Make Divisional Volunteering Part Of The International Selection Criteria

I have concerns about this motion as drafted, though I do support the underlying aim of encouraging more international lifters to contribute back into the sport.

The current mechanism feels too blunt. A strict “one day in the previous calendar year or you cannot be selected” rule could catch out emerging athletes who simply did not know the requirement existed, especially if they are new to international consideration. It would be disappointing to see someone denied GB representation for an administrative miss rather than because they lacked commitment to the sport.

If this requirement is introduced, I think there should be a forward-looking route as well as a backward-looking one. For example, an athlete who has not yet completed the requirement could satisfy it by formally pledging to volunteer or otherwise contribute to the sport within a defined period after selection. That contribution could take different forms: divisional volunteering, national-level volunteering, officiating, mentoring, coaching, media/admin support, or another meaningful contribution agreed with the relevant committee.

I also have concerns about the employment-law and governance implications of making “volunteering” mandatory. Volunteer arrangements are meant to be voluntary by nature, including the ability to opt out. If we force people to volunteer as a condition of selection, we risk undermining that principle. It may be safer to frame this as a “contribution to the sport” requirement, with volunteering as one route rather than the only route.

Finally, I think there should be a case-by-case discretion route, where the Board, Performance Director, or relevant selection committee can approve exemptions or alternative contributions where appropriate. That would help avoid unfair outcomes for athletes with disability, caring responsibilities, pregnancy/maternity considerations, work constraints, geography issues, lack of available opportunities, or other reasonable circumstances.

So, in summary, I support the aim, but I would prefer a more flexible version: encourage and require contribution, but allow pledges, alternative forms of support, and committee discretion rather than making one specific divisional volunteering day an absolute selection gate.

Just to endorse Andrew’s excellent points above. This amendment is predicated on the basis that people are able to volunteer. And sometimes they can’t. I live in the US and have been very grateful that Welsh powerlifting have shown some flexibility for international selection on this. Though I do try and offer to help as is possible remotely.

I fully agree with Andrew’s points above, I think it’s justifiably aspirational but in practice the requirement could be quite tricky. We seem to be expecting more and more of all lifters especially at the international level. Attendance at squads (whether mandatory or not), escalating costs to attend international competitions. It would not surprise me if many lifters are now doing extra shifts, working extra hours etc to support the cost of their international schedule. You add in childcare costs etc for those affected and it’s a lot, that extra demand for volunteering could be a step too far. Everyone, I’m sure would love to give back to the sport and may be doing so in their own ways through promotion, coaching, encouraging others , they may have also historically volunteered a lot and circumstances have changed over time, geographical constraints are also a challenge for some, as in my case and Alison above. Whilst we completely accept the growing pressure for competition organisers to have adequate volunteers, it won’t always be possible for some international lifters to do so. Should they be penalised for that? It’s a step too far in my opinion.

Some excellent points have been made.

Encouraging new volunteers to help with competitions can be difficult, looking to those who can set an example is one way of potentially helping with the issue. I do think there are other avenues that we also need to explore (and potentially as a priority to draw in more than the small percentage of the member base that are international athletes).
I think to resolve the staffing problems at divisional events we need to fully understand the barriers to volunteering, and how divisions / BP can work to break those barriers down.

Whilst there are some international athletes who are not actively volunteering, there are many that do already contribute and volunteer within divisions (be that their own or others where it works geographically), volunteer nationally & internationally, or contribute to various committees within BP.
As such I endorse Andrew’s points above highlighting a need for a case by case basis and a broader definition of what constitutes giving back to the sport if this is the route that we go down.
This would also very likely add to the workload of other individuals (Performance Director / Head Coaches for example).

I do also hear Melissa and Alison’s points regarding additional impact for those international athletes who’s circumstances limit their capacity to volunteer.
For those whom volunteering would have additional cost implications - eg longer travel, childcare etc this may be even more limiting.

I do think that we should encourage our international representatives to promote our sport in ways which work with their capacities, strengths, and weaknesses. I am uncertain that mandatory staffing at events is an all encompassing solution.

