Virtual AGM Council Proposals – Questions & Answers

The 53 questions and answers below, provide you with information on the Council Proposals on the AGM Agenda (linked here) – Items 4.2, 5.1 to 5.5, 6 and 7. These questions come from the membership through emails and discussions at the regional video conferences held 6 – 10 July.

Delegates should also listen to the four video clips about the Council proposals (in English / in French / in Spanish). More information on the AGM can be found on the Forum and AGM page of the website (linked here).

Proposal 4.2 – Adoption of Audited Financial Statements

Generally speaking, except for Olympic Games years (2016 / 2012 / 2008) where BWF benefits from Olympic Games income “BWF tournaments and open events” is the highest figure in terms of income, and it is the highest line item in expenditure which reflects the importance of this in the activities of BWF annually.

BWF has not provided any more details over many years of Audited Financial Statements (see the last 8 years) than what was provided in 2019 because of the ‘commercial and in confidence’ nature of the agreements that underpin this area.

BWF has tournaments where it owns 100% of the commercial and media rights (the World Championships for example), and other tournament categories are shared with the various partners including the host – and the BWF World Tour is an example of this.

The revenues included under this area are related to both commercial (broadcast / sponsorship) fees, but also Hosting fees that particularly are attached to Major Championships. Other revenues are however also included, such as sanction fees, withdrawal fees and various disciplinary ruling fees. The revenues are related to Major Championships, BWF World Tour Finals, BWF World Tour tournaments, World Tour (Super 100), but also include revenues for other areas such as activities related to sponsorship of BWF development programs.

When looking at revenues related to the tournament broadcast and sponsorship area then the majority of revenues are however allocated to the BWF World Tour.

The costs related to the tournament income area are mainly recorded in connection with BWF tournaments and open events, but some are also recorded in other areas in the accounts, such as under Marketing, HSBC Marketing Activation, which is connected with sponsorship revenues received from HSBC.

BWF is not in a position to disclose all the details of its commercial and confidential information related to any of its partners under this area, and this includes the individual agreements we have with each of the hosts of the HSBC BWF World Tour.

On the marketing expenditure on e-Sports – this was an approved budget from Council to explore the feasibility of e-Sports for BWF and badminton.  It is a fund to work with external experts to conduct research, provide advice and if the Council sees this as an innovation that BWF should undertake, then to develop our strategy for the future involvement in the e-Sport sphere. In 2019 we engaged a consultant for phase 1 and development activities are ongoing with a game developer with the objective to develop a game that can be part of the e-sports community. Going into 2020 these activities have however been temporarily reduced due to the COVID-19 situation, but the development process is expected to continue as started in 2019.

On the HSBC Marketing Activation, this is not expenses to market the HSBC BWF World Tour as such, but the HSBC Marketing Activation programme is a budget allocated to deliver our contractual obligations related to HSBC being the BWF’s Global Development Partner. As mentioned in the response around the commercial revenues then these costs are connected to the income we receive related to the HSBC Global Development Partner agreement, so overall this is a net income area for BWF and not as such a cost.

This has a range of components, but in 2019, this mainly focused on the development and launch of AirBadminton activities where HSBC were involved – such as the launch activities in Guangzhou is May 2019 (linked here – you would also remember the activations for the membership during the Forum and AGM days in Nanning). The budget involve other areas, such as the installation of outdoor AirBadminton courts in various locations, the development and implementation of related marketing initiatives and the launch of the Community Activation Project in Guangzhou.

Last year at the AGM in Nanning, we presented the principles on how to assess the size of the reserves to protect best way possible the BWF, the badminton community and the different organisation receiving funds – such as the CC’s and members. This to ensure that the BWF has a responsible financial management and to ensure the long-term development of the sport.

Please look for the explanation provided earlier – last year AGM

The BWF works closely with the Continental Confederations (CCs) regionally to financially support the development of badminton. There are principles governing the distribution of base level grants and other grants which are based on 1) needs, 2) a thorough planning and application process, 3) accountability and reporting of finances. This ensures a fair distribution for global development of badminton through CC programmes in their region for BWF Members.

The funded programmes covers these kinds of CC grants so they have the capacity to ensure strong development programmes for members – Base Level grant for governance and office administration and capacity; Human Resources; Programme Funding for areas such as Shuttle Time, AirBadminton and Coach education; Player Development; Equipment for Badminton / AirBadminton; Para badminton; Tournament Development; Technical Officials; Marketing; and Gender Equity.

