All-Star Usasf Changes Program Definitions/classifications

[Ashley]

We keep our various gyms separate for a mulitude of financial and business reasons. They each have their own directors, themes, business name, legal entities, tax returns, personnel, etc.

FWIW, I agree with you that USASF allowing an EP only one Bid event is pretty arbitrary - especially considering how easy it is to just make a new EP or buy an existing one to skirt around the issue. I don't think there's an abundance of gyms complaining about the number of bids available or an abundance of EPs trying to give out bids that can't because there's too many Varsity EPs already giving out bids in their area. It's a similar issue that could be addressed, but not the same thing.

But you've been very clear in the past that you're extremely involved in setting up a new location. You send a trusted member of your staff to run the gym, you train the new staff to your standards, etc. Those satellite locations are absolutely benefiting from the CA brand in a way that someone starting their own gym from scratch is not.

 

[coachrah]

Those two philosophies are not the same though.

Gyms with multiple locations are franchised or branded under the same name. Each of the EP's are a separate business and company, under Varsity's umbrella company.

If Varsity called NCA and Cheersport and Jamfest championships as Varsity All Star Championships under the Varsity umbrella, that would be different. But they don't, they keep the businesses separate (for the most part) probably for a multitude of financial and business reasons.

You could have bought a gym in Austin and kept the name and teams all the original, paid their coaches as they normally would, and compete as a separate gym, right? But you didn't. You chose to take your brand name (which is world reknowned and very powerful) and put it on that gym you bought, effectively making that gym part of your company because your brand will make that gym more successful.

So when Varsity's assets (as reported recently) at 1.5 Billion ...the varied brands are not included as a collective total? The rebate given doesn't bundle the varied umbrella brands ? The bids awarded don't go to the single end of season event (2)? I could be wrong but private equity operates vastly different than public... I understand Bluecat's point.

 

[ScottyB]

We keep our various gyms separate for a mulitude of financial and business reasons. They each have their own directors, themes, business name, legal entities, tax returns, personnel, etc.

But the business name on the door is still your brand. Not "Generic Gym Name - A Cheer Athletics Gym"
That's the issue that the USASF is trying to solve. Your brand is able to go into new areas and have success almost immediately. Small to mid-Level Gyms cannot do that when they open their gym.

If you go to the Varsity page, their all star competitions DO look to be set up under the Varsity All Star umbrella exactly as you described. https://www.varsityallstar.com. Are you suggesting that CheerSport being a Varsity brand and being able to give Summit bids, having access to Varsity resources, etc. aren't competitive advantages that help them draw customers away from IEPs? (I assure you that unique access to Summit alone is killing many small-business IEPs.)

Never said they weren't.

Would California All Stars, Nevada All Stars, and Arizona All Stars be OK?

In my opinion, according to what the USASF has put forth, yes I would be fine with that. The gym brand name isn't being used as an advantage over other gyms (obviously that wouldn't work if the term 'all stars' was branded and associated with a gym/style).

My concern is that multi-gym brands are being targeted for specific restrictions and regulations in a blatant attempt to limit their growth. I get that we are the villain-du-jour, but how long until your business starts to have success and USASF starts trying to limit what you can do in the interest of "fairness".

Same could be said for a lot of industries and governing bodies, as well as real life and the US Govt. IMO, the Big Gym Villainy is happening in place of the Big EP Villainy is because there are a lot more frustrated small gym parents and coaches versus the smaller amount of frustrated small EPs

 

[ScottyB]

Ehhhhh, to the bolded. Varsity bought Spirit Festival Nationals, an IEP in Hartford, CT about 5 years ago. They only have one event, their worlds bid event. There is no Spirit Festival staff left. It's run every year by Varsity, not Spirit Festival.

You are correct, they don't have it perfectly setup to go unnoticed or to work correctly for customers. And when I wrote that post I knew there were one or two like that which is why I added the (for the most part) on there lol

 

[ScottyB]

So when Varsity's assets (as reported recently) at 1.5 Billion ...the varied brands are not included as a collective total? The rebate given doesn't bundle the varied umbrella brands ? The bids awarded don't go to the single end of season event (2)? I could be wrong but private equity operates vastly different than public... I understand Bluecat's point.

