Page 1 of 45
Table Tennis England
Competition Review 2021
Update & Membership Consultation
Contents Page
1. Introduction 2
SECTION A
2. Goal, Scope & Aims 3
3. Process & Timeframe 4
SECTION B
4. For Information:
a. Competition Mapping 5
b. Competition financing 10
c. External Insight 11
d. Contextual Info 12
e. Player Reports 16
SECTION C
5. Membership Consultation & Insight: 17
a. Open feedback
b. Forums
c. Insight interviews
6. Next Steps 27
7. Appendices
a. Steering Group 28
b. Competition Mapping data 29
c. Notes from Competition Insight meetings 33
d. Player Reports 43
e. Forums/ Insight Interviews 45
vers 1.5 08/01/22
Page 2 of 45
1. Introduction
The Table Tennis England Board have agreed a review of the Competition programme.
The review is being led by the Head of Competition & Events, supported by a Steering Group The Steering
Group (see Appendix A) comprises a cross-section of the Table Tennis England membership, balancing
expertise and key representation; their role is to: monitor, guide, and sense-check. Additionally, three
members of the Steering Group, together with the Head of Competition & Events, form a Project Team; their
role is to: drive and execute the review.
The Table Tennis England competition programme is complex and inter-connected, and has grown organically
into its current form over many years.
Previous competition reviews in 2009 and 2014 led to valuable refinements but no fundamental changes. It is
now considered that appetite exists within the membership for a more in-depth consideration of
opportunities.
Table Tennis England will undertake a root-and-branch review of domestic competition in order to address a
number of known issues and ensure the programme is fit-for-purpose to meet the needs of our members.
The purpose and structure of this document is:
Section A: to share details of the project
Section B: to share relevant information to inform members’ understanding
Section C: to invite structured feedback from the membership as part of the consultation phase
Following the consultation process, we will use the feedback to help inform decisions.
If you have any queries after reading this document, please contact Neil Rogers, Head of Competitions &
Events neil.rogers@tabletennisengland.co.uk
Thank you sincerely for your input and insight.
Neil Rogers
Head of Competition & Events
October 2021
Page 3 of 45
SECTION A
2a. Goal
The Goal of the review is to deliver: “the right format, frequency, location and standard of competition across
all demographics, for existing and potential members”
2b. Scope
The Scope of the review is:
• IN scope: national competition programmes that sit within Table Tennis England governance/ delivery
(including tournaments, sanctioned events, national leagues, schools)
• OUT of scope: social competition, and competition programmes that do not sit within Table Tennis
England governance/ delivery (including VETTS, BUCS, local leagues
1
)
2c. Aims
The Aims of the review are to:
1. Reduce current levels of ‘calendar congestion’ and unsustainable burden on available officials, whilst
identifying appropriate space in the calendar for events and performance squad commitments
2. Engender a more sustainable delivery approach; reduce financial cost to Table Tennis England and
external organisers, and provide Value for Money for players
3. Facilitate opportunity for more creative and innovative external/ sanctioned event formats
4. Provide greater quality assurance of external/ sanctioned events
5. Encourage a more equal geographical spread of tournaments
6. Create ‘upward pressure’ through a pathway of tournament events (must balance with #2)
7. Prepare talented athletes experientially for international competition
8. Deliver greater opportunity to identified gaps in TTE demographic, including Women & Girls, and
accessible integrated competition for athletes with disabilities
9. Consider extent of future integration of schools events into core structures
2
10. Assess the relative benefit of existing programme events
11. Offer an objective basis for removal of existing lower-value competitions from the programme
12. Deliver a high-quality & inclusive event environment
13. Deliver a high-quality player experience
1
Delivery and format of Local League sits outside TTE purview, and - both practically and in terms of member
engagement - local league is very much a ‘concurrent opportunity’ rather than a linked structure. Whilst an
understanding of member experience, appetites and opportunities are fully integrated in the consultation and insight
processes, it is not necessarily considered at this stage that Local Leagues would be directly impacted by this review
process or by short-term anticipated change
2
Following the integration of ESTTA (the English Schools Table Tennis Association) and Table Tennis England in 2017, this
specific aim will be explored directly with the Table Tennis England Schools Committee and focussed on internal
structures and support
Page 4 of 45
3. Process & Timeframe
The anticipated Process and Timeframe for the review is:
Process
Detail
Phase 1
– 6 months
✓ Mapping
Identify all event details on common template to provide global
map of competitive opportunity
✓ Insight1
External: research exercise to provide illustrations and
possibilities - other benchmark NGBs in England and other TT
associations in Europe
✓ Enabler
Implementation of changes to Junior/ U19 age-group
3
✓ Enabler
Alignment of TTE National Championships and Cups with ITTF
age-groups: U11, U13, U15, U17, U19, U21 & Seniors
4
✓ Enabler
Launch of ‘TT Leagues’ fixtures/ results platform for national
league programmes
5
Consultation
a) Open membership consultation, inc. specific targeted
questions
b) Forums to be held with key stakeholder groups
Insight2
Internal: establish narrative insight via targeted interactions with
c.20 knowledgeable members of TTE community + TASS women
and girls research outcomes
Analysis
Analysis of consultation feedback
Decision1
Update to Board inc. key principles, agreement to proceed and
projected costings related to subsequent phases
Phase 2
– 6 months
Update/ consult
With MAG and National Council on key principles
Modelling
Outline modelling of future events and overall programme
Decision2
Outline proposal to Board for in-principle agreement; principles
to filter into scheduling/ arrangements for ‘23/24 season
Enabler
Background launch of new rankings system
Phase 3
Development
Detailed development of events and overall programme
Enabler
Explore options for i) Online League Entry module, and ii)
endorsed Tournament Management platform for national and
sanctioned events
Enabler
Launch of Online Tournament Entry module (TBC)
Enabler
Full launch of new rankings system (TBC)
Enabler
Development of Memoranda of Understanding with BUCS and
VETTS (TBC)
6
Decision3
Full agreement by Board
4
Implement1
Phased/ partial implementation & progression of identified
dependencies
5
Implement2
Full implementation
The process with ✓ have been completed.
We have now reached the processes highlighted in yellow.
3
Junior category extended to under-19— Table Tennis England
4
Competitions: Changes come into effect for new season— Table Tennis England
5
Big developments on TT Leagues for new season— Table Tennis England
6
Update 15/12/21 - originally envisaged as a practically enabling approach to support the Review due to delays to
Membership Project Pt.II (arsing in part from COVID); Board now agreed a discrete project separate to the Review
Page 5 of 45
SECTION B
4a. Competition Mapping
The first step of the review has been to map the current national programmes on a common template, in
order that members can have a comprehensive picture of activity and opportunities.
This includes all national Table Tennis England events, three (of five) 4* events as an illustration of national
sanctioned events, as well as BUCS and VETTS as significant national events in the calendar.
The detailed breakdown of this exercise with full quantifications can be seen in Appendix B
This information is presented in a more general and digestible format as i) a visual representation, ii) a
narrative description, and iii) geographically.
Page 6 of 45
i) visual representation of the competition programme:
Page 7 of 45
ii) a narrative description of the competition programme:
TTE-led Competitions
Programme
Description
Mark Bates Ltd. National
Championships (closed)
A series of three annual KO tournaments for men’s and women’s individuals
and doubles pairings at U11 & U13s, Cadet, U17 & Junior, and Para & U21 &
Senior (open) age-groups. Restricted to the top32 England-eligible players,
determined by rankings (and additionally through a separate qualification
event for Senior, and leaderboard at 4* events for Cadet and Junior)
National Cups (closed)
A series of three annual tournaments for boys and girls at Cadet, Junior and
Senior age-groups, played in a round-robin format. Restricted to the top10
England-eligible players, determined by rankings. The Senior event is new/
aspirational for season 21/22
British League (BL) (open)
A national merit league structure, in varying formats, for clubs/ teams at
Junior boys and Junior girls (JBL), Senior (mixed/ open, SBL) Women’s (only,
WBL) and Veterans men’s and women’s (VBL) age-groups. BL is the premier
team-based competition in England, and also open to teams from other
Home Countries. BL comprises over 300 teams, 1,400+ players, competing at
c.30 home/ away fixtures, 6 national weekends & c.50 divisional weekends
Grand Prix (open)
A national series of five KO tournaments per season, held regionally,
consisting of a broad mix of age-groups and events including U21 men’s and
women’s singles, Senior (open) men’s and women’s singles and doubles,
Veterans open doubles, and multiple Senior (open) men’s and women’s
banded singles events determined by ranking points. Typically between 100-
180 entrants for each tournament, averaging 2-3 events each
County Championships
(closed)
A national merit league structure, hosted regionally below Premier level, for
representative teams selected on players’ TTE county affiliation, at men’s and
women’s Cadet, Junior, Senior, Veteran and Over-60 age-groups. Around
1,200 entrants. Also open to home countries counties.