In 2020, BWF introduced a membership development grant with the following principles to guide the implementation of this:

  • Focus on building the capacity of Member Associations.
  • Support the growth of badminton at a national level.
  • Support should focus on training, development of people and building the capacity and structures of Member Associations.
  • Support should be tailored to the needs of Member Associations.
  • Member Associations must demonstrate clear outcomes and submit necessary reporting.

There is no specific deadline as per the BWF Constitution to present the financial statement to the BWF Membership. However, because the AGM must take place before 31 July 2020 of each year (art. 15 of the Constitution), there is an implicit requirement that the financial requirements be ready before then.

The 2020 budgets you have received were prepared back in October-November 2019, before COVID-19 started. We are currently preparing revised budgets to take into account the impacts of the COVID-19 situation.

The audit process of Continental Confederations (CC) is a responsibility of each of the Continental bodies and an audit company/process is typically decided by the Annual Meetings of each of the CCs as part of their constitutional requirements.

BWF is however in a dialogue with the CCs on how to ensure a high level audit process and possibly to support this process financially. There is a shared understanding that this kind of process is important in terms of governance and in light of the significant funds being distributed to and through the Continental Confederations.

The word contingency here has a different meaning to how this is usually used and expressed in budgeting and accounting. But in this context, it is a Continental Confederation Contingency Grant – one of a suite of grants BWF has as part of its important relationships with the Continental Confederations (CC). There are a wide range of grants that make up the CC Grants Programme, and these are allocated against an annual development plan approved by the BWF and a range of reporting requirements including audited financial accounts and a detailed breakdown of expenses against approved projects and programmes.

The Continental Confederation Contingency Grant provides an opportunity for CCs to apply for the funding to deliver additional activities between July-December, should they have the capacity to do so. In order to access this funding, CCs must have delivered all activities planned for the first half of the year, utilised first half funding and must demonstrate the need and capacity to deliver additional activities in the second half of the year.

An amount of USD$100K is available annually and last year, this full amount was allocated to a wide variety of proposals submitted by each CC including National Referee Training, Level 3 Coach Education Pilot Course, Technical Officials Assessment Programme, Physical Testing of elite players at a regional centre of excellence and additional Shuttle Time Schools Badminton programmes. All of the above programs are essentially activities and services that provide extra value to the Member Associations.

Proposal 5.1 – Voting Strength

The proposal by Council is to remove two events because they no longer meet the criteria for ‘participation’ because these events are qualification events (not open events) from 2021.

The original criteria for clause 15.20 of the BWF Constitution was approved by the BWF membership at the 2012 AGM. The intention was to have more than half of the 12 events.

This criteria measures participation in international events over a four-year period. There is a maximum of 12 events included currently (see below). These are a mix of team tournaments (Sudirman Cup) and individual tournaments (World Championships) at both a world level (World Junior Championships) and Continental level (Continental Team Championships)

Because the Sudirman Cup will be a qualification tournament from 2021 (with only 16 teams), then this criteria and the two Sudirman Cup tournaments, in 2021 and 2023, should not be included in the total moving forward. So two Sudirman Cup events are removed from the current total of 12 events (to make 10) and the minimum of 6 events is still above 50% – the original intention of clause 15.20.

The proposed amendments are in red:

Participation in 7 6 out of these 12 10 events during the Assessment Period: Sudirman Cup (2 events), Individual Continental Championships (a maximum of 2 events), World Championships (3 events), Olympic Games (1 event), World Junior Team Championships (4 events).

See the first video – Proposals 5.1 and 5.2 (linked here) and then presentation for more information.

BWF Council will review the feasibility of including Para badminton events as part of the paragraph of article 15.20 of the Constitution related to participation in international tournaments. However, a complexity is that unlike badminton, for which the sport is managed by the BWF member associations only, Para badminton in many territories is managed by different types of organisations, sometimes a member association, by a dedicated para badminton association, or by the National Paralympic Committee. As a result, international participation in an event may not necessarily reflect the efforts of the member association.

There are currently 22 non-badminton organisations (out of the 64 organisations we recognise) who are not BWF Members. They look after Para sport in their national context – including Para badminton.

It is acknowledged that some territories in the world participate more in various international tournaments than others. Paragraph 15.20 of the Constitution is related to participation to international tournaments which can lead to an additional vote. It is considered a value that such participation and involvement around international tournaments should lead to a stronger voting position for a Member, so through development of the situation in a Member Association (or a Continent) this can then lead to stronger voting situation.

