Windsurfing’s Rapid Global Diffusion: The Evolution of a 1970s Technology-First Sport

Abstract

There has been considerable academic interest in what has been variously labelled new, lifestyle or, as used here, technology-first sport. This category of participatory sport covers a wide range of activities – among them windsurfing. Like some other sports initially relying on the development of technological equipment, it spread across the world from California. Technology-first sport is positioned as a useful lens, and this is applied to windsurfing showing the value of exploring a sport’s development from this perspective. Distinctive elements of windsurfing’s early history are explored that relate to its rapid growth being intimately linked to technological evolution, intellectual property battles and globalisation processes. The genesis of the sport is contextualised in terms of favourable Californian circumstances and the trajectory of the American plastics industry at the time. Its diffusion across 1970s Europe featured intense technological and market competition which created a rapid evolution of the sport before consolidation. Distinct periods of evolution from 1970 to 1990 are evaluated. These include diffusion processes and the influence of national socio-political factors as it spread to Eastern Europe and to China. A final reflection of the present-day technology fragmentation of windsurfing further reinforces how use of a technology-first sport lens has value.

Keywords:

• Technology-first sport
• diffusion
• globalisation
• lifestyle sport
• innovation

Potts and Thomas¹ describe technology-first sport as referring to how new technological equipment (e.g. the windsurfer, bicycle, snowboard or skateboard) and/or a new capacity (e.g. the mountain bike), create a novel locomotive or movement concept. Soon a new sport becomes possible with this innovative equipment. However, they often develop differently to rule-first sports as changing technology markedly influences the sporting practice. A vivid example of a technology-first sport is the bicycle. First comes the technological capacity, and then the rules required to create structured competition.² The new phenomenon develops into a sport by adding institutional rules to bring order to a range of competitive possibilities.³ In contrast rule-first sport starts with the order of rules (e.g. the 1863 rules of association football) and new technology (e.g. the football goal net, or more recently, the video assisted referee) supports or enhances the existing rules.

Wheaton and Thorpe have evaluated the recent use of new lifestyle sports as Olympic events e.g. windsurfing, snowboarding, bicycle motocross (BMX), surfing, sport climbing and skateboarding – many of these have technology-first elements.⁴ With Olympic status these sports have increased global reach. These sports all use technological equipment, or in the case of sport climbing a technology enhanced facility, however, surfing does not just fit a technology-first sport lens since it emerged from a long-term Pacific cultural heritage. Together these new Olympic sports cannot be considered homogeneous, but a common thread is that many participants view ‘these activities as alternative lifestyles rather than as sports’.⁵

The sport-technology relationship has received some attention in the literature. For example, Kerr highlights that technology, along with a sport’s practices, are key multi-layered influences in a sport’s network.⁶ The notion of a technology influenced network implies that technology does not necessarily drive sport but there is a complex interaction with other factors. She suggests it is necessary to ‘acknowledge complexity and … examine multiple strands’,⁷ an approach, which resonates with this study.

Whilst previous literature has explored technology in mountain-biking,⁸ snowboarding and skateboarding⁹ there is minimal literature exploring technologies influence on windsurfing’s development. However, there has been some discussion of the features of windsurfing equipment.¹⁰ The new plastic materials that windsurfing initially used (e.g. polyurethane foam, polyethylene and polyester resin) meant windsurfing equipment could easily be transported on a car roof and launched virtually anywhere without the need for club membership. Further, windsurfing can usefully be thought of as a hybrid activity in which actions and equipment from other sports, particularly dinghy sailing and wave-surfing, have been modified.¹¹

Technology-first is a useful lens since it places a focus on how the new technology and resulting equipment, along with the practices of using it and networks, change and spread. Relatively little is known about the diffusion processes of technology-first sports or the complex ways in which national circumstances shape such a sport.¹² Originally, in common with some other technology-first sports, windsurfing was understood as a Californian recreational activity, which gained popularity and spread globally. From its mass-produced conception in 1970 it was fast-tracked to Olympic status by governing bodies in international sailing (IYRU) and the Olympic Games (IOC) in just a decade (1980).¹³

Windsurfing’s early history and rapid global diffusion is unusual. The argument developed here is that windsurfing’s growth was intimately linked to technological evolution including a relatively new plastics production process. The mass European uptake of the sport was significant, but this was complicated by intellectual property battles. Added to this there were socio-political influences that impacted how the new technology was diffused in different territories. To show this, the notion of evolutionary dynamics from the economics literature is applied.¹⁴ This suggests that since equipment is central to windsurfing, just as the bike is in cycling, it soon becomes a commercial product and subject to further market and technological forces. Thomas and Potts use of evolutionary economics, the study of entrepreneurship and innovation, to identify how technological rather than price competition in windsurfing eventually led to challenges for the sport following a significant 1980s boom.