National Cadet League
(NCL) & National Junior
Leagues (NJL) (open)
A programme of regionally-hosted league events, reconstituted on an annual
basis, for mixed-gender clubs/ teams at Cadet and Junior age-groups. Aimed
at grass-roots players, with c.250 Cadet and c.200 Junior participants
Inter-regional Qualifiers
(closed)
An annual event, held at the discretion of each the ten TTE regions
7
, and
potentially also incorporating regional championships in other age-groups, to
determine the individual regional qualifiers from boy’s and girl’s U11, U13 &
Cadet age-groups to attend the Inter-regional Finals. Restricted to England-
eligible players affiliated to TTE counties within a specific TTE region
Inter-regional Finals
(closed)
An annual KO tournament in both team and individual formats, at boy’s and
girl’s U11, U13 & Cadet age-groups, for c.200 singles and c.100 team
participants qualifying or selected from Inter-regional Qualifier events. The
event is specifically aimed at the tier of players below the top10, and
therefore entry is restricted to those outside the top10 rankings or already
invited to National Cups
7
Yorkshire, North West, North East, West Midlands, East Midlands, South West, South, London, South East, Eastern
Page 8 of 45
English League Cup
Competition (ELCC)
(closed)
An annual KO tournament in team format, at Junior and Senior age-groups,
for representative teams selected on players’ TTE local league participation.
A national finals event follows zonal qualification tournaments, with c.150
participants. This is the oldest event on the Table Tennis England calendar.
Butterfly Schools (closed)
Consists of both Team and Individual events, for boys and girls, at U11, U13,
U16 and U19 age-groups. Entrants represent their school and require
permission to compete. TTE deliver Regional and National finals in the team
event, and national finals in the individual event, following Borough Finals >
County Finals > Zone Finals delivered by schools at local level. National finals
consists of around 330 entrants to the individuals event, and 120 in the team
event.
Jack Petchey Schools
(closed)
With the support of the Jack Petchey Foundation, TTE also deliver the County
rounds of the Butterfly Schools competition in London & Essex, and the Zone
finals for the Team event in London. For the individual competition, there is
also a London Final for those qualifying from the County Finals
Externally-led Competitions
Description
Description
Local Leagues (open)
A wide-ranging annual merit league structure, club-based at local level, in
varying formats, typically for clubs/ teams at Senior (open) age-group. There
are c.230 sanctioned local leagues consisting of around 2,500 clubs fielding
7,000 teams. Local leagues are non-regulated but supported by TTE, and
typically take place on weekday evenings
1*, 2*, 3* & 4* events
(open)
A wide-ranging tournament programme, typically club-based at local level, in
varying formats. There are c.160 sanctioned 1*, 2*, 3* & 4* events each
season, regulated by TTE – these are the most frequent and accessible
tournament events for players
Satellite Grand Prix (open)
Complimentary event consistent with Grand Prix format, regulated by TTE,
but externally- rather than internally-led. Typically two events each season
held within UK but out with England (eg in Jersey and Wales)
VETTS (closed)
A national series of seven KO tournaments, held regionally, for members of
the VETTS organisation. Sanctioned and regulated by TTE at 40+ (Veteran)
age-group only, with additional non-regulated age-group events also held in
50+, 60+, 70+ & 80+ age-groups
Please note that for Season 21/22 Junior event eligibility has been changed from U18 to U19, and the age-
groups for National Championships and National Cups have been amended from previous seasons
Page 9 of 45
iii) the following diagram shows an illustration of Tournaments (only) by Geography, and includes national and
regulated events (inc 1*, 2*, 3* and 4* tournaments):
Page 10 of 45
4b. Competition Financing
An illustration of the operational event finances (only) of the regular Table Tennis England -delivered
programmes in 4a. is shown below:
These illustrations do not include the following income:
• Sponsorship (for events denoted *)
• Recoverable VAT for sponsored events (for events denoted *)
These illustrations do not include the following expenditure:
• Salaries and indirect staffing costs
• General office costs and IT support
• Broadcast and sponsorship support (for event denoted **)
• Support committee costs
• Equipment purchase and storage
• Irregular or one-off event costs, including home qualifying fixtures for ETTU men’s and women’s
European Team Championships and Home Countries Championships at various age-groups
It is self-evident that league programmes are generally more financially viable than tournaments, or
tournament series.
Overall, the Table Tennis England Competitions & Events programme is delivered at an operational deficit of
c.£100k, not including staffing costs or Sport England funding, and is therefore ‘subsidised’ to Table Tennis
England members and participants.
Page 11 of 45
4c. External Insight
This process was undertaken to provide a broad illustration of domestic tournament and league formats in a
number of other England/ GB national governing bodies (NGBs) and European table tennis associations
(TTAs), together with enabling factors, as a basis to prompt potential opportunities for Table Tennis England.
Please see Appendix C for reports of each interview, together with a list of the partner organisations and key
discussion points.
Some points of interest or particular note include:
• Club-based leagues form the vast majority of competition activity in other European TT associations,
between 70% - 90%, and is considered to be (by far) the most important aspect of competitive play.
This is generally held to be c.50% at national level within Table Tennis England - though is of course
disconnected from lower (local) leagues in our competition model
• Typically, other European TTAs ‘govern more’ and ‘deliver less’ – there is a greater emphasis on
providing frameworks for competition which is delivered ‘on the ground’ through regional or club
structures, with TTA delivery focussed more on National Championships (and/ or International
hosting). Typically, the role of clubs/ regions in delivery of national activity is far greater than with
Table Tennis England.
In fact, the Sweden TTA and England Squash do not deliver their own National Championships – and
the LTA (Tennis) and England Squash maintain a distinction between Competitions and Events – eg.
structures (potentially creating operating surplus to support wider activity), and practical delivery
(potentially operating at an operational loss)
• An integrated national league framework (eg local > regional > zonal > national) is a common
approach for leagues – as is restricting graded tournament entry by ranking or by other means
• A focus on schools and youth as the building blocks for both growth and senior success is another
common theme
• With the possible exception of France TTA, all England/ GB NGBs and European TTAs have similar
issues with a) encouraging their top seniors to play domestically, and b) providing opportunity for ‘up
and coming’ players to compete against established national squad members. In fact, most are in a
worse situation than Table Tennis England
• Most European TTAs see value in hosting major international events as a home competition
opportunity and a catalyst for profile and talent development - and, once sustainable on a long-term
basis, for financial benefit. However, all also share a level of concern as to how the new WTT circuit
and changes will impact
• In France, the tiered tournament structured is used as the primary qualification route to National
Championships – ensuring all members are engaged at some level, and theoretically able to qualify
through standard competition
• In Portugal, the women’s national league is merit-based at the top-end only, with promotion/
relegation from the lower tier(s) which are constituted each season based on entry numbers and
strength. This enables the option of short-term commitment and also the opportunity for new teams
to find an appropriate standard of play much more quickly – an interesting option/ opportunity for
Women’s British League (or the future equivalent)
Page 12 of 45
4d. Contextual Info
As a cross-section of the Table Tennis England membership balancing expertise and key representation, the
Competition Review Steering Group offer an oversight of key issues, changes or challenges that are planned
or anticipated in the future, that we need to be aware of or might help shape our approach.
These can be broadly grouped into eight themes:
i) Sport England’s national priorities/ Diversity & Inclusion
c.50% of Table Tennis England’s total funding comes from Sport England, nearly £2m each year. Sport
England’s new 10-year Uniting the Movement strategy is focussed on ‘tackling inequalities’, and this is one
prism through which Table Tennis England activity in the next 10yrs will be structured.