BWF will take this observation for further consideration in the future.  However, the intention of the current proposal is simply update it to take into account the new qualification system for the Sudirman Cup starting from 2021.

The number of votes for different members will change very little. The proposal only affects 2 events out of the previously 12 events that were included in the paragraph of article 15.20 on international participation. It is however noted that the assessment period is forward looking – 1 October 2020 to 30 September 2024, so it is not possible to say exactly how the tournament participation behaviour will evolve in the future, so an exact prediction is not possible.

No – the proposal will not affect the way points are awarded for the Sudirman Cup on the BWF World Ranking. The proposal only affects one of the parameters to measure whether a member association is actively participating in international tournaments.

Proposal 5.2 (b) – Term of the President :

Each of the subproposals 5.2 a), 5.2 b) and 5.2 c) will be voted on separately.

Currently there are no term limits in the Constitution for any BWF elected official – President, Deputy President, Vice President Para Badminton, or ordinary Council member.

There are currently no term limits in the Constitution. Apart from electing an individual as President for more than 4 terms, term limits would not limit the ability for the BWF membership to elect any President during elections held every four years.

The term limits provide a mechanism to ensure that the President is no longer able to be in that role after 4 terms – and there must be a change of leadership.

Any person elected to the role of BWF President takes at least one 4-year cycle / one term to build his/her knowledge and experience in this leadership governance role and in effectively managing the affairs of the BWF Council. Building the experience and developing a long-term vision takes time for any individual.

Secondly, building the external networks in the Olympic and Paralympic family are essential to represent badminton and BWF, and this takes time – a number of terms.

Key relationships with the IOC and IPC in particular, and with other International Federations (IFs) on the Summer Olympic Sports Federations are essential. The ultimate goal here is to have the BWF President elected on external sports bodies, and in particular to become an IOC Member. This representation role normally takes a lot longer to achieve than one or two terms as a President of an IF. And if an IOC member position is achieved as part of the positions available for International Federation Presidents then the position will be lost in case the IF President will not be re-elected.

It has therefore been the consideration that the term limit should not be too short as that could make it very difficult for BWF Presidents to work their way to get a position as an IOC Member and to retain this position for a reasonable number of years. But on the other hand, the term limit should not be too long to ensure reasonable renewal of the BWF political leadership

See the first video – Proposals 5.1 and 5.2 (linked here) and then presentation for more information.

The proposal, if adopted by the membership, comes into effect at the 2021 election. The key reason that the proposal does not include previous/existing terms is that “retroactive application of rules” is not good governance practice.

In 2013 when the current President was elected, there were no term limits defined in the Constitution. Nor were there in 2017 when the President was re-elected. It is fundamentally unfair and not good governance to apply a new rule (if passed in 2020) retroactively to include previous terms served (back to 2013) when there was no limit on terms.

It is important to understand that apart from preventing an individual from being elected more than four times as President, term limits do not in any way limit the ability for the BWF Membership to elect any President during elections which take place every four years. Whether to elect an individual as President is fully up to the membership.

This proposal only puts a maximum limit on the number of terms – four.

See the first video – Proposals 5.1 and 5.2 (linked here) and then presentation for more information.

Term limits are one of the components of good governance that are being introduced in the sporting world. The objective is to allow regular changes in the top leadership of an organisation in order to allow a new person to bring a fresh look on policies, strategies and practices within the organisation. It also helps to prevent an individual from creating a system that favours them. Overall term limits are intended to ensure a reasonable and balanced separation of powers within an organisation.

The implementation clause is being suggested out of good legislative practice, in order to avoid having a clause that has retroactive effects on the two elections during which the current President was elected, without any terms associated to them. In any case, it is important to remember that term limits create a maximum number of terms, and it is for members to choose if they are satisfied with their President and if they want to vote her or him again in the same position.

The proposal is only related to the President. The Presidency is considered to be a key position within the organisation, and for this reason, term limits are being imposed on this position as a first step.

No. The proposal only relates to the President of the BWF. Continental confederations and members associations are not bound by this proposal, but remain free to introduce their own term limits as a measure for good governance.

There are different approaches in different organisations. Term limits of 12 years is not unusual, but some organisations have more and some have fewer years. As an illustration, the President of the IOC has an initial term of 8 years, and may only be re-elected for a further 4-year period.