Varsity Brands is worth 1.6 Billion (as of the purchase to CharlesBank and Partners several years ago), and it consists of Varsity Spirit, BSN Sports, Herff Jones, fancloth and maybe another smaller player or two.

 

[MissCongeniality]

I can see the argument from both sides and ultimately it boils down to... guess who makes the rules. I am not saying Varsity (oops I mean USASF) is wrong for making this rule. In fact I think it is long overdue. The "economies of scale" that big gyms experience (e.g., better pricing on uniforms, choreography, comps etc.) are a huge benefit. That said, Varsity experiences something similar. By being the body overseeing/in charge of all these EPs they can set pricing, give merchandise deals, negotiate better deals on venues etc. than the independent guys can.

There is an impact (though not necessarily on the Cheer Athletics, Top Guns, Calis who never - as far as I know - have tried to use a satellite location at D2) but to some of the programs that have found the loopholes and utilized them.

And, at the end of the day, I ask - how do any of these rules benefit the paycheck to the gyms and varsity? The athletes/parents? Because even if now Suzy Small Gym can more easily win that ring/trophy/jacket... that is really more of a payday for the gym that gets to now advertise "XXXXYYY Winner". Don't get me wrong... Suzy has her swag but really?? We can create a model where everyone is a "winner" somehow. Is that what the goal is? Make Suzy (and her mom of course) feel like a winner so we can make more money? Make it so everyone can have a business and not feel lesser than anyone else? Laugh all the way to the bank?

 

[MomMomMamaMom]

I am confused as to how decisions that franchises can't compete D2 limits growth? Can someone clarify?

 

[ryanaarontroy]

yep, I can sense the thundersticks being inflated as I type ;) (well maybe not this year for the gym I am thinking... but I would count on it going forward)

AHAHA WHY ARE WE NOT BEST FRIENDS. I died laughing at this because I know exactly who this is about!

 

[CLynn]

Just wondering why they don't have a D2 Worlds at the (D2 Summit maybe) and call it a day? OR an emerging Worlds category for gyms younger than x years (3 or 4 maybe?) Grow the sport, more winners, I am on board. IMO restricting who can compete in that manner seems arbitrary....it is "Worlds" or it isn't.

That's the issue that the USASF is trying to solve. Your brand is able to go into new areas and have success almost immediately. Small to mid-Level Gyms cannot do that when they open their gym.

I am not at a Mega Gym but can see how this is true INTIALLY, but after a few years doesn't this even out to some extent? There are some franchises with stronger and weaker locations and those reputations are known. New, old, franchise or not at some point you need to offer a compelling product or people will choose to go elsewhere.

 

[BlueCat]

But the business name on the door is still your brand. Not "Generic Gym Name - A Cheer Athletics Gym"
That's the issue that the USASF is trying to solve. Your brand is able to go into new areas and have success almost immediately. Small to mid-Level Gyms cannot do that when they open their gym.

In my opinion, according to what the USASF has put forth, yes I would be fine with that. The gym brand name isn't being used as an advantage over other gyms (obviously that wouldn't work if the term 'all stars' was branded and associated with a gym/style).

Same could be said for a lot of industries and governing bodies, as well as real life and the US Govt. IMO, the Big Gym Villainy is happening in place of the Big EP Villainy is because there are a lot more frustrated small gym parents and coaches versus the smaller amount of frustrated small EPs

(I understand that few people will take my side on this. This isn't specifically about the D2/program rule, but a general trend.)

Some athletes are voluntarily choosing to a particular type of program based on reputation and the success they have had in previous competitions. Is this a problem that USASF is supposed to "solve"? I don't see it as USASF's job to influence which gyms athletes are joining or keep any particular set of gyms from getting "too many" customers choosing them. This is particularly true when a large number of indepedent businesses that fall into the category. (There are easily 25+ different successful multi-gym brands out there.)