Separate to this, but supporting many of same themes, will be the new Table Tennis England Diversity and
Inclusion Strategy, launched in Autumn 2021 and spanning a 5yr period, and focussing primarily on Women
and Girl’s, Disabilities and Ethnically diverse communities. The action plan will include the following:
• Conducting equality impact assessments across the organisation - including events and competitions,
support committees, event volunteers, and technical officials
• Plans to deliver ambitious work related to Women and Girls over the next 5 years, which we
anticipate will lead medium- to longer-term to higher numbers taking part in junior and senior
competition
Also supporting the last point is the recent research project between Table Tennis England and the Talented
Athlete Scholarship Scheme (TASS), exploring the experiences of women and girls aged 18-30 in Table Tennis.
A detailed overview of the research and recommendations can be seen here
ii) Increased international commitments for talent/ performance players
The recently launched WTT series, and revised ITTF rankings, potentially have significant implications for Table
Tennis England talent/ performance players.
Firstly, team competition is clearly becoming a lesser priority on the global stage. Team events no longer
attract individual ITTF ranking points, including at World Championships and Olympic level. Instead, ITTF have
launched a separate team ranking list
8
Secondly, the ITTF ranking is now calculated against a players’ best 8 events in a 12 month period for Youth
and Senior players, which will increase to 10 events in 12 months for Youth players in 2022
9
10
. This not only
increases the amount of WTT/ ITTF events that talent and performance players will need to enter in order to
maintain an international ranking, but some events will also become mandatory for players ranked high
enough (eg Liam, Paul, Sam & Tin-Tin at Grand Smash and Champions events). Lastly, events will be blocked
8
Head-to-head results in WTT/ ITTF team events will continue to be imported for TTE domestic ranking
9
The ITTF expect that Snr players may typically play around 14 events to gain 8 quality results to average their ranking
10
For players in who can compete in more than one age-group at Youth events, each will count as a separate event for
ITTF ranking purposes
Page 13 of 45
and delivered by ‘hubs’, with several events running back-to-back in neighbouring countries, which may
increase the duration for which players are unavailable for.
The natural implication of this is that a) there is a decreasing likelihood that our best Senior players will be
available to play domestically, excepting perhaps the National Championships, b) it may be increasingly
unrealistic to expect the top Juniors to play more than a handful of domestic events each season, and c) there
is potentially greater benefit on focussing Talent/ Performance -level opportunities in the domestic
programme at (eg) U11, U13 and U15, with fewer opportunities required at Junior and Senior levels.
iii) Table Tennis England Ranking Project
Table Tennis England are undertaking a separate project, complementary with the Competition Review,
related to the national Ranking and Ratings system. This can be seen in the process/ timeframe on p3.
The Competition programme and the Rankings system form two sides of the same coin. Development of a
new ranking system and competition framework will ideally go hand-in-hand in order to optimise the way in
which they best support each-other.
The Ranking project aspires to deliver:
• Increased incentivisation for table tennis players to compete more regularly
• Integration of male and female lists onto a single Ranking list. It is anticipated this will engender more
opportunities for mixed events
• Integration of all age-groups onto a single Ranking list. It is anticipated this could change appetite of
players to play in certain events, or against players from different age-groups
iv) Alternative/ Commercial competitors
It is worth noting the recent emergence of the "Table Tennis Daily Super League" – although this took place
outside of England - and whether this suggests that commercially-run independent competitions may be
attractive to members.
It would appear that production values and social media profile are greater than at Table Tennis Events of a
comparable level (eg British League), though it is not a ranking event, and the financial model clearly only
sustainable in its current form with significant commercial support or underwriting.
This could potentially be seen as either an alternative or additional opportunity – as a risk or something to be
embraced and integrated as another avenue of valued competitive play. In the latter instance, this would
require active integration into the calendar to avoid clashes.
v) Table Tennis England’s international hosting aspirations
The Table Tennis England Board backs a strategy to bring WTT events World Table Tennis to England, and
discussions are ongoing with WTT. The primary challenge remains resource. Table Tennis England is not able
Page 14 of 45
to fund these events, and substantial partnership funding is needed from the ITTF/ WTT, and/ or host cities/
venues. Youth WTT events would support the talent programme and reduce costs to that part of the business
by providing an event in England; Senior WTT events would provide opportunities for spectators of elite table
tennis, and assist with the strategic aim of improving/ changing the perception of table tennis.
Table Tennis England are also in ongoing discussions with ITTF International Table Tennis Federation - Home
of Table Tennis (ittf.com) about the World Championships 2026 and Para World Championships 2026,
potentially as an integrated event in the ITTFs centenary year. Additionally, Table Tennis England are actively
involved in the current bid with BPTT to host the European Para Championships in 2023. Each of these events
would provide opportunities to support the elite programme, support officials’ development, provide
opportunities on home soil, and attract media attention – and, for para, to support the Paris 2024
qualification route.
vi) Venue and Equipment Hire for larger events
National events that can be held within a club environment – such as Senior British League divisions, or
National Cups – are currently actively delivered in conjunction with the vital and valued support of Table
Tennis England members; this is generally a cost-effective solution for accessing both venues and equipment,
and enables us to support member clubs and bring national activity into local facilities. However, National
events that are larger than can be held within a Club environment require the use of a) commercial facility
hire, typically at municipal or university facilities, and b) equipment hire for large numbers of tables/ barriers
etc. Commercial hire charges for both venues and equipment unavoidably make larger events less cost-
effective.
In particular, our ability to guarantee best value for money for TTE members is constrained in terms of
equipment supply due to this being an effective duopoly; at the current time, it remains borderline as to the
cost/ benefit of hiring equipment externally, and longer-term purchasing/ insuring/ maintaining/ storing/
transporting a national stock.
The National Badminton Centre – the current home of Table Tennis England – is the size of 8 badminton
courts (67.8m x 18.3m overall). Theoretically this could house up to 16 table tennis tables at 10x5m. The
lighting is not currently suitable for table tennis competition, but an upgrade to 1,000lux+ is scheduled for
Spring 2022. This would enable the TTE to potentially host a number of small-medium sized events at the
NBC, with the additional benefit of on-site accommodation and catering facilities.
vii) Technical Officials recruitment strategy
The first 3-year Officiating Strategy is now coming to end (mid-2022). This aimed to a) increase the numbers
of Umpires, Referees and Tournament Organisers at entry level, b) increase the number of female umpires, c)
increase the number of umpires aged under 25, and d) provide new opportunities for all officials to upgrade
their existing qualifications. The strategy was supported with training and CPD opportunities. As a result of
the work caried out over the past three years, the number and diversity of umpires in particular has been
improved, and just over 50 new TO2’s (Tournament Organisers) have recently been qualified, increasing the
opportunity for local competition offers.
Page 15 of 45
As the first strategy is coming to an end, the next one is being developed. This will focus on upscaling the
volume of courses and greater utilisation of technology, thus allowing more people to access them. It will also
continue to focus on greater diversity. Having learnt many valuable lessons from the first strategy, physical
courses will be run at key competition locations around the country, so that more localised teams of Officials
can be created.
viii) Technological support/ improvement
Table Tennis England have invested in a bespoke League fixtures/ results platform – TT Leagues – that is
already being used successfully by many local leagues, and recently launched for British League also
11
Future
development options are anticipated to include the addition of an online League Entry/ Payment module.
Development work is ongoing with Sport:80 (who operate TT Memberships and the TTE ranking system) to
create an online Tournament Entry/ Payment module within TT Memberships. This was recently trialled for
the Junior National Cup 2021 and Cadet & Junior National Championships 2021, and is currently in a
subsequent phase of refinement following feedback from those events. Future complementary developments
are anticipated to include access to an endorsed Tournament Management platform for national and
sanctioned events (1*, 2*, 3* & 4*)
Table Tennis England has a developing relationship with Recast, an online streaming platform, which may be
used for future national events
12
Looking forward, complementary developments are anticipated to include
access to an endorsed streaming platform for British League Premier Division, and for club/ member events.
