Allowing U.S. Ski to apply to be the NGB in order to leverage revenues from two Olympics in the U.S. was a clear violation of the Ted Stevens Act, which prohibits an NGB from belonging to more than one International Federation (IF). U.S. Ski is already recognized by the International Ski and Snowboard Federation and therefore disqualified. USOPC added a footnote in its NGB application procedures saying they would allow an NGB to belong to more than one International Federation, flouting federal law. Understanding the formidable legal obstacle that couldn’t be overcome by a footnote, both organizations are now seeking a loophole. During U.S. Ski’s public hearing to apply to be the NGB for surfing, CEO Sophie Goldschmidt announced that they “really didn’t have to or want to be the NGB.” This sets up a scenario where the USOPC could govern Olympic surfing in-house and contract out the Olympic management and commercial rights to U.S. Ski. This action would still violate the intent of the Ted Stevens Act, harm the sport and athletes, and fail to comply with the International Surfing Association’s requirement to recognize and enter surfers supported by a single-sport NGB. LA28 Olympic surfing at Lowers should be led by an organization with the expertise, judgment, and surf-specific resources to listen to and support surfers—and to reinvest every dollar, job, and marketing opportunity into surfing.

USA Surfing supports athlete-centered shared services and did ask USOPC and U.S. Ski for a proposal. The document U.S. Ski proposed (marked confidential) was not in the best interest of athletes, because it did not include shared services, but rather transferred Olympic surfing’s commercial rights to U.S. Ski with no resource sharing, no revenue share, and no reinvestment obligations. When USA Surfing proposed concrete ways to share tech, training, and marketing—and asked how revenues would flow back to athletes and the pipeline—those questions were declined. The email exchange and proposal have been provided to the USOPC.

Accepting Ski’s proposal as written would be unacceptable, irresponsible, and damaging for three reasons:

1) International recognition: The ISA—surfing’s International Federation—recognizes USA Surfing and has stated it will not recognize an entity that cherry-picks Olympic rights without stewarding the whole sport. A rights carve-out undermines the “one-sport stewardship” mandated by the Ted Stevens Act and Olympic Charter.

2) Athletes and Pipeline: Stripping commercial rights from surfing’s NGB diverts funding and focus away from athlete services, talent ID, para integration, and coach development—especially harmful with LA28 at Lower Trestles.

3) Community and Legacy: With the venue in California, exporting governance and revenue deprives the host communities of the Olympic lift (jobs, camps, sponsorship activation) and sets a precedent that weakens athlete voice across sports.

There is no precedent in the U.S. for consolidation and concentration of governing power among separate sports, as it would violate The Ted Stevens Act. There are five NGBs that pool their commercial and media rights under a marketing collective that appeals to similar demographics. That NGB collective shares all revenue evenly among the five sports but maintains single-sport governance and athlete representation in governance. The International Surfing Association and other international federations are very concerned by a proposed ski takeover as it would set a damaging precedent to provide a mega-NGB with an Olympic commercial rights carve out with no obligation to steward the whole sport.

USA Surfing submitted a strong, athlete-centered NGB application, backed by the ISA, Olympic surfers, the World Surf League (WSL), the U.S. Board Riders Clubs, Surf Industry Members Association (SIMA), medalists from all ISA disciplines and top American talent. We do not know of any surf support for a U.S Ski takeover. USA Surfing has heard from snow sport athletes governed by U.S. Ski, who do not support the takeover of a summer sport. They say they do not currently receive the support and attention needed in their own sports and fear U.S. Ski taking on another sport would only dilute support for current snow sports.

USA Surfing addressed the USOPC’S 2019 audit findings by appointing a new board and leadership, and CEO, as well as strengthened bylaws, ethics and conflict of interest processes, and modern financial controls. USA Surfing retained Sara Pflipsen, a former USOPC attorney, to align USA Surfing’s policies and practices with NGB standards. USA Surfing submitted hundreds of documents and held weekly working sessions with USOPC auditors, who repeatedly said they anticipated “no major findings.” Unfortunately, in the final week of the audit, it was announced that a different set of standards were being applied to USA Surfing that prior NGBs and NGB candidates did not face. The new approach changed how items are counted, graded and displayed. The changes materially affect the findings and how they are presented, making the results non-comparable to other NGB candidates and mischaracterize USA Surfing’s fitness.

Example 1: Conflicts/Ethics - USA Surfing has strong Conflict of Interest policies and practices and an active Ethics Committee who reviews all disclosures and Conflict of Interest issues. The absence of the word “perceived” in guidance from the committee to a Nominating and Governance Committee member resulted in USA Surfing’s Conflict of Interest protections being deemed “deficient.” There is no rule that requires specific language to be in the mitigation letters, just that the COI is reviewed, the Ethics independent committee reviews any conflict questions and mitigation letters are sent. Objective standards.

Example 2: Financial Strength - USOPC’s own auditor declared USA Surfing’s financial strength and sustainability as meeting required standards in an email. However, under the newly introduced standards, USA Surfing is marked “undetermined” for not having an independent audit that was not previously required. USA Surfing has commissioned an independent financial audit that will be available for USOPC and public review. What concerns those who care about Olympic integrity is a pattern of rule changes and manipulations being used to justify an LA28 carve-out of Olympic commercial rights to an out-of-state winter federation with no surfing expertise and no obligation or commitment to reinvest in surfing’s pipeline. That approach is pretextual and materially misleading: it harms athletes, depresses local economic benefits, and sidelines athlete voice—contrary to the Ted Stevens Act’s one sport, one NGB principle.

Bottom line: USA Surfing welcomes scrutiny and evaluation that is comparable to other NGB candidates, and includes transparent standards. The “new” non-comparable standards distort USA Surfing’s audit in ways that justify an outcome (transferring LA28 commercial rights to U.S. Ski) rather than stewarding the whole sport.

NGB certification is a significant factor for multi-year, category-exclusive sponsorships; several current and prospective partners have contingent commitments that activate upon recertification. Prolonged uncertainty depresses sponsor confidence and undermines athlete support ahead of a home Olympics.