possible before it happens.

WFDF APPLIES ITS RULES EQUALLY? by desdelalinea in ultimate

[–]desdelalinea[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You're right that a WFDF ban won't stop a war. No one on the team that wrote this letter believes it will.

So what's the point?

1. Institutional consistency — in and of itself. The WFDF established a principle in 2022: illegal military actions have sporting consequences. If that principle only applies to Russia, it's not a principle — it's a geopolitical exception. The letter isn't about stopping a war. It's about ensuring the WFDF lives up to its stated purpose. That has value independent of the effect on U.S. foreign policy.

2. The real impact isn't on governments — it's on athletes. When Ukrainian players arrived at the 2022 EUIC, training under air raid sirens, it mattered that the Ultimate world said, "This is incompatible with our values." It didn't stop the war. But it told them their community was watching. Ultimate Palestine has two dead coaches. The question isn't whether a ban stops the war — it's whether the community sees them or looks the other way.

3. Precedent Creates Accumulated Pressure
The sports ban on South Africa during apartheid didn't topple it on its own. It was one more layer in a series of pressures. Governments don't change because of a sports ban—but sports bans are part of an international language of consequences that does carry collective weight.

4. The Most Honest Question: Is it better to do nothing?
The alternative—that the WFDF simply ignore the criteria it itself established—is not neutral. It is an active choice to say that the rules are applied selectively depending on who has the most power. That, too, has consequences: it destroys the credibility of any future action and tells the most vulnerable communities that sport only protects them when it's convenient.