11
Big developments on TT Leagues for new season— Table Tennis England
12
Recast partnership set to grow our sport— Table Tennis England
Page 16 of 45
4e. Player Reports
Using Season 19/20 membership, events and rankings data, the following reports are currently being
prepared:
1) How many distinct domestic events in this period
2) For each domestic event, the range of participants’ rankings – this will show to what extent lower-
level events still attract higher-ranked players, and vice-versa
3) For each age-group and ranking band, the frequency and range of individuals’ event participation
4) For each Senior event, the range/ density of ages participating – this will show to what extent Senior
(open) events attract Cadet, Junior and Veteran players
5) For each Open event, the relative numbers of TTE members and ‘reciprocal members’ (eg Home
Countries or International players) – this will show to what extent different events attract players
whose home association is not Table Tennis England
6) For 1*, 2* and 4* events, the distance from participant’s home postcodes – this will show how far
entrants typically travel for different tiers of competition, and what geographical overlap we might
expect
If possible these reports will be published as an update to the documentation once the consultation has
launched; alternately, these reports will be used by the Project Team a further source of information to
inform options for competition modelling.
For further information, please Appendix D
Page 17 of 45
SECTION C
5. Membership Consultation & Insight
We have now reached the stage of Membership Consultation and Internal Insight. All members will have full
opportunity to feed-in and offer their thoughts.
The Consultation will consist of three connected processes:
a) Open feedback
b) Forums
The forums will be hosted online with key stakeholder groups including: i) O18 players, ii) U18
players/ parents, iii) talent & performance group & players, iv) MAG, and v) National Council. The
forums are scheduled to take place during the consultation window
c) Insight interviews
1:1 interviews, typically online, will be hosted with c.20 specific individuals who are considered to
be knowledgeable and experienced members of the Table Tennis England community. The insight
interviews will take place after interviewees have completed their online submission, so this can
be used as basis for discussion The interviews are scheduled to take place during the consultation
window.
Please see Appendix E for acknowledgements
In addition, specific discussions will be hosted with the Table Tennis England Schools Committee in respect of
schools programmes, with British Para Table Tennis (BPTT) in respect of para players and with the Table
Tennis England Technical Officials Committee (TOC) in respect of technical officials’ support of competition
programme
13
The remainder of this document will now focus on point a) the open feedback exercise.
The key purpose of the Consultation is to equip the Steering Group with the necessary information to support
outline modelling of a future events and overall programme – not to consider specific aspects of specific
competitions.
Consultation Questions
The consultation questions are dynamic and follow logic-paths depending on the respondent and the info
submitted in earlier questions
14
. The possible sections include:
• About the respondent, to allow us to contextualise and cross-reference responses (though the
responses themselves will remain completely anonymous)
13
Key topics will include: how far officials are willing to travel/ how many events officials able to support each season/
how many matches willing to umpire per day/ what changes can potentially be made to technical officials support
requirements without undermining event integrity in order to make them more cost-effective
14
The Steering Group thanks Jake Dampier, TTE Insight Officer, for his expertise and assistance in this area
Page 18 of 45
• Reflections on existing competitions
• Being fit for purpose for the future
• Fundamentals and ‘known issues’
Your answers can be submitted online here: https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/CompetitionReview2021
The survey should take about 10 minutes to complete, and will remain open until midnight on Sunday 21st
November.
Please actively refer to the information in SECTION B to help inform your response (Competition Mapping and
financing, External Insight, Contextual Info and Player Reports)
Players
6. * Please select your age group. [single code]
a. Cadet (Under 15)
b. Junior (Under 19)
c. Senior (Over 19)
d. Veteran (Over 40)
7. * What is your most common level of involvement in table tennis? [single code]
a. I no longer play
b. I play socially/recreationally
c. I play in local competitions
d. I play in national competitions (1* and above)[Logic to Q12]
e. I play in international competitions [Logic to Q12]
Those who select a.-c. to Q5 or Q7
Accessing competitions
8. * What are your reasons for not accessing structured play or competitions outside of your local area?
Please select all that apply. [multicode]
a. I am not interested
b. I’ve tried before and didn’t enjoy the experience
c. I am unclear about competition opportunities
d. There are not enough competition opportunities close to me
e. There are a lack of competition opportunities for people like me
f. Financial reasons
g. I can’t play or support in competitions due to ill health
h. I can’t play or support in competitions due to family commitments
i. I can’t play or support in competitions due to work commitments
j. I can’t play or support in competitions due to educational commitments
k. Other, please specify [text box]
9. * Is there anything that would motivate you to access structured play or competitions outside of your
local area? Please select all that apply. [multicode]
Page 19 of 45
a. A better understanding about competition opportunities
b. More local opportunities
c. More competition opportunities for people like me
d. More competition opportunities at different times throughout the year
e. If I knew I would get more matches
f. Other, please specify [text box]
10. * How far would you be willing to travel for structured play or competitions? [single code]
a. 0-24 miles
b. 25-49 miles
c. 50-74 miles
d. 75-99 miles
e. 100+ miles
f. I don’t know
11. * If you were to play or support competitions outside of your local area, how much time would you be
willing to put aside? [single code] [Logic to Q50]
a. An evening
b. Half a day
c. A full day
d. A full weekend
e. I don’t know
Those who select d. or e. to Q7
Players
12. * Are you a classified para player? [single code]
a. I am not a para player [Logic to Q16]
b. Class 1-5 (physical impairment – sitting)
c. Class 6-10 (physical impairment – standing) [Logic to Q14]
d. Class 11 (intellectual impairment) [Logic to Q16]
Those who select b. to Q12
13. * Do you have a preference for classes to be combined or separate? [single code] [Logic to Q15]
Columns: Strongly disfavour, Disfavour, Neither disfavour or favour, Favour, Strongly favour
a. Classes should be combined
b. Classes should be separated
Those who select c. to Q12
14. * Do you have a preference for classes to be combined or separate? [single code]
Columns: Strongly disfavour, Disfavour, Neither disfavour or favour, Favour, Strongly favour
Page 20 of 45
a. Classes should be combined
b. Classes should be separated
c. Classes should compete alongside able-bodied players
Those who select b. or c. to Q12
15. * Do you have a preference for para events to be integrated or separate to the wider competition
programme? [single code]
Columns: Strongly disfavour, Disfavour, Neither disfavour or favour, Favour, Strongly favour
a. Para events should be integrated
b. Para events should be separate
Those who select d. or e. to Q7
16. * As a player, what are your main motivations for entering competitions? Please select up to two
answer options. [multicode – max two]
a. To improve as a player
b. To improve ranking
c. For the competition opportunity
d. To help my physical health
e. To help my mental wellbeing
f. To develop social connections
g. Other, please specify [text box]
17. * Are you motivated by prize money? [single code]
a. Not at all motivated
b. Slightly motivated
c. Moderately motivated
d. Very motivated
e. Extremely motivated
f. I don’t know
18. Is there anything that would encourage you to travel further for competitions? [comment box]
19. * Thinking about competitions generally, how do the following factors impact your decision to enter?
[matrix – must code each row]
Columns: Not at all, Slightly, Moderately, Very, Extremely, I don’t know
a. The number of matches you play
b. The length of competition being too long
c. The cost of competition
d. The distance to travel
e. Whether I get to play players at a similar level to me
f. Whether I get to play players of the same age
Page 21 of 45
g. Whether I get to play players of the same gender
All valid respondents
Existing competitions
20. * To what extent do or would you enjoy playing or supporting the following singles tournament
formats? [matrix – must code each row]
Columns: Not at all, Slightly, Moderately, Very, Extremely, I don’t know
a. Straight knockout
b. Group and knockout
c. Progressive knockout (e.g. all players to final places)
d. Round robin
21. * To what extent do or would you enjoy playing or supporting the following knockout tournament
formats? [matrix – must code each row]
Columns: Not at all, Slightly, Moderately, Very, Extremely, I don’t know
a. Doubles
b. 2-person team knockout
c. Team knockout
22. * Do you have a preference for the number of matches (best-of-5) you play or support per day?
[single code]
a. 1-3
b. 4-6
c. 7-9
d. 10+
e. I don’t have a preference
23. * In your opinion, how long should a competition day run from registration to end of the final game?