The motion requires athletes to complete one day of volunteering during the previous calendar year but deliberately does not prescribe the type of volunteering. This flexibility allows athletes to contribute in ways that suit their circumstances, whether through spotting and loading at competitions, working on the table, managing social media, serving on a committee, or other meaningful roles that support their local division.
This would not be an unprecedented selection criterion. Teams already publish their selection criteria in advance, meaning athletes are fully aware of what is expected of them. International athletes already meet published requirements such as attending squad sessions and completing WADA training. A volunteering requirement would simply become another clear expectation for those seeking to represent Great Britain.
Some have suggested allowing athletes to commit to volunteering after selection instead. However, a forward-looking approach would create a significantly greater administrative burden and make the motion effectively unenforceable. If an athlete pledged to volunteer in the future but subsequently failed to do so, what meaningful consequences would exist after the international competition had already taken place? By contrast, requiring volunteering in the previous calendar year provides a clear, objective and verifiable standard.
While this proposal may create a small increase in administrative work for the Head Coaches, it should also be considered alongside the separate motion proposing the introduction of a paid Performance Director. It would be entirely reasonable for responsibility for verifying this requirement to fall within that role.
Representing Great Britain is a privilege, not a right. Selection has always depended on meeting published criteria, and this proposal is no different. Volunteering would remain entirely voluntary because no athlete is compelled to seek international selection. Those who choose not to volunteer retain that choice, but they would do so knowing that they would be ineligible for selection, just as they would be if they failed to meet any other published selection criterion.
Powerlifting has always prided itself on being an inclusive, volunteer-led sport, and long-term success depends on a strong grassroots infrastructure. The aim of this proposal is not simply to secure volunteer hours but to establish the expectation that those who benefit most from the sport should also contribute to it. Existing initiatives have not sufficiently addressed volunteer shortages, and expecting the sport's most prominent athletes to lead by example should not be considered controversial.
This proposal is not intended to solve volunteering challenges on its own but to form part of a wider strategy. Increasingly, international lifters benefit from the from a system that relies on an ever-smaller group of dedicated volunteers who give up countless hours to keep the sport running. It is often argued that many international athletes give back through coaching. However, coaching primarily benefits their own athletes and, in many cases, generates income for the coach. Those coaching businesses are themselves dependent upon competitions and opportunities that only exist because others continue to volunteer their time without financial reward. Coaching therefore cannot be regarded as an equivalent contribution to volunteering that directly supports the wider sport.
Exceptional cases where athletes are genuinely unable to volunteer should be considered individually, with exemptions granted only by senior members of the British Powerlifting Executive Board to ensure consistency and prevent misuse.
Finally, this issue is particularly acute at division-level competitions. National volunteers already receive some financial incentives, whereas divisional events remain heavily dependent on unpaid volunteers. Encouraging international athletes to support their local divisions would therefore provide the greatest benefit where the need is currently most significant.
Overall, the proposal introduces a clear, proportionate and flexible selection requirement that reflects the values of a volunteer-led organisation. It reinforces that representing Great Britain carries responsibilities as well as privileges, supports the sustainability of grassroots powerlifting, and encourages those who benefit most from the sport to help sustain the community on which it depends.

@ben there’s enforcing this administratively, and then there’s achieving the same end result behaviourally — think Rory Sutherland.

In practice, asking athletes to contribute in some way for X period before and X period after competing would probably mean that, even if BP didn’t actively enforce it, most international lifters would at least try to work within the spirit of the rules. You could even frame it as guidance rather than a hard-enforceable requirement, keeping the pressure around expectations and social norms rather than creating another rule that BP has to track and police.

Personally, I think BP could achieve the same outcome in better ways. Ideally, we want people to volunteer with energy because they want to, not under duress because they feel they have to. I’d rather BP be encouraged that through smarter alignment of incentives — carrot — rather than defaulting to punishment for non-compliance — stick.