You make it sound like a gym's brand is a super-weapon concocted in an underground lair to crush the smaller gyms. I certainly don't view it that way. Your brand is your reputation which is based primarily on how you treat your customers and how well you prepare your teams to compete. It is developed over time - decades in our case. Of course athletes will factor in reputation when deciding their gym. Consumers pick products and services based on strength of brand all of the time.

If USASF truly feels it is their duty to stop businesses from having too much influence on the market to the detriment of its smaller competitors, there seems to be a more obvious target.

 

[MissCongeniality]

If USASF truly feels it is their duty to stop businesses from having too much influence on the market to the detriment of its smaller competitors, there seems to be a more obvious target.

Bite their own hand off? Ha! Of course what am i thinking? ...it isn't reallllllly their own hand ;) They quite like the current arrangement and power.

I do understand what you are saying...like I said above...I see both sides. But the reality is that if I was in Siberia and there was a market and a bunch of unknown brands of water on the shelf and an Aquafina (which i hate by the way...too salty...makes me even thirstier...hmmm) but I would choose the Aquafina based on name/reputation and the fact that i feel i can "trust" them. So there is a huge value in being a recognizable name. Enough that there needs to be a rule?? Well, like I said above, I don't think the mega gyms are the ones who conveniently utilized the rules to benefit themselves, but some programs did.

 

[cheermomforever]

I am from small gym and big named gyms have the advantage to offer scholarships to talented kids, whether main gym or other location. It just happened to us, they scouted him and offered the moon. Luckily he couldn't do the commute. So the new rule is definitely needed!

 

[ScottyB]

Some athletes are voluntarily choosing to a particular type of program based on reputation and the success they have had in previous competitions. Is this a problem that USASF is supposed to "solve"? I don't see it as USASF's job to influence which gyms athletes are joining or keep any particular set of gyms from getting "too many" customers choosing them. This is particularly true when a large number of indepedent businesses that fall into the category. (There are easily 25+ different successful multi-gym brands out there.)

You make it sound like a gym's brand is a super-weapon concocted in an underground lair to crush the smaller gyms. I certainly don't view it that way. Your brand is your reputation which is based primarily on how you treat your customers and how well you prepare your teams to compete. It is developed over time - decades in our case. Of course athletes will factor in reputation when deciding their gym. Consumers pick products and services based on strength of brand all of the time.

If USASF truly feels it is their duty to stop businesses from having too much influence on the market to the detriment of its smaller competitors, there seems to be a more obvious target.

I think we both probably could agree that a more hands off, mat competition focused USASF would be best. But people continue to clamor for more support and more initiative from the USASF, so it feels like they are trying something, anything, to appease the masses that are screaming in their face.

With the ruling they put forth, I see it how I explained it previously, may not be 100% fair from your perspective as an Owner of 'mega-gym,' especially a gym who has had continued success and has not tried to explicitly get around the rules.

@MissCongeniality you nailed it, they definitely won't be biting that hand anytime soon :D

 

[CLynn]

I am from small gym and big named gyms have the advantage to offer scholarships to talented kids, whether main gym or other location. It just happened to us, they scouted him and offered the moon. Luckily he couldn't do the commute. So the new rule is definitely needed!

I can see where in this particular example big named gym has the advantage, but it is likely the case not all big gyms recruit and offer scholarships in that manner and not all small gyms do not. I don't know, it somehow feels to me that we shouldn't be "punishing" some for success and incentivizing others to stay small.

 

[ScottyB]

I can see where in this particular example big named gym has the advantage, but it is likely the case not all big gyms recruit and offer scholarships in that manner and not all small gyms do not. I don't know, it somehow feels to me that we shouldn't be "punishing" some for success and incentivizing others to stay small.

I don't see it as a punishment, it comes across as a clarification of how the organizations within the USASF are viewed in terms of gym totals based on how gyms brand themselves across cities/states/regions. It is an evening of the playing field to the USASF