[single code]
a. Less than 6 hours
b. 6 hours (e.g. 10AM to 4PM)
c. 8 hours (e.g. 9AM to 5PM)
d. 10 hours (e.g. 9AM to 7PM)
e. 12 hours or more
24. * How do you consider the current balance between national tournament and national league
opportunities? [single code]
a. Too much league
b. A little too much league
c. About right
Page 22 of 45
d. A little too much tournament
e. Too much tournament
f. I don’t know
25. * How aware are you of the following competitions? [matrix – must code each row]
Columns: Not at all aware, Slightly aware, Moderately aware, Very aware, Extremely aware
a. National Championships
b. National Cups
c. Grand Prix
d. Inter-regional Championships
e. Schools events
f. British League (BL)
g. County Championships
h. National Cadet (NCL) & National Junior League (NJL)
i. English Leagues Cup Competitions (ELCC)
j. Sanctioned events (1*, 2*, 3*, 4*, Satellite Grand Prix)
26. * Have you had involvement with any of the following competitions? Please select all that apply.
[multicode]
Pull answers through from Q25 – only if aware (and none of the above – Logic to Q31)
27. * How frequently should we host the following competitions? [matrix – must code each row]
Columns: Less frequently, About the same, More frequently
Pull answers through from Q26 – only if involved
28. * How do you value the following competitions? [matrix – must code each row]
Columns: Not at all, Slightly, Moderately, Very, Extremely
Pull answers through from Q26 – only if involved
29. * On a scale of 0-10, 0 being not at all likely and 10 being extremely likely, how likely is it that you
would you recommend the following competitions to others involved in table tennis? [matrix – must
code each row]
Pull answers through from Q26 – only if involved
30. Is there anything we can do to improve the following competitions? [multiple textboxes]
Pull answers through from Q26 – only if involved
Page 23 of 45
Looking ahead
31. Does the competition programme face any future challenges which have not yet been highlighted?
[comment box]
32. * How would you approve of periodising the calendar so that event pathways build periodically
towards peaks? [single code]
This means specific weekends might be designated for 1* and 2* events, to take place concurrently,
building towards ‘protected dates’ for regular 4*s. On the one hand, this could encourage lower-level
events to be local in nature, and naturally tier players by ability, but might also restrict player and
organiser choice as to when they can play lower-level events.
a. Strongly disapprove
b. Disapprove
c. Neither disapprove or approve
d. Approve
e. Strongly approve
f. I don’t know
33. * How would you approve of restricting tournament entry (e.g. by ranking) to create upward pressure
and help incentivise progression? [single code]
This could either restrict lower-ranked players in higher-level events, or higher-ranked players in
lower-level events, or both.
a. Strongly disapprove
b. Disapprove
c. Neither disapprove or approve
d. Approve
e. Strongly approve
f. I don’t know
34. * Should we consider aligning player eligibility and membership affiliation to a calendar year (January
to December), the same as World Table Tennis and International Table Tennis Federation? [single
code]
This would ensure event and ranking eligibility is the same, but conversely, a lag might help to better
align the events from which selections and invitations are made.
a. Yes
b. No
c. I don’t know
35. * How important is online access and visibility of fixtures, results, league tables and player statistics?
[single code]
a. Not at all important
Page 24 of 45
b. Slightly important
c. Moderately important
d. Very important
e. Extremely important
f. I don’t know
36. * How important is the ability for players or teams to submit their own results online? [single code]
a. Not at all important
b. Slightly important
c. Moderately important
d. Very important
e. Extremely important
f. I don’t know
37. * How important is the streaming of national events? [single code]
a. Not at all important
b. Slightly important
c. Moderately important
d. Very important
e. Extremely important
f. I don’t know
38. * How should local league integrate with national (British) league? [single code]
a. Separate (structured, so teams can enter one or the other)
b. Separate (structured, so teams can potentially enter both)
c. Integrated national league structure (e.g. a single pyramid joining local and national leagues)
d. I don’t know
39. Do you have any proposals or suggestion as to the role of regions, counties or clubs in the delivery of
a structured series of events (rather than separate and independent events)? [comment box]
40. * Should events delivered by regions, counties or clubs (e.g. 1*, 2*, 3*, 4*, etc) be driven upward by
the hosts (e.g. by applying to host from a menu of events) or by a tender process for a tournament
series structured by Table Tennis England? [single code]
a. By the hosts
b. By Table Tennis England
c. Both, depending on the level
d. I don’t know
41. What changes can potentially be made to technical officials support requirements for 1*, 2*, 3* and
4* events in order to make them more cost effective? [comment box]
Page 25 of 45
Please note that we cannot undermine event integrity and safety, or fail to deliver a tiered approach
to event environment and officiating support.
42. * How many events each season do you feel each age group should play at National level? [matrix –
must code each row]
Columns: Less than 5, 5-10, 10-15, 15-20, More than 20, I don’t know
a. Under 11
b. Under 13
c. Cadets (Under 15)
d. Juniors (Under 19)
e. Seniors (Over 19)
f. Veterans (Over 40)
43. * Do you feel more mixed-gender events needed? [single code]
a. Yes
b. No [Logic to Q45]
c. I don’t know [Logic to Q45]
Those who select a. to Q43
44. * For what age groups do you think mixed-gender events would be most valuable? [single code]
Columns: Not at all valuable, Slightly valuable, Moderately valuable, Very valuable, Extremely
valuable, I don’t know
a. Under 11
b. Under 13
c. Cadets (Under 15)
d. Juniors (Under 19)
e. Seniors (Over 19)
f. Veterans (Over 40)
All valid respondents
45. * Do you feel more Under 21 or Under 23 events are needed to aid transition from Juniors to Seniors?
[single code]
a. Yes
b. No [Logic to Q47]
c. I don’t know [Logic to Q47]
Those who select a. to Q45
46. * For what gender do you think more Under 21 or Under 23 events would be most valuable? [single
code]
a. More important for men
Page 26 of 45
b. More important for women
c. Both men and women
All valid respondents
47. * Do you feel more competition opportunities for Over 60’s are needed? [single code]
a. Yes
b. No [Logic to Q49]
c. I don’t know [Logic to Q49]
Those who select a. to Q47
48. * What format would you prefer for Over 60 opportunities? [single code]
a. Tournament
b. National League
c. I don’t have a preference
All valid respondents
49. Do you have any other comments or suggestions for how we can support positive competition
experiences for all demographics? [comment box]
Suggestions might include technical innovations or ideas for how we can support the social
experience alongside competitions (e.g. organised social events or hotel packages).
Page 27 of 45
6. Next Steps
Following the Consultation (open feedback, forums, insight interviews), the Project Team and the Steering
Group will analyse the feedback, and use the Aims (page 3) to shape and assess outline proposals for
consideration by the Table Tennis England Board.
An overview of the feedback from this consultation will be shared with the Table Tennis England membership.
Please see Process & Timeframes (page 4) for further details of subsequent phases.
It is noted for information that changes to the competition structure directly impact on the following areas:
a. TTE Regulations
b. TTE Staffing
c. TTE Officials and Committee support
d. Ranking opportunities for players (see section 4.d.iii)
e. TTE Licensing (membership) requirements and income
f. TTE External event sanctioning inc. tournament levy income
g. TTE Ranking levy income
h. TTE Event Calendar, which is typically populated up to 2yrs in advance
Thank you for your time and input!
Page 28 of 45
7. Appendices
Appendix A: Steering Group
The Steering Group is comprised as follows:
Name
Role (if applicable)
Remit/ Representation
Neil Rogers*
Head of Competition
Chair
Simon Mills*
Director of Sport
General
Simon Griew*
Board member
Ranking
Greg Yarnall
Head of Development & Volunteering
Participation
Alan Cooke
Technical Director
Performance
Brian Jackson
Chair of Technical Officials Committee
Technical Officials
Don Parker*
Board member (elected)
Members
Neil Hurford
Chair of Members’ Advisory Group
Members
Gary Wood
British League General Secretary
Clubs and organisers
Graham Trimming
Member
Clubs and organisers
Kelly Sibley
Senior Women's Team Captain
Players
Graeme Barella
Member
Players
Sandra Deaton
Chair
Ex-officio
Sara Sutcliffe
CEO
Ex-officio
Those denoted * also comprise the Project Team.
Page 29 of 45
Appendix B: Competition Mapping data
Please note that data for the Cardiff GP and Jersey GP remains partially incomplete.