This said, please don't feel like I'm against the spirit of what you are trying to achieve here, Ben. I'm 100% in support of what you have tried to do here from an outcome perspective, especially given the amount of volunteering you do personally for the sport (and a huge thank you for that!). I'd just favour a different approach if given the option personally, is all.

There is strong support for increasing volunteer numbers, and this discussion highlights valid concerns. However, the motion and its defences present significant practical and philosophical flaws. Singling out international athletes with mandatory legislation appears to be about making a statement, not offering a practical solution. Because these athletes are a tiny fringe of the population, mandating them will not yield the influx needed to sustain divisionals. The committee is urged to carefully consider the following implications:

1. Representing Great Britain is a profound privilege, but it is earned through elite athletic excellence, not administrative compliance. Selection criteria should be independent of work requirements. No other recognised international sporting federation implements mandatory unpaid labour as a gatekeeper for elite selection. Conflating the honour of international representation with ticking administrative boxes fundamentally misunderstands elite sport.
2. Selection must remain an evaluation of athletic performance, sporting integrity (WADA), and team cohesion (squads). If this passes, is the federation genuinely prepared to send the fifth-best U83 lifter to Worlds simply because the top four missed a mandated volunteer day? This would severely compromise international team standards.
3. The argument that international lifters "benefit most" from the grassroots system ignores reality. While these athletes do compete at British Nationals, they rarely compete divisionally and draw minimal resource from British Powerlifting. They remain entirely liable for their own travel, accommodation, and doping fees abroad. Penalising them to prop up events they do not draw resources from is illogical.
4. Balancing a full-time job with training is a massive commitment. These athletes already attend mandatory weekend squads at their own expense, and many work extra shifts just to afford their schedules. Framing this as 'just one day' ignores the compounding pressure placed on the federation's most highly pressured competitors.
5. It has been suggested a paid Performance Director could verify this requirement. However, a Performance Director's time, and federation funds, should focus on elite performance and coaching, not the unnecessary administrative workload of auditing volunteer receipts for a negligible return.
6. International athletes already make unique contributions. By competing at the highest level, they provide vital exposure, feature in federation media, and inspire new lifters, directly driving grassroots participation. Enforcing administrative gates compromises team standards, meaning we send less competitive rosters abroad. A weaker team draws less attention, prestige, and engagement, undermining a powerful tool for growing the sport's membership base. The long-term health of a nation's sport is inextricably tied to the success of that nation in international competition.
7. The rationale suggests seeing international lifters volunteer will inspire newer members. This value is lost when people realise these athletes are volunteering because it is mandatory. Forced compliance does not inspire genuine volunteerism; it simply turns an act of goodwill into a resented chore.
8. A blanket mandatory volunteering requirement risks breaching the Equality Act 2010 through indirect discrimination. It disproportionately disadvantages athletes facing barriers due to demanding work, caring responsibilities, disabilities, or financial constraints. It was suggested that the Executive Board could grant 'exemptions,' however they are simply not qualified to pass judgment on the validity of an athlete's physical or mental disabilities. Treating equitable access as an 'exceptional case' leaves the federation legally vulnerable and places an invasive burden on athletes to justify private circumstances for eligibility.

While international athletes should be encouraged to volunteer, that expectation must be the same for athletes at every level. To address the volunteer shortage, efforts must encompass the entire membership base, rather than focusing on a tiny fraction whose numbers cannot sustain federation events. On a personal note, balancing the intense demands of my PhD, teaching, part-time work, and international training frequently pushes me into severe burnout. There are times when this exhaustion is so profound I barely have the energy to converse with my family. When athletes like myself cannot commit to additional volunteering, it is not because we cannot be bothered. It is because we are stretched to the absolute tether of what we can physically and mentally sustain. Ultimately, a federation’s primary responsibility is to facilitate peak performance on the world stage. By adding mandatory, non-athletic burdens, the federation risks actively hindering its elite athletes. And frankly, let's not overlook the glaring irony of 'mandatory volunteering', a perfect oxymoron.

