Statement from Ian Cairns, Spokesperson for the Stop the Skijack Coalition
We are relieved that U.S. Ski & Snowboard has announced it is withdrawing from formal consideration to take over Olympic surfing. That is the right decision. Their proposal was always about cherry-picking Olympic surfing and its commercial rights at the expense of the rest of the sport, surfers, and the Southern California communities that actually built surfing’s Olympic moment.
But let’s be clear: the way this withdrawal was framed raises more questions than it answers.
U.S. Ski’s statement blames USA Surfing for ‘public attacks and uninformed legal threats’ instead of owning the fact that surfers rejected a plan that would have concentrated power and revenue in the hands of an outside winter-sports NGB while offering no real support for the broader surf ecosystem. What USA Surfing, surfer stakeholders, and elected leaders did was point to the law – the Ted Stevens Act and the one-sport, one-NGB principle – and refuse to sign onto a deal that was illegal and not in the best interest of surfers or the sport.
The Stop the Skijack Coalition is deeply concerned that this move is all about avoiding scrutiny and accountability. By withdrawing just before their public hearing, U.S. Ski has sidestepped tough, on-the-record questions about:
Why they pursued a model that violates with the Ted Stevens Act’s one-sport, one-NGB framework.
Why their proposal offered no meaningful investment in surf development programs, youth pathways, or the broader competitive structure.
Why they appear to view Olympic surfing primarily as a new summer revenue stream and sponsorship platform – ‘taking care of 4–6 surfers’ while taking control of the cash and commercial rights.
Why they disregard the jeopardy they put American surfers in by ignoring the central role of the IOC-recognized international federation for surfing, the International Surfing Association, which said they could not support an organization that doesn’t steward the whole sport as the Olympic charter mandates.
It is especially troubling that U.S. Ski’s statement suggests they might reconsider managing Olympic surfing ‘should the environment become more collaborative.’ Translation: the surfers and their NGB should stop objecting and quietly submit to a plan that gives away their sport’s future. That is incredibly disrespectful of athletes’ voices and agency. No reasonable person would agree to a relationship with so many self-interested conditions and unanswered questions.
Surfers are not asking for special treatment; they are asking for a lawful, surfer-first structure that recognizes the work already being done. USA Surfing is the ISA-recognized national federation, has the support of the ISA and strong relationships with the WSL, has fielded Olympic and Pan Am Games teams, and is actively addressing every USOPC requirement for certification. USA Surfing athletes have already delivered multiple world titles and Olympic-pathway gold medals for the United States.
Our coalition’s concern now is simple: has U.S. Ski pulled its NGB bid on paper while still positioning itself behind the scenes to be contracted to manage the LA28 surfing team? We call on the USOPC to make a clear public commitment that there will be no back-door, contract-based ‘skijack’ of surfing’s Olympic program, now or after the Winter Games. Rest assured, we are watching.
With Sophie Goldschmidt at the helm of U.S. Ski I would have thought that her prior experience as CEO of the World Surf League (WSL) would have given her more insight into the world of surf, but apparently not as WSL also supports USA Surfing as the legitimate Surfing NGB.
Surfers deserve a sport-specific NGB that is accountable to them, not a distant winter-sports organization looking for a second Olympics. We will remain vigilant to ensure that the law is followed, that athletes’ voices are respected, and that surfing’s Olympic future is governed by surfing, not opportunism.
Ian “Kanga” Cairns
Ian Cairns
(949) 632-7226
kangacairns@gmail.com