The argument is mainly focussed on the first two decades (1970–1990) in windsurfing’s evolution in terms of products and the global diffusion processes involved. The analysis begins by suggesting that contextual factors of favourable Californian circumstances and the trajectory of the US plastics industry in the late 1960s underpinned windsurfing’s early genesis. The sport’s evolution across three periods is then explored: 1970–1975; 1976–1985 and 1986–1990. These connect to globalisation and media processes and the evolution is also characterised by both technological and intellectual property competition amongst producers. Subsequent discussion addresses national socio-political factors influencing the diffusion of the new technology to Eastern Europe and eastwards to China. A final reflection outlines how a technology-first lens also offers a useful starting point to understand the provenance of more recent sporting activities (e.g. paddleboarding) from technology fragmentation.

A Favourable Cultural Context

California provided a favourable context for the incubation of the windsurfing innovation. Windsurfing’s roots can be traced to the 1967–1970 period and are characterised in California, by the interest in new physical sensations and experiences in natural environments with informal groups.¹⁵ Through the early and mid-twentieth century California developed a sun and surf sporting culture often through an active process through tourism, the media and in state marketing.¹⁶ The aesthetic that previous studies have identified led to California originally being seen as the spiritual home of some of these new sports, including windsurfing.

Amongst technology-first sports during the 1960s it is useful to consider the popularity of two sailing boats. The Sunfish and the Hobie 14 catamaran had been successful because with new technologies they created a feeling of speed compared to heavier traditional boats. As the creators of Sunfish observed ‘There was no real competition in mass-producing small sailboats’.¹⁷ The development of mass produced windsurfers using plastic material in California (1970) also filled a similar gap, but with even more of a beach aesthetic. California provided a valuable context for windsurfing’s development. This is especially relevant if we consider the contrast with two previous windsurfing-like creations in England (1958) and Pennsylvania, USA (1964) that failed to develop into a sport. Those involved in these developments, including the California developers, had no knowledge of each other’s creations.

The first creator was Peter Chilvers, who at age 12 experimented with a functional homemade wooden board and a sail controlled by standing up and holding a boom at Hayling Island, England. His private project came to nothing but was later successfully used as evidence in an intellectual property legal case which is how we know about it.¹⁸ The second was Newman Darby’s 1964 creation in Pennsylvania. This was different to Chilver’s: it used a kite-like sail used with the standing operators back to it on a plywood floating platform. It was publicly disseminated in a Popular Science (1965) article announcing ‘Sailboarding – a new concept in sailing’.¹⁹ Darby attempted to commercialise it and sold some 80 sets of his rudimentary equipment.²⁰

Then we come to Jim Drake and Hoyle Schweitzer’s successful creation in California. Drake, an aeronautical engineer for the US Rand corporation created early equipment iterations in his garage in 1967 and successfully water trialled his first board on May 21, 1967. Schweitzer was from Drake’s social circle and they became informal business partners as the idea developed. Experimental designs evolved²¹ and their hand made Baja board became a successful mass-produced polyethylene product (1970).

The narrow time span in which the creations of Chilvers (1958), Darby (1964) and Drake (1967) all initially emerged supports the idea of a favourable post-war period in which prosperity, leisure time, experimentation and aspirations coincided. It is likely the Californian beach context helped Drake and Schweitzer’s design become a successful commercial product. In addition, it came at a time when the technological context in California with modern surfboard technology was favourable.

The Technological Context: American Plastics²²

The success of their product was partly due to the trajectory and capabilities of the American plastics industry at that time. Without venturing into the full history of plastics an appropriate starting point is the 1930s since the influence of World War II was significant. By 1930 the American plastics industry consisted of several large chemical companies such as DuPont, Dow and American Cyanamid whose chemical engineers were developing new plastic materials such as nylon.²³ During World War II plastic development served military purposes which boosted the capabilities of the sector. Annual plastic production in the US nearly tripled (1940–1945) from military uses such as parachutes, helmet liners and use of resins in construction.²⁴ For example, polyester resin was successfully combined with plywood in military aircraft which would be used in sailing and surfing after the war. The industry also grew in the UK and Germany where replacements for rubber insulation were provided by polyethylene and polyurethane foam materials respectively, both later used in windsurfing. After 1945, the surge in plastic production potential, particularly in the US, had to go somewhere, and plastics exploded into consumer markets. ‘In product after product, market after market, plastics challenged traditional materials and won’.²⁵ The 1950s saw US polyethylene producers expanding with Tupperware being a particularly popular consumer product. Later that decade, notably for the Californian context, recreational crazes created by Wham-O Manufacturing Co. (California) promoted first the polyethylene Hula Hoop and then the Frisbee.²⁶ By 1958 US polyethylene producers created the plastic industry’s highest annual tonnage and maintained its highest annual growth rate (30%).²⁷