Whilst I understand the spirit of this motion, I agree with the comments already submitted and do not endorse it. Mandatory volunteering is not the answer. Publishing schedules far enough in advance to allow people to book time to help, providing a welcoming and positive environment as a volunteer, seeking feedback to improve competitions and ensuring a spread around the UK/home nation are also important considerations. I happily give up my time to volunteer and help the sport, but I can also afford not only the time but the cost of helping. Volunteer expenses do not cover hotels and mileage if the event is a long way away which can also be a limiting factor.

Sorry I misread the divisional part as national but my comment still stands!

Agree with Betti statements of:

"International athletes already make unique contributions. By competing at the highest level, they provide vital exposure, feature in federation media, and inspire new lifters, directly driving grassroots participation. Enforcing administrative gates compromises team standards, meaning we send less competitive rosters abroad. A weaker team draws less attention, prestige, and engagement, undermining a powerful tool for growing the sport's membership base. The long-term health of a nation's sport is inextricably tied to the success of that nation in international competition."

An argument can easily be made that lifters representing GB on the international stage are already making a unique contribution through the visibility and inspiration that comes from competing at the highest level.

I suspect international lifters would agree with the principle of volunteering being actively encouraged to ensure the elite lifters are setting a good example to those on the grassroots, but this should not be a mandatory process and tick-box exercise that will fundamentally lead to GB sending weaker teams to internationals.

While I can see the intentions of the motion, I must disagree with enforcing a requirement on international athletes to volunteer divisionally for reasons as detailed by Betti as well as questions not answered in the motion above. As a junior lifter invited to commonwealths i can personally speak to the sacrifices I have taken to afford to represent Wales on the international stage; I have paid, as of now, over £1,000 to represent the country, and was forced to set up a GoFundMe to help cover these costs while also taking out money from my savings intended for emergencies or other payments. As you can imagine, I am not the only one in this position, and this will also ring true for GB athletes. Every day on Instagram when selection is announced, I am seeing an increasing number of sub-junior and junior athletes required to set up a GoFundMe to afford to represent GB (or their home nations). Therefore, I would like to seek clarification regarding who would be included in this mandatory volunteering, should it come to pass. Would this include everyone from sub-juniors to master lifters, and if so, how would safeguarding be enforced?
Additionally, the motion as mentioned above fails to realise and discuss ways in which athletes are disproportionately implicated in these discussions, financially, geographically and disregards the personal lives of athletes outside of powerlifting. Living between homes during university has meant that often when competitions occur in Wales, which are primarily in Cardiff, it would cost £100+ to book a hotel and train fare while continuing to complete my degree or give up work experience/internship opportunities. This is similar to my experience living in Sheffield, which, in the 2 years I have lived there, has not held any powerlifting competitions to my knowledge and thus requires travel to the surrounding cities, sometimes as far as Newcastle.
In voicing concerns to other members, I have been told that compensation is available; however, if an athlete does not have the funds before the competition due to strained finances, this means nothing to an athlete struggling to make ends meet, regardless of their standing as an international athlete. I have also been told that if you feel forced to volunteer due to this motion, you do not love the sport; however, many athletes love this sport. That is why they dedicate themselves to training around busy work, studies and intense workloads, some even taking on additional shifts to cover the costs of competing both nationally and divisionally.
While it may only be one weekend, for many that means being unable to pick up a shift that weekend and losing money, finding a carer or childcare provider, and logistically planning how hours of travel after work will be feasible to attend competitions outside of their geographical area.
Additionally this also highlights the issue should this motion come to pass that there is only so many competitions held in an area each year, what would the solution should an international athlete only be able to volunteer in their area but due to these requirements and an increase or popularity of volunteering in that area mean that the volunteering they can do (not everyone can spot and load for many different factors) is full and at full strength in volunteers thus risking losing out on international athletes due to an inability to travel.
I can imagine many would love to volunteer but feel unconfident, financially or geographically unable to and thus steps towards addressing these barriers should first be addressed before a motion such as this can be considered as mandatory volunteering is not common in elite sports and would reshape the teams sent to international competitions.
Ultimately, should this motion come to pass, it would alienate many talented athletes who come from disadvantaged backgrounds, and I implore members to consider the implications this motion will have on talented up-and-coming athletes, or even established international lifters who rely on the generosity of donations, sponsorships and extra part-time or full-time jobs to represent GB (and their home nations).