Sincere thanks to the following individuals for their assistance with this exercise: Carol Miles (TTE), Simon Oyler & Steve Smith (Cardiff GP), Paul Silcock (Jersey GP),
Greg Yarnall (schools), Mike Smith (ELCC), Jan Johns (VETTS), Stan Clarke & Dave Goulden (County Championships), Mike Atkinson (NCL/ NJL), Karen Tonge & Dave
Cochrane (BPTT), Alex Perry/ Mike Payne/ Ben Philip/ Ryan Koolen/ Neal Kington (BUCS), Brian Jackson & Martin Ireland (Blackpool), David Hutchinson (Stockton),
Ken Phillips (Cippenham), Simon Morgan (Hereford), Jason Ramage (Sycamore), Rory Scott (Horsham Spinners), Bhavin Sanjani (London Academy), and the many
many TTE County Chairs & Secretaries
Page 30 of 45
Page 31 of 45
Page 32 of 45
Page 33 of 45
Appendix C: Notes from Competition Insight meetings
All details are based on 1:1 interviews; errors and omissions excepted and author’s own.
The following notes aim to provide a broad illustration of domestic tournament and league formats in a
number of other England/ GB national governing bodies and European table tennis associations, together
with enabling factors, as a basis to prompt potential opportunities for Table Tennis England.
Partner organisations were selected on the following basis:
1. France TTA - strength of regional structure and delivery
2. Germany TTA - ‘gold standard’
3. Portugal TTA - notable international improvement in recent years
4. Sweden TTA - international hosting success; also building on existing links
5. Badminton NGB – evident similarities
6. Judo NGB – undertaken on a partner basis, in singles and team format, and with a domestic club
structure
7. Squash NGB - evident similarities
8. Tennis NGB – evident similarities
Discussion points included:
• Strength of professional game
• Domestic mega-events
• Extent of dedicated facilities
• Relative international strength of domestic events
• Relative strength of national team at international level
• Is there a national ‘home’ venue for the association and for event delivery
• What role, if any, do regions play in delivering national events
• Degree of para integration
• Do top players play domestic events regularly
• How many opportunities do up-and-coming athletes have to challenge existing national team
members at domestic events
• How many and what level international events are hosted with regularity
This is not intended to be a comprehensive audit with fine-detail; the focus is on broader brushstrokes for
information and to prompt possibilities.
Sincere thanks to each of the eight TTAs/ NGBs for their kind assistance with this exercise.
Neil Rogers
Head of Competition & Events
June 2021
Page 34 of 45
Fédération Française De Tennis De Table (France TTA)
FFTT have an enormous playing base – over 1m people playing Table Tennis in France, and 120-140,000 taking
part in NGB competitions. If anything they feel their market penetration is insufficient, and their competition
approach too rigid; their aspiration is to make competitions more flexible and accessible, and to facilitate
more recreational play.
Club-based leagues form the vast majority of competition activity, around 90%, and is the most important
aspect of competitive play.
There are two levels of pro-league for men (20 teams), and one for women (10 teams); these are considered
amongst the strongest in Europe. Below this top tier are three levels of national competition (224 men’s
teams), and below this: 7 zones, 20 regions and 100+ ‘departments’ (counties). This is a single league
framework, top to bottom, running October to June. Geographically, France is 2.5x the size of England.
FFTT deliver National Championships for each age-group (on a top 64 basis), qualification for which is attained
via a series of tournaments throughout the season. The qualification events are delivered by regions/
counties. Around 15-20,000 players will compete in the qualification process, with 4-6 ranking events in each
group, and points accrued on a leader-board basis, the value of which vary dependent on the grading of the
event. Wildcards are reserved for (eg) national squad members.
Alongside this, local tournament events are delivered by clubs, less than 100 per year, which are separate and
independent.
FFTT do not have a home venue, though the Olympics in Paris 2024 may offer a potential opportunity in this
regard. There are a good number of dedicated full-time table tennis facilities nationwide, typically 4-18 tables.
The top French players may play abroad (eg Germany), or may play domestically due to the strength of the
French pro-league. Around 60-70% of the best players are based domestically, and consequently play
domestic league and tournaments, also training at national training centres. Players based abroad may play
one or twice a year in domestic events. There is therefore a good opportunity for up and coming players to
play national squad members – and their system embeds the chance for the best Cadets to play Juniors, and
the best Juniors to play Seniors - the issue for the French federation is providing adequate challenge for the
best Senior players.
FFTT aspire to have one international tour event hosted each year, especially in the build-up to the Olympics.
Page 35 of 45
Deutscher Tischtennis-Bund (Germany TTA)
DTTB host a single national championships combining all age-group events, inc Cadet, Junior, Senior and
Veterans – with over 500 competitors in all – their largest annual event.
A series of Cadet and Junior events of various sizes are held – top12, top24 and top84. Additionally, DTTB run
a senior national team championship event for clubs.
Below this, regions and clubs run open ranking tournaments on a graded level (local, regional, national), c.500
per year. Each region is required to deliver a certain number of events each year, without which this would
not be possible.
As with France and Portugal, league format is by far the most important – with over 9,000 clubs competing
(and hence many more teams) This is a single structure, from local to national, excepting the Bundesliga
(professional league), which is a separate organisation. DTTB run tiers 2-5 (men) and tiers 1-5 (women), and
Regional associations are responsible for supporting tiers 6-14 of the league.
DTTB do not have a national home venue, but there is a good number of dedicated full-time club facilities,
which provide venues for the programme – and without which, could not happen.
Ultimately, the strength of the club structure is critical for the delivery of the sport.
DTTB have a long history of hosting two annual international events – the German Open, plus one other event
(eg. World Championships, World Cup, European Championships, Vets World Championships etc) This
provides a home event for players, a spectator opportunity and generates TV coverage. The new WTT formats
and standards will present a new challenge.
The best German players will only compete at the National Championships, due to international (circuit)
competition commitments. This comprises the only opportunity for up and coming players to play against
national squad members.
Another key challenge is considered to be youth engagement and grass-roots growth, particularly a lack of
table tennis in schools.
Page 36 of 45
Federação Portuguesa De Ténis De Mesa (Portugal TTA)
The FPTM season runs from October to May/ June, and is significantly weighted in favour of club/ league
activity. Compared to Table Tennis England’s c.50/50, Portugal is closer to 80% or 90% league-based, with
league activity each weekend of the season. This is attributed to the strength of club tradition and club-based
activity.
The league structure for men runs on three tiers, all of which operate on a merit-based home/ away format,
becoming more regionalised the lower down the pyramid – around 80 teams in all. There are play-offs from
the regionalised structure for promotion. The top league concludes after the regular season fixtures with a
top4 play-off contest for the title. The women’s system is similar, but is merit-based at the top-end only, with
promotion/ relegation from the lower tier(s), which are constituted each season based on entry numbers and
strength – around 15 teams in all.
The tournament programme is much smaller, comprising around 4 senior and 20 youth events each season,
which are scheduled around league commitments in the national calendar. Tournaments are classified on 3
levels.
Ranking points are awarded on an increasing scale corresponding to the league tier and tournament
classification.
FPTM allow members to play both domestic league and other national leagues, like TTE but unlike France and
Germany, in order for players to maximise their earning potential. However, players competing both home
and abroad must play at least 50% of Portugal domestic league fixtures.
FPTM generally provide a framework and regulations only for domestic events, with event delivery by clubs
and regional structures.
FPTM have a significant commitment to hosting ITTF events, currently 5 or 6 per year. This is a strategic
objective to support youth development, and also serves as an income generator. FPTM are able to be very
flexible and responsive to international hosting needs, and rely on strong support and resourcing from
regional government structures.
FPTM have a national training facility, which can be used if required for smaller national events and for
hosting requirements. The best Portuguese players do not typically play domestically, except possibly for
National Championships and toward the end of their career, but do live/ train/ study at the national training
facility. Up-and-coming players do not therefore have regular opportunity to compete against the top players,
but can train alongside them.
Table Tennis in Portugal is small, but in a growth phase with increasing profile and popularity. This is mainly
attributed to the public visibility gained via hosting major events together with high-performing senior
national players at those events. This has led to gains in sponsors and income, and interest in the highest level
of domestic events (eg the men’s league title play-offs are now televised). Investment is being targeted in
youth development to ensure this is sustainable.
Despite this competitive success, club facilities and municipal facilities are still very limited for participation.
