In November, the Australian Functional Fitness Federation (AFFF) hosted masters athletes from around the world for the 2025 iF3 Masters World Championships. Reports started coming out that weekend that the competition was a disaster. The iF3 even acknowledged the “execution issues” in a statement on Instagram.
While the post did not expand on what happened, the iF3 said it would conduct a thorough debrief and after-action report. That report was completed on December 15, 2025, and published last week on December 31, 2025.
The iF3 hired Michael Geistlinger, a former arbiter for the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Gesitlinger has also served as a legal advisor for the International Biathlon Union and Union Internationale de Pentathlon Moderne.
The 8-page independent report by Geistlinger identified nine actionable recommendations that the iF3 could implement going forward to minimize the likelihood of these issues occurring again.
The report confirmed many of the problems that we reported by Andrew Hiller and The Barbell Spin in the days after the competition.
These issues ranged from pre-planning, programming, equipment and venue set-up, judging, the scoring platform and scorecards, among other things. Here are some of the notable deficiencies that were identified:
Pre-Planning Meetings
The report indicates that the standard iF3 planning process includes monthly calls leading up to the event and every 1-2 weeks in the final month. However, due to scheduling conflicts and other commitments, there was only one formal planning session held on October 28.
Budget & Staffing
The AFFF never submitted a budget to the iF3, which “led to unexpected expenses, the need for individuals to step in with self-funding and severe understaffing.”
Only eight Technical Officials were on site during the competition when an event this size would typically require 20-30. In many cases, the TO’s who were there also had other responsibilities caused by the understaffing.
The Head Technical Official was not familiar with iF3 movement standards, had not reviewed the test announcement documents and the scorecards, which the Head Technical Official is responsible, contained numerous inaccuracies.
Programming
The hosting organization is responsible for programming the competition. In this case it was the AFFF. However, the AFFF did not provide the iF3 the programming for review until October 22, nearly one month later than standard. This did not allow the iF3 enough time to review the programming before documents had to be prepared.
Equipment & Venue Set-up
This is the one section where Geistlinger disagreed with a couple of the complaints.
First, athletes complained that the wall ball targets were on poles rather than a rig target. Geistlinger said the use of the poles as targets was acceptable as the rulebook did not prohibit poles from being used, as long as they were the same for all athletes.
Second, Geistlinger concluded that the warm-up equipment was sufficient, despite claims by athletes stating otherwise.
The report does acknowledge and provide details around why the SkiErgs were not available for the competition. It was due to a broken down truck and the inability to secure backup transport. The AFFF attempted to borrow SkiErgs from CrossFit Torian, however, it appears that the gym did not have enough units to meet the competition’s requirements.
The report also mentions that the athlete name plaques contained numerous errors. The President of the AFFF, Melanie Robinson, indicated that she did not double-check the plaques prior to distribution.
Circle21 Scoring
Circle21 is the scoring and scheduling platform used by the iF3. There was confusion about whether a representative from Circle21 would be on-site to assist with scoring and set-up.
Apparently Circle21 provided instructional videos on how to use the platform and offered to set up a call to walkthrough the system, no one at the AFFF took advantage of the call.
Scorecards
The Head Technical Official is responsible for preparing the scorecards. The scorecards for multiple tests (i.e. events) were “inadequately or inaccurately prepared”.
On the endurance test, the one where there was only one judge per lane and athletes starting every 10 minutes, there were not scorecards for each individual. Instead, judges were handwriting names and times on a piece of paper, which became “impossible to track.”
Close to 30% of participants submitted appeals by Saturday morning stating their score on the leaderboard was inaccurate. Additionally, several athletes’ scores were missing.
The full 8-page independent report can be read here.
Once report was finalized, it was shared with those who were named in the report. The iF3 offered those parties the opportunity to review the report and submit a statement of their own.
Nemanja Ivanovic, Founder of Circle21, wrote, “I have reviewed the repost, specifically the section where Circle 21 is mentioned, and everything stated there is clear and correct. It is important for me to clarify, and also for the representatives of the National Federations to understand, that Circle 21 will be present on-site only when Live Scoring is officially implemented as part of the event technology. Live Scoring requires full technical support from the organizer, including equipment such as a video beam, cameras, and a stable internet connection. As we know, this technical infrastructure was not available on-site at Masters Worlds. Therefore, the presence of the Circle 21 support team was not required.”
And Melanie Robinson, former iF3 Vice President and President of the AFFF also submitted a statement.
“I participated in the process that led to the preparation of this report and provided a comprehensive written account of events from my perspective as Event Director and President of the Local Organising Committee.
“It is important for readers to understand that the report reflects a limited-scope review conducted under constrained resources and timelines. As acknowledged, it was compiled primarily from three written submissions and did not involve a full investigation of all relevant facts, communications, parties, or on-site decision-making dynamics.
“While the report identifies a number of procedural and structural improvement opportunities for future iF3 events, it does not fully capture the complexity of what occurred during the competition, nor does it examine all material factors that contributed to the escalation of issues once the event was underway.
“My priority throughout the event was athlete safety, competitive fairness, and operational stability. Where issues arose, I raised concerns promptly, documented them transparently, and advocated for solutions I believed best protected athletes and the integrity of the competition. These positions are detailed in my formal event report submitted in accordance with the Hosting Agreement.
“I support the use of this report as an internal reference to inform future improvements. However, any conclusions drawn from it should be read in the context of its acknowledged limitations and should not be taken as a complete or definitive account of all events or responsibilities.”
You can read that full document here.