Proposal 5.2 (c)  – Election Protocols

The proposal reflects current BWF practice for AGM, and is simply designed to put in writing such practice. There is no requirement to have a minimum number of votes / percentage of total votes to elect a single candidate for a position.

Proposal 5.3 – Judicial Provisions:

The proposal on Judicial Provisions are refinements to the legal framework that have been in place in the Constitution for many years. The amendments are necessary, so that Council approved Judicial Procedures can come into effect on 19 July – the day after the AGM.

On 18 and 19 February at its meeting in Lausanne, the Council passed a variety of ethics regulations which will come into effect on 19 July. These regulations are 1) Code of Ethics, 2) Codes of Conduct, 3) Complaint Procedures, 4) Code of Conduct for the Prevention of Competition Manipulation and 5) Judicial Procedures. These can be downloaded from the website (linked here – Statutes page – see the download section top right).

These documents approved by Council are enhancements of existing ethics regulations. These regulations:

  • Ensure more external and independent judges on hearing panels.
  • Can be adopted by the Continental Confederations if they wish to do so – which brings efficiencies so that each CC does not need to establish their own panels or draft their own codes of ethics.


In order for these Judicial Procedures can come into effect, the BWF Constitution needs to change as this provides the legal framework for the regulations.

The amendments to the Constitution include:

  • A change of name to reflect the new hearing panels.
  • Removal of the Doping Hearing Panel – as the Council has already delegated this to the CAS Anti-Doping Division to judge all anti-doping cases. CAS will therefore act as a fully independent hearing panel for all anti-doping cases in BWF and will provide an enhanced expertise in this area as the CAS panels deal with cases in many other sports.
  • Removal of the current Appeals Panel – any future appeals will now go to either an Independent Hearing Panel (IHP) or straight to CAS – both external and independent. The current Appeals Panel is not external from the sport, which is an important principle to uphold here. Furthermore over 6 years, the BWF Appeals Panel only heard two appeals, so the proposed new system will be more efficient where panels will be more consistently dealing with cases and ensure a good experience level related to badminton cases.


See the second video – Proposal 5.3 (linked here) and then presentation for more information.

Yes. In the past, the Continental Confederations (CC) were responsible for their own disciplinary systems, with some CCs having more sophisticated systems than others. As part of the CC Constitution Harmonisation Project, the CCs were invited to become full stakeholders in the BWF judicial framework, so that their own cases can also be dealt with under this system, with the same standards and the same set of rules.

The Sports Disciplinary Panel will be competent for sports-related cases, and therefore it needs arbitrators from the sports community. Half of it will be made up of BWF Council members, while the other half will be made up of experts nominated by the CCs.

No, but this can be considered in the future. The new Sports Disciplinary Panel (SDP) is a refreshed version of the current “Standing Disciplinary Panel” which only had BWF Council members. The SDP now has CC appointees as arbitrators, but it can also be considered, in the future, to include athletes as well. It is however to look at whether it is sensible to include the Athletes Commission Chair to judge the athletes have elected the Chair onto the Athletes’ Commission in the first place, which could be seen as leading to a conflict of interest.

Independence is defined in article 7.4 of the Judicial Procedures. An individual may not become a panel member of the Independent Hearing Panel if that person has been employed by or advised the BWF, a continental confederation or a member association in the two years preceding the proposed appointment.

Yes, members of the Independent Hearing Panel receive a daily honorarium for their contribution to the hearing panel.

Proposal 5.4 – Council Geographical and Gender Representation:

Historically there has been a strong wish amongst the membership to have a diverse geographical representation that goes beyond securing representation through the Continental Vice Presidents. This proposal therefore seeks to implement a secured framework in line with what typically over the years has been the outcome of the elections.

This proposal fixes the number of representatives at each continental region has (geographical representation) to ensure that the Council represents all areas of the world. The proposal also ensure that Council has a gender representation element to guarantee a minimum percentage of women/men on Council, which is considered an important element considering badminton is a sport with a fairly even gender participation.

The IOC President wrote a letter to all International Federations two weeks ago which references a 30% target in the IOC’s Agenda 2020 strategy and encourages all IFs to set this goal and strategies to fulfil this by the end of 2020.

See the third video – Proposal 5.4 (linked here) and then presentation for more information.

The number of reserved seats for members of each of the CCs has been discussed and agreed as part of BWF Council and Executive Board Meetings. It is based on a number of criteria, including the voting weight of members within each of the represented continent, as well as historical factors.

