FIS Responds To Allegations Around Head's Supply Of FIS Clothing

FIS has issued a statement responding to questions FIS has been asked by journalists from Sueddeutsche Zeitung (Johannes Knuth), Salzburger Nachrichten and Kleine Zeitung (Michael Schuen), concerning arrangements for the supply of official FIS clothing between FIS and Head for the 2022/2023 season.

FIS states that it should be noted that the journalists are in possession of information which has been illegally obtained, and which together with their inferences make their bona fides questionable. In order to counteract false or misleading coverage, FIS would like to clarify the exact processes followed to procure official FIS clothing for the 2022/2023 season:

Summary:

Despite repeated calls for quotes, FIS was not successful in finding an official clothing supplier for the 2022/2023 season. Facing the prospect of the season beginning without official FIS clothing being available, FIS management requested President Eliasch to ask Head to provide a quote for the clothing. President Eliasch (who is the owner of Head) was reluctant to do so because of the risk of a perceived conflict of interest. Eventually he agreed on the condition that the clothing would not bear any explicit Head branding and that the outfits would be offered at cost or below. President Eliasch made no financial gain – directly or indirectly – from the transaction.

Detailed timeline:

• FIS started the process of finding an official supplier for the federation’s outfits for the 2022/2023 season in early 2021 (before the election of President Eliasch). The then FIS Marketing Director, Jürg Capol (now working for Swiss Ski), handled the process.
• President Eliasch did not take part in the tender process or the decision-making process, from which he recused himself.
• FIS reached out to all members of the Ski Racing Supplier Association (SRS) via the SRS Executive, however, no suitable offers were made.
• Mr Capol subsequently contacted Head to solicit a quote for supply of the outfits.
• Given the potential conflict of interest, President Eliasch informed FIS and Head that he did not wish Head to take part in the tender process.
• As a result, FIS reached out to SRS members via the SRS Executive again, but again, no suitable offers were made.
• At the time, lead-times for the supply of the outfits were very long due to COVID. To ensure that FIS staff had official FIS clothing before the start of the 2022/2023 season, FIS asked President Eliasch if it would be possible for Head to supply the clothing.
• After consultation with the SRS President, the SRS Secretary General and FIS management, President Eliasch agreed that Head could offer to supply FIS with FIS branded clothing, provided that the clothing would be provided without any explicit Head branding and at cost price or below.
• President Eliasch made no financial gain – directly or indirectly – from this transaction. Indeed, Head incurred a significant financial loss in relation to the transaction.

FIS responds to the journalists' questions as follows:

Q. According to documents and information received, Head, from the beginning of last summer, took over as official FIS apparel-supplier. Why has this partnership, at least to our knowledge, never been mentioned officially, either using FIS and/or Head’s communication channels? 

A. This information is false. Head is not an official supplier to FIS and there is no partnership between FIS and Head. FIS sourced FIS branded clothing from Head for the 2022/2023 season because there were no suitable offers available from any supplier.

Q. According to information we received, the FIS requirement protocol for a new official supplier asked for extremely ambitious conditions, at least for any supplier, who operates in a reasonable economic manner. According to our information, FIS asked for approximately 30 pieces of clothing and a sponsoring license fee of around 400 000 Euros. Is this correct, partly correct, false?

A. FIS believes that the terms solicited were reasonable.

Q. According to information and documents we received, at least one company that was interested in supplying the Federation offered FIS a purchase option with special conditions at cost price. FIS deemed this offer “insufficient”. Please elaborate why this offer was rejected by FIS.

A. The only other offer of which FIS is aware is an offer that covered only cross-country. FIS decided that this offer was unsuitable, as it required outfits for all FIS staff across all FIS disciplines. Mr Capol originally solicited offers for outfits with supplier branding from all SRS members, including Head. No offer which covered all FIS disciplines were forthcoming, despite two separate requests from the SRS Executive to all SRS members.

Q. According to our information, FIS management and FIS council was informed that in the end, Head turned out to be the “only option” as new official FIS supplier, since every other company rejected the requirements set out by FIS. Is this correct, partly correct or false?

A. FIS needs clothing for its staff for all FIS disciplines. Except for the offer covering outfits for cross-country staff only, there were no other offers from any supplier (including Head). FIS management informed the FIS Council accordingly.

Q. According to our information, the FIS president gave this topic absolute priority and made the decision all on his own. Is this correct, party correct or false?

A. This is false. Except as outlined in this document, President Eliasch was not involved in the tender process or the decision-making process of FIS, from which he recused himself.

Q. In which manner was FIS-management and FIS-council briefed and involved in the decision-making process regarding the search for a new FIS supplier? 

A. The process of finding an outfitter was managed by the previous FIS Marketing Director, Jürg Capol. FIS management carried out all aspects of the tender process and managed the decision-making process. The FIS Council was informed.

Q. According to bills footed to FIS last January (acceptance of order) and October (invoice), Head invoiced FIS 1360 pieces of clothing, for a total amount of 243.850,00 Euros and a set price of 715 Euros for four pieces of clothing for men and 675 Euros for women, respectively. According to our information, this by far exceeds current market terms. Please elaborate.

A. The order was made at a time when there were significant supply chain issues globally driving up costs for clothing and the order volume was far below standard minimum order quantities. FIS believes that the price was attractive.

Q. Does Head, as new FIS official supplier, pay a licensing/sponsoring fee, as it is common market procedure?

A. Head is not an official supplier to FIS.

Q. Has the FIS council so far been briefed concerning the terms of contract regarding FIS and its new supplier? 

A. The FIS Council was briefed about the arrangements with Head.

Q. Is Head, as there are no logos to be seen on the new apparel, a “sponsor”? If so, what are the trade-offs for Head? 

A. Head received no benefit or trade-off from the transaction. Head is not a “sponsor” of FIS. President Eliasch requested Head to assist FIS so that all FIS staff would have official FIS clothing for the 2022/2023 season.

Q. According to the “FIS Universal Code of Ethics”, any representative of FIS is required to “(a) disclose to FIS or the respective body any personal interests that could be linked with their activities or prospective activities; (b) refrain from participating in any decision-making of such bodies (e.g. when it comes to the election of a host city of a FIS competition) if there appears to be a conflict of interests.” According to publicly available trade registries, Mr. Eliasch is still director of multiple Head holdings, which constitutes an obvious conflict of interest in regard to this matter. Has Mr. Eliasch in any way participated in the search and decision-making regarding Head as new FIS supplier? 

A. All aspects of the FIS Universal Code of Ethics have been complied with by President Eliasch. President Eliasch recused himself from the decision-making process in this matter. Furthermore, Mr Eliasch is not a managing director of any Head operating subsidiary, as evidenced by the trade register.

Q. Regarding the mere fact, that Mr. Eliasch is still director of multiple Head Holdings, which in fact benefit from the FIS supplier deal: How is this in line with the FIS code of ethics which states: “The persons subject to this code shall, not abuse their position in any way to take advantage of their position for private, personal, commercial or other advantage or gain?”

A.. President Eliasch received no financial benefit from the transaction, directly or indirectly (through Head or otherwise). Rather, Head suffered a financial loss in relation to the transaction. President Eliasch receives no remuneration from or expense reimbursement by FIS.