I feel there is a perception that this motion was proposed out of resentment rather than necessity. The motion was born out of a genuine concern for the sustainability of grassroots competition and the increasing strain being placed on a small number of volunteers.
I know that, not just myself, but multiple competition organisers are currently experiencing extreme burnout due to a severe lack of volunteers. While I appreciate that the motion could benefit from greater clarity around what constitutes a "day" of volunteering and exactly who it should apply to. I agree, for example, that it should not apply to sub-junior members, and that was an oversight on my part. I maintain that the underlying principle and objective of the motion remain valid.
Just last weekend, I spent over 25 hours running a divisional competition because there were not enough volunteers. At the start of the competition, only three people had signed up to unload the van afterwards, despite there being over 1,000 kg of plates and additional equipment to move. Not to mention having a platform crew of only three people for parts of the day.
Every week I see appeals for last-minute volunteers because there simply are not enough people available. Time and again, it is the same small group of dedicated individuals donating enormous amounts of their time to keep competitions running. If the current model continues, I genuinely believe grassroots competitions will become unsustainable. That, in turn, would have a far greater long-term impact on our international programme than the proposal currently being discussed.
The intention behind the volunteering requirement was therefore to encourage a broader culture of contribution rather than to create a barrier to international selection. The one-day requirement was deliberately left broad to provide flexibility. It does not have to mean volunteering at a competition, nor does it need to be completed in a single day. Serving on a divisional committee, helping with competition setup, unloading the van, or simply helping for a single session of a competition would all represent valuable contributions that would significantly reduce the pressure currently placed on existing volunteers.
I also disagree with the suggestion that this would only affect a small number of athletes. When the entire British Powerlifting community is considered, not just the Open Classic team, British Powerlifting sends over 200 athletes to international competitions each year. Furthermore, athletes who are working towards international selection or podium places would also have an incentive to volunteer in anticipation of qualifying. This has the potential to create a substantial increase in the volunteer pool. Even an additional two or three volunteers at each competition would make a significant difference to those currently carrying the workload.
Some have also argued that no other international sporting federation imposes a similar expectation. However other powerlifting federations have comparable requirements, for example, Malta Powerlifting has an equivalent volunteering requirement for its international athletes. Likewise, the suggestion that international selection should be based solely on elite performance overlooks the fact that international athletes are already expected to meet a number of administrative obligations beyond lifting itself, such as attending squad sessions and completing mandatory e-learning. A volunteering requirement would simply represent another reasonable expectation associated with representing the federation.
Finally, I would challenge the assertion that international lifters are not the greatest beneficiaries of British Powerlifting's resources. The British Powerlifting financial statements show that international competition remains the organisation's single largest area of expenditure. International competitions account for over 50% of British Powerlifting's total expenditure, while international entry fees recover only around 57% of those costs.
Similarly, entry fees for national competitions do not fully cover the costs of delivering those events, including venue hire, equipment, drug testing, and live streaming. By comparison, membership rebates to divisions account for only 22.5% of the membership fee and are further reduced by EPA contributions, meaning that most divisions receive less than 15% of each member's fee. In other words, the wider membership subsidises both national and international competition. Given that reality, it is not unreasonable to ask those representing British Powerlifting internationally to make a modest contribution towards supporting the grassroots system that ultimately enables those opportunities to exist.

I understand the reasoning by this motion as it can be difficult to round up enough volunteers for competitions and they usually end up being ran by the same few people. Mandating volunteering in your local division excludes gaining volunteering support for English Powerlifting Nationals, as English Powerlifting is not a standalone division whereas this is the case for Wales/Scotland etc, the home nation in those countries are also the division. There are volunteers in English Powerlifting who then do not have the capacity to also volunteer in their own division (such as NW/EM etc) alongside the EPA who would then be ineligible for international selection, regardless of how many hours they give to English Powerlifting instead of their specific division.