Page 37 of 45
Svenska Bordtennisförbundet (Sweden TTA)
Sweden have around 10,000 licensed players, in a two-tier membership system very similar to TTE – a district
license (akin to Compete) and a national license (akin to Compete Plus). Also similar to TTE, their female
participation rate sits at less than 10%.
Around 200-250 tournaments are held each year, although there is evidence of decreasing participation.
These are tiered from beginners through regional through to the Swedish Tour, and consists of around 100-
150 national tournaments, with c.10 at the top ‘Swedish Tour’ level. Qualifying to the National Championships
can be earned from national tournaments, which are open entry but restricted by ranking if over-subscribed.
All events, including national championships, are typically delivered by clubs rather than the TTA, who do not
have this manpower. This is managed through comprehensive ‘directives’ to ensure consistency and quality-
assurance across different and changing delivery partners; a key challenge for Sweden TTA remains ensuring
this approach is based on a viable financial model for hosts.
Additionally, top10 events are held each year, in a very similar format to the TTE National Cups.
There is considered to be a broad 70/30 split between league and tournament play respectively, and
tournament play is felt to be very important to pathway development.
Sweden have a single national league structure, with around 5 divisions/ 300 (men’s) teams at national level,
underpinned by a regional structure. The top two national tiers (men’s) and top national tier (women’s) are
delivered on a H/A basis, but is grouped below this into weekend events of multiple fixtures.
The players in the top men’s tier (8 teams) and women’s tier (6-8 teams) are reportedly more than 50%
foreign, who compete on a paid-to-play basis. This is often cost-advantageous to these clubs, as no costs are
incurred for ongoing development, training, housing and salary. The natural consequence is that these clubs
deliver reduced development opportunities and a less valuable training environment. However, to change this
would arguably decrease the quality of the league. The Sweden TTA do not restrict players in their league
from also competing in other league programmes.
Sweden TTA do have a national centre, but it is not possible to host any competitions there.
The Sweden Open is an international event of 50yrs standing, and made possible by l/term city investment
and support (on the basis of “beds and heads” return-on-investment). However, the new WTT model means
enforced change, on a much less viable financial basis, and it is not known if this remains feasible. Conversely,
events with a lower international and performance profile, such as Veterans, would be considered far more
attractive to a city host due to the participant numbers and projected local spend.
The top Sweden players do not typically play domestically, and have in recent years also missed the National
Championships; this is considered a growing issue. There are consequently very limited opportunities for the
next tranche of players to compete against national squad members.
Page 38 of 45
Badminton England
Badminton provides the closest match to current Table Tennis England programmes in many ways.
Badminton England operate tournaments across 4 tiers, with around 250 taking place each season for a total
of 4,000 players. These are restricted at lower-level (eg the top players cannot play-down; the opposite of the
Tennis approach). The tournament calendar is not periodised currently, either chronologically or
geographically. Some tournaments enable a qualification route to National Championships, and entry to
National Championships requires a minimum numbers of tournaments are contested. Counties are the main
delivery mechanism for tournaments, and this often provides income to support county team activity (see
below). The season runs Jan-Dec, to align with the international calendar/eligibility, and membership can be
done on a matching or 12month rolling basis.
There is no national Club-based league programme, though this is a future aspiration. Team events run on a
County basis, September to April, with around 120 junior and 120 senior teams. County eligibility determines
team composition, so this approach does not always provide the best playing opportunity for individuals. The
social value of the county leagues is high.
At local-level, Club-based activity is significant – this is where the bulk of Badminton players play their
Badminton. Local activity is organic, independent and unregulated, but ultimately supports the national
programmes via membership income.
The National Badminton League (NBL) was a professional team league, launched in 2014 with six franchised
teams, and running for three seasons. One match per fixture date was televised by Sky Sports (latterly BT
Sports). This was heavily subsidised by the NGB, despite a title sponsor, and ultimately deemed non-
sustainable and cancelled.
Badminton England have a dedicated facility in Milton Keynes, which is the training base for the performance
programme and can also be used to host smaller competitions.
Prize money at international tournaments is considered good, and supports a small number of professional
players. The NGB do not restrict access to international circuit events.
Senior squad players do not typically play domestic events due to international commitments, but
occasionally play National Championships (‘with a lot of cajoling’). Up-and-coming players do not get the
chance to compete against squad players. Overseas leagues can offer payment to capable players, and there
is a trend for senior players to often coach junior players at domestic events (professionally) rather than
compete themselves.
The All-England Open is a premier-tier international event, hosted annually by Badminton England, which acts
as a revenue generator for the NGB. There is an aspiration to host more Junior international events to support
youth development. England would be considered a top5 nation in Europe, and top10 globally.
Page 39 of 45
British Judo
Whilst perhaps not a benchmark comparison that immediately springs to mind – Judo, like table tennis, is a
club-based sport, played one on one, in singles and team formats – and faces surprisingly similar challenges.
British Judo has 5 levels of domestic tournaments, outside key events like National Championships. Around
200no. L1-L3 events take place each season at club level, with c.15no. L4 (national) events, and 1-2no. L5
(international) events. Entry to different levels is broadly restricted by belt gradings, and members can apply
for wildcard selection to national events. Periodisation of these events has been resisted by the membership.
The competition programme broadly runs September to June.
Plans for a team club league at regional level, with a national finals event, have been proposed unsuccessfully.
Annual adaptive and visually-impaired events take place alongside other national competitions. Para athletes
may also choose to compete on an inclusive basis at national events.
There are very small number of dedicated Judo facilities in the UK, and the area required for national events
limits the commercial venues that can be used. British Judo do not have a national home, but utilise a small
number of regular venues. British Judo have less financial resource than leading associations in international
Judo (France, Russia and Japan) – event delivery is considered broadly on a par, but without the ‘gloss’.
Areas (akin to regions) are expected to deliver events (eg L3), and are provided a percentage of funding from
gradings that take place. These are events are standalone, and do not form part of a series or progressive
events.
The professional game is limited; ranking points are considered not worthwhile at European level, and
financial rewards on the international circuit are low – entry is tightly restricted by the NGB, and effectively
limited to World Class Performance Programme athletes. WCPP funding is the key funding source through
which Judoka can be full-time athletes.
The top players (national squad) rarely compete domestically due to international commitments, and this
often includes missing the National Championships. Players outside the national squad will rarely, if ever, get
the chance to compete (or spar) against the national squad members.
British Judo have previous hosted a European Open event, but this is considered to have a low performance
benefit, and significant external funding would be required to host in the future. An international Para event
is planned in the near future, and relative strength in Para competition is considered stronger.
British Judo would be considered a top20 nation (Olympic disciplines) and top5-10 (Para disciplines)
Page 40 of 45
England Squash
England Squash undertook a review of their delivery structure 2yrs ago, and have fundamentally split
competitions (structures; creating operating surplus to support wider activity) and events (practical delivery;
almost always operating at an operational loss)
The events function is now led by the PSA (the international federation for Squash), which is practically viable
as the PSA are also based in England. The PSA are now responsible for the delivery of National Championships,
plus annual hosting of the British Open (‘grand slam’ -level international event) and Junior British Open. This
approach met with resistance from NGB members.
The league system operates at various levels. Club Leagues and County Leagues are run by clubs and counties
respectively – ES membership is required, but otherwise these structures are independent. The National Club
League is an ES property, and contracted externally for delivery. A Professional Squash League is the top
domestic tier, and is also contracted externally for delivery, with an element of NGB funding.
Masters (veterans) events are run as a circuit by an affiliated organisation; masters effectively operate as a
self-contained community
Dunlop were formerly a large sponsor, but sponsorship has been less forthcoming in recent years and this has
resulted in a loss of operating finance. The tournament structure is almost exclusively focussed at Junior level
(U19) and below. The structure consists of 5 levels – diamond (eg national champs, see above), platinum (c.2 x
national), gold or silver (c. 6x regional), bronze (local, c.20 weekends with 6-7 simultaneous events), and
copper (starter). The NGB delivers platinum events, and below this are hosted by clubs/ regions/ counties,
with a levy payable for entry and ranking functions. Entry to bronze-platinum events is not ostensibly
restricted by ranking, but on a practical basis preference will be given to higher-ranking players if over-
subscribed. Notably, the Bronze level is the ‘bread and butter’ of the tournament structure, and is periodised
in the calendar.
