A few days ago, we mentioned a possible major turning point for Olympic surfing with the reform of qualifications for the 2028 Los Angeles Games.
The idea? Drastically reduce the Championship Tour (CT) part of the World Surf League (WSL) in favor of competitions from the International Surfing Association (ISA). An announcement that, while aiming to balance the chances and intensify the competition, has not been universally accepted. Behind the scenes and on social media, there is growing discontent among some of the biggest names in the circuit.
The contested reform: less CT, more ISA
As a reminder, the ISA proposal would limit five spots per gender via the CT, with a potential restriction to one surfer per country, whereas the previous cycles (Tokyo 2020, Paris 2024) allocated a much larger part through the final CT rankings. The stated goal was to give more weight to the ISA World Surfing Games, offering an opportunity to emerging nations and intensifying the value of these world championships.
The wave of criticism: “A total lack of respect”
However, this reform, presented as strategic by the ISA, is seen as an affront by many CT athletes. Reactions were swift, and the tone rose, especially on social media.
Among the most critical voices are prominent figures like Yago Dora, the current reigning world champion. His verdict is clear: “Very disrespectful to the best competition surfers in the world. A total lack of respect in the way they conducted this, absolutely sad for our sport and the future generations of surfers.”
Leo Fioravanti agrees, emphasizing that the previous system worked “perfectly” by guaranteeing the presence of the best. He protests: “Now, the WSL 2027 world champion is not even guaranteed to participate in the Olympic Games.” He also denounces a lack of communication: “On behalf of WSL surfers, we tried to communicate with the ISA to find the best solution for everyone, but the ISA refused to collaborate.”
João “Chumbinho” Chianca expresses his “shame” at this decision made “behind our backs,” deeming the qualification system “unfair” and reproaching the ISA for “not respecting our opinions.”
Erin Brooks emphasizes consistency: “Consistency at the highest level is what defines competition surfing. The WSL Championship Tour is where this happens, and the Olympic qualification pathway should reflect this even more strongly.”
Lakey Peterson shares a similar disappointment: “What a shame to see this. A total lack of respect towards WSL surfers. We would have liked for you to discuss with us before making this decision because we have tried to have meetings with you several times, and you have canceled, acting behind our backs and not allowing an open line of communication with the surfers whose lives are affected by this.”
Even Caity Simmers and Luana Silva have expressed their disagreement, with the former simply giving a thumbs-down sign, and the latter clearly stating, “We do not agree with this system.”
The heart of the problem: fear of losing or missed opportunity?
These criticisms raise a fundamental question: why this reluctance to invest more in ISA events? Some editorialists do not hesitate to speak of “fear of losing” against surfers from emerging nations, or of “contempt” towards an organization which, let us remember, is the only path to the Games.
The contrast is evident with the example of Gabriel Medina in Puerto Rico in 2024. Having missed direct Olympic qualification, he fully committed to the ISA World Surfing Games, winning the championship with palpable emotion and securing his ticket. His performance was hailed as an example of “courage” and determination in the face of the Olympic challenge.
The ISA is accused of operating behind the scenes and defending its own interests. On the other hand, CT surfers believe that the current system, which favors the cream of the WSL, ensures Olympic quality. The divide is deep.
Towards Los Angeles 2028: a “more contested” and tense path
If the ISA’s intention is to make the road to Los Angeles 2028 “much more contested” and to value its own competitions, the method and reception of this reform reveal significant tension between the two major entities of the global surfing scene. The final details are yet to be confirmed, but one thing is certain: Olympic surfing is at a crossroads, and peace is not yet signed among all stakeholders.
The stakes are no longer just sporting, they are also political. And it could reshape the landscape of competitive surfing for years to come.