I think if volunteering was mandated, it should be the criteria to enter a national, not focusing on international lifters. This year I have overseen 4 English Nationals and there has been a large amount of international lifters volunteer, and at these competitions it is new lifters that are not supporting from a volunteer capacity, especially at the All England Juniors. If BP are going to go down the route of making volunteering mandatory, it should start as a national criteria to be able to complete at either the relevant home nation championships, or the British equivalent.

Powerlifting is a volunteer led sport, I think adding in more admin for divisions to keep on top of who volunteered when/where, plus additional admin for head coaches or international admin, makes this a difficult motion to enforce and will create work in other areas. I also know that I would much rather be spotted at a competition by a volunteer who wants to be there, rather than someone who has been told they have to be there.

It is deeply sympathetic that competition organisers are experiencing severe burnout. Spending 25 hours running a divisional competition and struggling to find three people to unload 1,000 kg of plates represents a genuine systemic failure that British Powerlifting must address. However, attempting to solve a federation-wide grassroots labour shortage by mandating the international team is mathematically and logically flawed. Furthermore, using the federation's financial statements in this capacity to justify this mandate demonstrates a clear misunderstanding of the figures.

The assertion that international competitions account for over 50% of British Powerlifting's total expenditure and are heavily subsidised by the grassroots membership is factually incorrect. It misses the reality of how international logistics actually operate. As anyone who has navigated the international circuit understands, the federation acts as a financial intermediary. British Powerlifting pays the international federations upfront for hotels, doping fees, and entry fees, and the athletes then reimburse British Powerlifting for those exact costs out of their own pockets.

To present the true financial picture, we have to look at net cost, not gross expenditure. Quoting the £304,056 spent on internationals as 49.4% of the £615,922 total operating expenses treats the entire amount as a direct cost to the federation, without accounting for the £173,050 that comes straight back in via athlete payments. When subtracting that £173,050 reimbursement, the true net cost of international competition to the federation is £131,006. That figure represents just 21.3% of the federation's total operating expenses. Suggesting that international athletes are a massive financial drain being propped up by the grassroots membership overstates the case significantly. These athletes are largely self-funded, and looking only at gross expenditure is misleading and obscures that fact.

It is stated that this motion comes from a place of necessity, not resentment. Yet, if the genuine objective is to resolve a volunteer crisis threatening grassroots competitions, targeting a tiny fraction of the overall membership base is an inherently irrational solution. Even if British Powerlifting sends 200 athletes abroad, forcing them to do a single day of work yields, at absolute maximum, 200 volunteer days spread across the entire country over an entire year. That will not save the grassroots system. If the issue is truly about the membership stepping up, then the proposed legislation should address the entire membership base. Singling out elite athletes to shoulder a mandate that the rest of the federation is exempt from looks exactly like resentment, or at the very least, remarkably poor policy design.

Comparing a mandate for unpaid manual labour to WADA anti-doping training or squad attendance is a false equivalency. Anti-doping e-learning and squad sessions are fundamental athletic and sporting integrity requirements designed to ensure athletes are prepared to compete legally and safely on the world stage. They are not administrative chores invented to compensate for a federation's logistical shortfalls. As for the comparison to Malta Powerlifting, comparing the logistics of one of the smallest federations in the world to Great Britain is hardly a compelling precedent.

Doubling down on my previous point, this motion completely devalues the massive, unique contribution international athletes already make. As mentioned, competing at the highest level, these lifters provide the primary exposure for British Powerlifting. They are the faces in the federation's media content, they draw widespread attention to the sport, and they inspire the influx of new lifters whose membership fees actually fund the federation.

This high-visibility contribution directly drives the growth of grassroots powerlifting. You do not ask the marketing department to unload the delivery vans, and you should not mandate that your elite athletic roster perform manual labour under the threat of losing their international selection. Forced compliance does not build a culture of contribution, it builds resentment. If the federation wants to fix the volunteer shortage, it must look at systemic, federation-wide solutions instead of resorting to the unpaid administrative conscription of its self-funded international team.