Curling players elected a president.
During the WCF Congress in September, three new section directors were elected: Robin Niven (Scotland), who was re-elected for a second term, Karen Wauters (Luxembourg), and Roselle Gonsalves (Canada). Beau Welling (photo) from the United States was elected the new WCF president. He retained his position despite repeated remarks at the WCF Congress in Bratislava that the financial situation of world curling deserves increased attention after the past four years. However, there are other areas that need to be addressed strategically. Curling competes for media attention not only with a number of other sports but, of course, also with many other activities vying for their place in the spotlight. In this competition, it is not only social media and its sophisticated use that are important, but also systematic work on curling’s image as a sport with a rich and long-standing tradition—yet one that is also dynamic, exciting, and utilizes state-of-the-art technology. Technically, however, curling clearly lags behind. A telling symbol of this “backwardness” are, for example, the moments when, according to the rules, the ambiguous position of a stone is resolved by applying the no-tick rule. A referee steps onto the ice with a plastic triangle and visually assesses whether the stone is touching the center line. This line is often slightly “blurred” due to it being embedded in the ice surface; therefore, the final decision on whether the stone’s placement complies with the rules or not relies heavily on “analog judgment.” The same applies to assessing the position of a stone when applying the free guard zone (FGZ) rule, if the teams have differing opinions. Even in these cases, we cannot do without the referee carefully stepping onto the ice and making a decision based on the long measuring poles brought onto the ice and the referee’s individual ability to see exceptionally well. In these situations, curling comes across as “old-school.” Technological development should not come to a standstill. A mere return to electronic verification of compliance with the rule regarding the release of the stone before the hog line—after a hiatus of about ten years—is more of a sad confirmation of uncertainty. Moreover, we saw at the 2026 Winter Olympics that even this “improvement” is not perfect and is far from solving the entire problem. The competitions organized by the WCF also deserve attention. The European Curling Championship, which used to be the highlight of the season and the annual culmination of efforts for many European teams, is undergoing significant changes, and it is unclear which direction it will take. It appears that European representatives on the WCF lack sufficient clout to defend Europe’s position on the global curling map, despite the fact that some of those recently elected to their positions were chosen by European associations with the unspoken mandate to develop European curling so that it could serve as a worthy counterpart to the Canadian-American game. The current system of European competitions does not allow European teams—or, in fact, entire associations—to develop curling on their home continent without unnecessarily ballooning travel costs. The new—or rather, returning—leadership of the WCF faces quite a few challenges that will need to be addressed.