Yes, the Continental Confederations were consulted in the development stages of the proposal and the respective Continental Confederation representatives agreed to this during the BWF Council and Executive Board meetings in which the discussions took place. The final decision however lies with the BWF Membership during the AGM.

As the number of seats within each continent is partially based on the voting strength of members within that continent, we expect that the numbers will be periodically revisited to ensure that the overall number of seats remains consistent with the relative collective voting strength of the members for each continent.

It is correct that the Continental VP will be elected first and thus also decide the gender of later-elected BWF Council Member representing Oceania.

The objective of the proposal is first and foremost to have a Council that represents the badminton community, where half of the players are males and half of the players are females. By virtue of its seat attribution, Oceania will be the closest to achieving this objective.

Because of its smaller weight in the badminton community, the proposal ensures that it is not possible that none of the competent candidates from Oceania would be elected on Council – which could alternatively be a likely scenario due to the overall voting strength of Oceania.

The seat will be left vacant until the next election so as to ensure that each gender within each region is properly represented. A candidate may be deemed to be competent by some, but unable to represent both genders equally. Likewise, individuals may be deemed not to be competent simply because they do not have the required experience. It is by bringing them forward that they may gain this experience.

As early as 10 years ago, the BWF had the topic of gender balance on its agenda, with its Council agreeing on a policy target of 30%. The BWF Council believes that now is the proper time to put forward mandatory requirements for the whole badminton community.

While we have looked at every other solution, including creating policy objectives as well as “pathways” for individuals of both genders to access Council positions, we have found that they were not sufficiently effective. For this reason, the BWF Council believes that now is the proper time to put forward hard requirements for the whole badminton community. At the same time the BWF Council believes it will be very important to continue to focus on gender equity strategies and to develop strong pathways for both genders to become Council members.

While we have considered every alternative option, we have found that without an actual binding requirement, the situation would not change sufficiently and in the way needed. For this reason, we are going forward with binding requirements affecting gender balance on the BWF Council.

Representation is indeed important, but this also makes the various regions responsible for training officials of both genders and for putting their name forward when the BWF elections come. Leaving the seat vacant creates an incentive for members within a continent to 1) provide training, and 2) promote the candidacy of individuals of both genders with a high level of competency.

Proposal 5.5 – Vetting of Officials:

Successive BWF Councils have taken steps to enhance BWF governance practice since 2012. This year, BWF was rated 3rd out of 31 Summer Olympic Sports Federations in its governance practice in an externally moderated process.

The Council has ‘leadership in governance innovation’ as a stated objective in its Strategic Plan 2020 – 2024. This proposal is part of BWF’s effort to continuously improve governance practice in the BWF and to ensure BWF and badminton is considered trustworthy towards the wider global populations as well as the wider business community.

BWF is a very different organisation now than what it was in 2010 – greater turnover, greater reserve, significant commercial contracts – and with this comes higher expectations in relation to governance from its international partners, business partners, our badminton community and the communities we serve. When interacting with the different stakeholders in a global context the credibility of BWF is extremely important – especially when interacting with international and national government institutions and big companies being potential sponsors of badminton. Such credibility will however be questioned if the BWF leadership does not live to certain minimum requirements, which is equally a normal standard when dealing with business boards and management positions.

So the overall objective of the Vetting process is to limit reputational risk and protect the credibility of the BWF as an organisation, which in turn will provide a more solid platform for long term success of the organisation.

Currently there is only one eligibility criteria which prevents a person being nominated as elected official, and that is being under suspension (an ethics hearing panel has barred them from badminton activities). This proposal introduces new objective eligibility criteria against which a vetting company and the Vetting Panel will use to vet candidates. These criteria include:

  • being an undischarged bankrupt.
  • having a conviction of fraud, homicide or sexual misconduct, or any infraction punishable by a term of prison of 2 years or more.
  • being disqualified from being a company director.


Vetting panels use the criteria in the Constitution to assess the candidates. Vetting is a process that is getting more common in international sport and is a strategy to limit reputational risk for our badminton community.

See the fourth video – Proposal 5.5 (linked here) and then presentation for more information.

The criteria have been seen as generally quite severe and something that would disqualify members to sit on a council – whether this being an International Federation or a company board of directors.

Many criteria have been discussed and although some International Federations have a wider range of criteria, which are less severe than the proposed list of criteria, the proposed criteria have been seen as a good framework to protect the interests of the organisation at this stage of its development as an organisation.

See the fourth video – Proposal 5.5 (linked here) and then presentation for more information.

