TTE Post Olympics 2024

The glory, the despair, the expected victories, the unexpected victories, outperformances or under-achievement. Probably the most difficult part was the post-event interviews. Catching people at their most vulnerable, their highest or lowest emotional points. It all made for great theatre. Plenty to make us all proud.

But what about table tennis?

Mostly on pay TV. All of the gold taken away by China.

Gold                                   Silver                                  Bronze

Men’s Singles                                  China                                  Sweden                             France

Women’s Singles                             China                                  China                                 Japan

Mixed Doubles                                China                                  North Korea                      South Korea

Men’s Team                                     China                                  Sweden                             France

Women’s Team                               China                                  Japan                                 South Korea

But it could have been more, but for the regulations.

172 table tennis quota places, with an equal split between men and women, were available for Paris 2024; NOCs could enter a maximum of six table tennis players across five medal events (men’s and women’s singles; men’s and women’s teams, and mixed doubles) with a maximum of two each for the men’s and women’s singles.[3] The host nation France reserved a direct spot each in the men’s and women’s teams, respectively, with one per gender competing in the singles tournament; and in the mixed doubles (previously inaugurated in Tokyo 2020)

Sweden and the home nation, France will probably be delighted with their medals. Possibly better than they expected.

But what about GB

Anna Hersey had a tough draw and lost 1-4 in the round of 64. Liam Pitchford had an expected win and then an expected defeat 2-4 in the round of 32. GB did not have teams qualify for the Team events or the doubles event.

This is disappointing since the stated top target of the Table Tennis United strategy was a medal at the Paris Olympics. Who set that as realistic target? Who thought that was ever going to happen? Obviously not somebody who knew anything about table tennis.

So, we now have to tender for funding for the next cycle going to Los Angeles 2028. Looking at our current players, the only with the remotest chance of challenging in 2028 is Anna Hersey. Even that will be entirely reliant on her maximising the benefit of her Chinese dynasty and connections. Good luck to Anna in this respect.

Perhaps, we need to plan more towards the Olympic Games in 2032 in Brisbane. But our funding cycles are only from one Olympic Games to the next. Not much forward planning possible.

We can only hope that UK Sport and Sport England do not undertake any due diligence when granting funding going forward. We are not even competing in European events. So, what chance on the global stage?  Then consider this zero future return against the glory that we can enjoy with Skateboarding, BMX bikes, Rock Climbing and Trampolining where success is being achieved and is likely to recur. Using that equation, any money put into table tennis will be wasted. Public money being wasted is getting more unlikely in our economic position or with the new government.

So, table tennis should probably budget to receive no funding based on Olympic medal potential. Although Para Table Tennis may well have some success and therefore there may be reflected glory for GBTT and by extension TTE.

If we are considering future performance, what are we currently doing about that? The current CEO has overseen the dismantling of our top tournament structure, our coaching structure and I do not know where performance is currently placed. Bur without coaching and a decent, fit for purpose tournament structure, we are not going to have anybody able to qualify for the Performance pathway. 

To this day, we are still struggling with a dismantled and expensive tournament and event structure.  If it was not fit for purpose previously, it is difficult to find adjectives to describe it now.

 I understand that Cambridge 4* is no longer proceeding. This was the first of the replacements for the Grand Prix events. The Grand Prix events were expensive, but oversubscribed. This event was even more expensive and did not get enough entries to make it viable to proceed.  I feel sorry for Dan Bullen who must have metaphorically jumped through hoops to satisfy all the regulations, only to be let down by TTE.

 The table below may give some idea about why it failed.

Anyone who knows anything about tournament play would know that most players would enter more than one event. Therefore, the new tournament is considerably more expensive than the previous successful Grand Prix events.

Not only are the entry fees expensive, but the prize money (sic) is derisory. Even the winner of the event will not have recovered their entry fee. Indeed, the vouchers are only for use with TeesSports. I am not knocking the generosity of Alan Ransome, but the unrealistic, unrewarding and therefore unattractive prize structure put in place by TTE.

There are fewer events available and no banded events. 

In Financial Services, the Consumer Duty has been introduced with a view to customers/clients being the focus of the business with a view to them planning for or getting good outcomes.  As far as the membership of TTE, currently it is getting a very poor outcome that shows no planning towards providing good outcomes in the future.  

Not only is the Competition Review failing, the tournament structure is in bits. We have various tournament organisers running different events outside of the control of TTE and tournament calendar.  So, we appear to be moving towards parallel structures. This is not a good outcome for the Membership.

The bits under control of TTE are being spoiled as time goes on. The VBL does not fit into the Derby velodrome  and various divisions are being adjusted to try to fit everything in. But the VBL has been successful because it has had a format of matches, teams and schedules.  But now some of the divisions are different sizes, involving fewer matches, but significantly higher expense.  

2023/4               

VBL Premier Division                                     £461 + £42 per player                    Minimum payment £587

VBL Other divisions                                       £415 + £42 per player                    Minimum payment £541

2024/5                                                           Premier Club                     Associate Club                     Registered Teams

VBCL Premier Division                                  £520                                   £570                                   £620     

VBCL Other divsions                                     £605                                   £655                                   £705

Entry costs cover all player registration

We have never been advised how profitable any of the events are. This is important for people considering running an event under the auspices of TTE.

So, circling back to the funding round for the Los Angeles Olympics 2028, table tennis is in a very weak position.

In 2019 we had a competition structure, although not fit for purpose, according to the performance team.

We had a coaching structure.

We had a performance pathway that was due to restart producing good players.

In 2024, we have a competition structure in turmoil. Largely fragmented.

A coaching structure that has been dismantled and not yet replaced.

I have no idea where the performance pathway is going, but we have very few players who are contenders on the world stage.

Yet our current CEO took the opportunity at the AGM in July to say that his inheritance from the previous regime was weak.

Words fail me.

Tony Catt

National Councillor, Sussex