my article is about to be published, I did say GPC fastest growing fed, so got that right.
It is incredible that PA does not publish membership.
This is from my article
However,as the above data is limited to PA lifters, the partial scope of drug testingfor Australian powerlifters does represent a substantial policy failure in programmaticterms given that only around half of Australia’s estimated 1200-1400powerlifters by 2014 are subject to drug testing protocols. While PA’s CEO Robert Wilks did not answer severalemail requests during 2013 for membership numbers, there were around 460individuals competing at least once in PA competitions during 2012 (PA 2014a),with Wilks himself providing an estimate of 500 lifters to the IPF’s annualreport in line with the number of drug tests taken (IPF 2013). In the case ofthe ADFPF, the other federationthat is committed to drug-testing as part of its affiliation withthe WDFPF, there were 83members (Email from ADFPF 9 August 2013). Of the federations withlittle or no drug testing, GPC Australia, formed in 2012 as the nationalaffiliate of the Global Powerlifting Committee, had 455 members as of 3 May2014 (GPC 2014). CAPO, affiliated with the WPC and the Global PowerliftingAlliance since 2012, had 179 members as of 26 July 2013 (CAPO 2013a), although somelifters also compete in GPC given no restrictions between them.
Interms of powerlifting participation over recent decades, it is difficult toknow whether the sport has grown under PA’s leadership. While there are around1200-1400 powerlifters by 2014, total numbers may be no greater than during the1980s, although past data appears inconsistent and, perhaps, exaggerated forfunding purposes. In December 1989, Wilks estimated that the APF had around 1000-1200seniors and 7000-9000 juniors, along with 150-200 in the ADFPF (Parliament ofAustralia 1990, 270). However, it was reported that Wilks indicated during a May1985 meeting that the then AAPLF had around 700 members, with the meetingsuggesting that membership numbers be upgraded to 2,000 given that manysporting organisations were bidding for ASC assistance (Parliament of Australia1990, 236).
Whateverthe reality in terms of PA numbers, the ASC has indicated that one of thereasons for PA losing direct funding from 2005-06, notwithstanding ongoingpublic funding for drug testing by ASADA, was low participation numbers and a lowprofile within the Australian community (Email from ASC 19 August 2013).
Incontrast to a lack of transparency by PA about membership numbers, other IPFaffiliates document membership numbers, including federations that receive nogovernment assistance. For example, the Canadian PowerliftingUnion (CPU) membership rose each year from 556 in 2008to reach 1309 in 2013 (CPU 2014a, p. 15), while USA Powerlifting (USAPL) membershipincreased from around 3400 in 2006 to near 4500 by 2011 (USAPL 2013a, p. 5). In the case of the Great Britain Powerlifting Federation (GBPF), its2013 StrategicPlan indicates membership of 815 in 2012, with a need to increase numbers to 1500in order to gain National Governing Body status (GBPF 2013a).