Yes they can be a candidate as long as the crime does not relate to fraud, homicide or sexual misconduct.

With regard to convictions, clause 2.4.3 of the new Appendix II states the following:

2.4.3. Conviction: the person has been convicted by a Relevant Authority of any offence related to fraud, homicide, or sexual misconduct, or punishable by a term of imprisonment of two (2) or more years (whether or not a term of imprisonment is imposed)”.

This means that a person who has been convicted of any offence related to fraud, homicide or sexual misconduct is not eligible. The conviction can be in the past or a current conviction. It may have involved a prison term or not.

This also means that a person who has had a term of imprisonment of 2 years or more for any other types of offences at any time in their life, is not eligible.

If the person has served a term of less than 2 years for a conviction not related to fraud, homicide or sexual misconduct – then that person is eligible.

See the fourth video – Proposal 5.5 (linked here) and then presentation for more information.

The proposal refers to any conviction in a person’s life, whether in the past or current.

Bankruptcy (without discharge) is a common criterion as part of this type of vetting rules. As an illustration, Malaysian law (applicable to BWF) prevents an undischarged bankrupt to be part of a board of directors.

Bankruptcy is relevant as a criterion because it is often related to an individual’s ability to manage their own financial affairs.

In any case, being bankrupt one day does not mean that an individual is forever barred from being a BWF Official. Indeed, once an individual has complied with all the conditions set by the competent body, such individual is considered “discharged” and may once again be deemed as “eligible” under the proposed BWF vetting rules.

BWF is aware that it operates in a complex world where there are as many political and judicial systems as there are countries. In drafting the vetting rules, it was careful to include broad wording so as to cover the particularities of most countries, but it also did not want to punish individuals who were punished for political reasons.

Through the “interpretation clause” of article 2.6 of Appendix II, the Vetting Panel is instructed to interpret the vetting criteria taking into account their spirit, which is to ensure that BWF Officials are able to uphold the highest standards of good governance. By effect of this article, the Vetting Panel may decide to disregard the literal wording of a criteria and allow an Official, who would otherwise be ineligible, to be eligible. The opposite however does not hold true, and the Vetting Panel may not declare ineligible an individual would otherwise be eligible.

It should be noted that under article 2.4.3 of Appendix II of the Constitution, an individual can be declared ineligible if such individual has been convicted of an offence related to fraud, homicide or sexual misconduct. In such cases, there is no minimum for the associated term of prison (if any).

An individual may also be declared ineligible for any other infraction if there is an associated term of prison of two years or more.

As the BWF has member associations in a large number of countries, and establishing a cut-off duration for prison terms was delicate. Two years was suggested because it excludes minor misdemeanours that carry a prison term, but is also low enough to capture most serious crimes.

Putting forward vetting rules is a delicate exercise, and various options were considered over time. We need to balance preserving the reputation of badminton and the BWF while also not imposing rules that are not too stringent or uncertain for potential candidates.

The current reform is a first step forward, and through experience, we hope to see how the process can be further strengthened.

The vetting rules also apply to the Continental VPs nominated by the CCs to sit on the BWF Council. Indeed, the Continental VPs are of particular importance because they are “Officers” in accordance with the BWF Constitution. This area was discussed and agreed by the current CC representatives.

No, the vetting procedures are not applicable to CC and member elections. We do however encourage our CCs and our members to constantly review how they can strengthen the governance of their organisation, including through options such as vetting of candidates for official positions.

A number of organisations have vetting rules as part of their elections process, including the IOC, FIFA, and World Athletics. As it has been for the past few years, the BWF will continue following the governance-related efforts made by other international federations to see how it can further improve its governance framework.

Proposal 6 – Subscription

The price of subscription is proposed to be set at USD$200 per unit. This has remained unchanged for a large number of years.

The number of units to pay then depends on the number of votes held by each member organisation. Article 26.3 of the Constitution lists the number of units payable according to the number of votes. A total of 138 Members have one vote – and they therefore pay $200 if the subscription unit is passed. Members who have five votes have to pay the equivalent of 31 Units – which is USD$6,200. Members can view the voting strength of each BWF Member on the BWF website (linked here) – download the document.

Proposal 7 – Auditors

BDO has been the auditor for the BWF for the past 4 years. Before that, KPMG was BWF’s auditor.

In principle, we agree that organisations should have regular changes of auditors as part of good governance procedures. There is however no set rule on how often such change should occur, so this will be considered on an ongoing basis.