The NGB do not run any Senior tournaments, excepting the Inter-County Champs (in a team format). There is
an organic and independently organised domestic circuit of events, hosted ad-hoc by clubs – and, at higher-
levels, a European tour, and International tour.
The opportunity for professional athletes in squash is relatively low, and a full-time career is rare for more
than 1 or 2 players each generation unless independently-funded (notably, Squash is not an Olympic sport)
Squash have a national squash centre in Manchester, a legacy of the 2002 Commonwealth Games, which is
part of the network of performance facilities for national squads and can be used to host smaller events.
However, the facility is now 20yrs old and requires investment.
The top domestic players do tend to play domestically – in club events (for pay), or as an active member of
the squash community – the best chance for up-and-coming players to compete against national squad
members is actually outside National Championships.
Page 41 of 45
Lawn Tennis Association (Great Britain Tennis)
Tennis in Great Britain makes for an interesting comparison, and the immediate thought is naturally of a
racket sport with a huge membership, large public profile and immense resources – arguably all things Table
Tennis England might aspire to.
Tennis has an enormous competition programme – over 9,000 competitions running across all 12 months of
the year. The ‘bread and butter’ tournament series is graded across 7 levels, from local lower-level events to a
national circuit with prize money. Access to the top-end events is restricted by ranking (eg. lower players
cannot play-up)
In Team formats, a national league is contested by clubs, and runs summer and winter involving 40-50,000
players.
There is a substantial schools programme, run on the basis of local leagues with a national final. There is a
good level of activity led and delivered at county level, including county championships and a county cup
formats (for teams).
The LTA are working on a collaborative basis with a commercially-led pro-league in the UK (funded via betting
income); this is felt to be a valuable playing and prize-money opportunity for capable players.
A critical mass of players exists for a standalone circuit of wheelchair/ visibility-impaired/ learning-disability
events – consisting of 50-60 events each year, with over 1,000 entrants. There is little integration possible
beyond deaf and learning disability players, who may play on an inclusive basis.
At national level, the competitions are run by the LTA (with 13 core Competitions staff), and also facilitated at
local level by employed remote-working staff (7 additional Competition staff in the regions). This covers only
the non-professional events.
Professional events (see final paragraph) are supported by a separate and dedicated Events department.
The professional opportunity is strong in tennis; the international circuit is vast.
Tennis has an extremely strong domestic mega-event (Wimbledon), with huge public profile, sponsorship and
broadcast interest. Wimbledon arguably enjoys a cultural position and reputation that extends far beyond
simply a sporting event.
Dedicated tennis facilities are also widespread in GB, with tens of thousands of courts in private clubs and
public settings.
The NGB has a dedicated training/ playing facility at its HQ in Roehampton, the National Tennis Centre,
though this tends to be performance-focussed. Interestingly, larger commercial providers (eg the network of
over 100no. David Lloyd Clubs) are typically unable to make facilities available for hosting purposes due to
membership commitments. Consequently, the LTA have recently purchased a large dedicated facility in
Nottingham which will be a key enabler for hosting domestic competitions and international circuit events.
Page 42 of 45
World-ranked players may play at National events ‘a few times a year’. Notably, there is no adult National
Championship events, and these are only run at age-group levels. There is limited opportunity for players
immediately below the top-tier to play the highest-ranked British players.
In addition to the world-renown Grand Slam event at Wimbledon, GB is also regular host to other top-tier
professional circuit events – including the ATP (men’s) tour finals, Queens (men’s only) & Eastbourne. In total,
around 30 international circuit events are hosted each year, including 6 or so ‘elite’ events.
The GB#1 Andy Murray – 2x Olympic champion, 3x Grand Slam winner and former World #1 – enjoys a profile
alongside the highest bracket of international sportsmen and women.
Despite this, it might legitimately be considered that GBs profile and participation levels belies genuine
strength in depth at the top level.
Page 43 of 45
Appendix D: Player Reports
Due to the incomplete Season 19/20, data is based on the period 01 August 2019 to 15 March 2020, eg 7.5
months of a 12 month competition season (eg around 2/3rds)
During this period there were 114,296 singles match participation instances
15
in national ranking events, by
3,954 distinct players (an average of 30 matches per player, during this player)
The sincere thanks of the Steering Group is noted to Steve Smith, for his invaluable and expert assistance with
this section.
1) How many distinct domestic events in this period
2) For each domestic event, the range of participants’ rankings – this will show to what extent lower-
level events still attract higher-ranked players, and vice-versa
Separately group 1* + 2* + 4* + GP events, with distinct participants and their rankings
o 1* Cadet
o 1* Junior
o 1* Senior
o 1* Veteran
o 2* Cadet
o 2* Junior
o 2* Senior
o 2* Veteran
o 4* Cadet
o 4* Junior
o Grand Prix events
Plot range and density of rankings of M/F participants in each events category
3) For each age-group and ranking band, the frequency and range of individuals’ event participation
Segment Cadet/ Jnr/ Snr/ Veteran players - plot frequency of events (not matches) that distinct M/F in
each segment play
Also segment by ranking bands (shown below) – plot frequency of events (not matches) that distinct
individuals in each segment play
Men’s Band 0 2201+ Women’s Band 0 2001+
Men's Band 1 1701 - 2200 Women's Band 1 1601 - 2000
Men's Band 2 1351 - 1700 Women's Band 1 1201 - 1600
Men's Band 3 1101 - 1350 Women's Band 3 1001 - 1200
Men's Band 4 551 - 1100 Women's Band 4 0 - 1000
15
For TTE events, this includes both players; for ITTF events, this includes only the England players
Page 44 of 45
Men's Band 5 401 - 550
Men's Band 6 0 - 400
Nb. Cadet, Junior and Veterans bandings different
4) For each Senior event, the range/ density of ages participating – this will show to what extent Senior
(open) events attract Cadet, Junior and Veteran players
Segment the following events, and plot range/ density of ages of M/F participants
o SBL
o WBL
o Grand Prix Open events
o 1*Snr
o 2*Snr
o 4*Snr
5) For each Open event, the relative numbers of TTE members and ‘reciprocal members’ (eg Home
Countries or International players) – this will show to what extent different events attract players
whose home association is not Table Tennis England
Segment the following events, and plot numbers/% of different membership categories (by individual, not
participation instances)
o SBL
o WBL
o JBL
o VBL
o Grand Prix
o 1*
o 2*
o 4*
6) For 1*, 2* and 4* events, the distance from participant’s home postcodes – this will show how far
entrants typically travel for different tiers of competition, and what geographical overlap we might
expect
For 1*, 2* and 4* events (3 groups) calculate distinct participants for each group, and plot range/
frequency of travel distances from home postcode to event postcode
Page 45 of 45
Appendix E: Forums/ Insight Interviews
Many thanks to the following groups and individuals for their time and insight:
• Graham Frankel
• Stuart Sherlock
• Simon Price
• Colin Wilson
• Dan Ives
• Steve Smith
• TTE Members Advisory Group: Neil Hurford, Phil Ashleigh, Sandy Nash, Steve Pratt, David Maddison,
Kevin Buddell, Dean Nabarro, Liam McTiernan
• David Maddison
• Harvey Webb
• O18 Players forum (no respondents)
• John Mackey
• Mike Atkinson
• U18 Players/ Parents forum: Ivan Rogove
• Kevin Buddell & Paul Whiting
• TTE Schools Committee: David Maddison, Gail Johns, Steve Burge, Richard J Hudson, Nathan Nicol,
Steven Walker, Carol Miles, Keegan Barstow, Claire Warner
• Raj Patel
• Chris Newton & Martin Ireland
• Alan Ransome
• TTE National Councillors: Estyn Williams, Brian Whitehead, Margot Fraser, Kim Mudge, Alan Ransome
• BPTT forum: Karen Tonge, Shaun Marples, Dan Bullen, Lee York, Theo Bishop
• Richard Scruton
• TTE Tournament Organisers Committee (TOC): Brian Jackson, Chris Newton, Jo Outhwaite, David
Edwards, Tom Purcell, Harry Jutle, Lynda Reid, Aled Howell (discussion led by Chris Newton)
• Talent & Performance forum (convened by TTE Talent & Performance team): Matt Stanforth, Alan
Cooke, Simon Mills