On their doorstep in late 1960s California, Drake and Schweitzer had plastic industry materials and expertise at their disposal. For instance, producing a range of prototype board designs had become relatively easy. A plastic replacement of increasingly rare balsa wood cores for surfboards had been perfected by a production process credited to Californian’s, Hobart Alter and Gordon Clark in 1958.²⁸ Their new process involved sculpting a polyurethane foam blank shape by hand, which was then completed with a glass reinforced polyester (GRP) outer shell. Local surfboard makers in California now thrived easily making any surfboard shape a customer wanted. Drake and Schweitzer ordered six different designs from Con Surfboards, Venice, California. Also nearby in California was the rotomolding expertise of an individual, Elmer Good, who had refined his craft making large (4 metre) missile containers using plastic and foam for the US military. Schweitzer later said in the early days ‘I ran across a guy [i.e. Elmer Good] who just sort of changed out lives’ in terms of a suitable manufacturing process.²⁹ The capacity to access plastic industry materials and expertise in Hayling Island, England or in Pennsylvania, USA a few years earlier would have been very difficult with no surfboard or large plastic item producers nearby.

Therefore, there is a network interaction between the Californian context, the post-war consumer context, the timing in the development of plastics capabilities and Drake and Schweitzer in creating the successful windsurfing design. Drake is often accepted as the designer and he later referred to himself as windsurfing’s re-inventor,³⁰ recognising his was the third version of the concept. However, without Schweitzer’s entrepreneurial skills and drive there would have been no commercial product and it was he who initiated the global diffusion through industrial scale production using DuPont supplied polyethylene. DuPont’s Zytel plastic was also used in the mast-board connection, a material used in roller skate and skateboard wheels, increasingly popular in California. Again, these other technology-first sports share the same materials in California. These, along with Hula Hoop and Frisbee products are further reinforcement of the place, time and technology interaction. However, the product and the sport needed a memorable name.

The ‘Windsurfing’ name boosted the chances of the sport becoming successful combining the hybrid influences of sailing and surfing, but it came about through their first customer. The best early design was initially known as a Skate board. In 1968, Bert Salisbury, purchased one and took it home to Seattle. He explained his part in how the name ‘Wind surfing’ came about. ‘I showed a picture of myself doing it to a friend on the Seattle Times [staff] and he got pretty excited’.³¹ On July 20th, 1969, Salisbury was featured on a bold colour front page of the Seattle Times, Sunday magazine (circulation 312,000), the very day the astronauts walked on the moon. The front cover read ‘New Sport – Wind Surfing’ which has been prompted by Salisbury not wanting to describe the sport as skate boarding ‘because it would give … the wrong idea’³² so he used the term wind surfing. With Salisbury’s permission, Schweitzer copyrighted Windsurfing, forming a company ‘Windsurfing International’ (WI). From here onwards the term Windsurfer (i.e. capital ‘W’) is used to differentiate the product from the generic term, windsurfing. Soon, as demand increased Schweitzer and Drake invested and prepared for industrial production. They chose to use, with Elmer Good’s help, a roto-moulding process using the polyethylene product, Alathon, supplied by DuPont.

Industrial Production and Diffusion: 1970–1975

Windsurfing’s evolution across three periods (1970–1990) is explored making connections to globalisation, media processes and technology-first characteristics. In other technology-first sports such as, mountain biking, snowboarding and skateboarding the period from initial conception and custom equipment experiments to industrial mass-production was prolonged. For mountain biking it took at least eight years or more for the Stumpjumper to appear.³³ In snowboarding and skateboarding, due to contested definitions of each sport, the period could be interpreted as between some eight to thirty plus years.³⁴ Yet, in windsurfing from Drake’s initial conception to industrial production was only three years (1967–1970). Not only was the Windsurfer a new product but the polyethylene plastic roto moulding process was relatively new since it was such a very large item compared to say, the Hula Hoop or Frisbee.

Desbordes distinguishes between product and process innovation in sports equipment, and it appears that windsurfing’s development, with both new product and process at inception, is unusual.³⁵ The drivers for this short timeline were the Schweitzer’s. Hoyle and his wife Diane were working full time on the project from 1969 and were thus deeply motivated to succeed and provide an income for their young family; Drake on the other hand never gave up his day job. The condensed timescale meant that until 1974 there were hardly any other competing equipment designs available in the world. Drake and Schweitzer’s 1970 patent had initially achieved its purpose. The first industrially produced Windsurfer emerged in March 1970 and 188 more followed that year.³⁶

Commonalities in Early Diffusion

Three features that supported early diffusion are explored below. These can be summarised as the attraction of the sport to a certain demographic, the global reach of DuPont and early national media reporting of the new sport. The diffusion of innovations literature recognises the categories of people who are more open to new experiences.³⁷ Early adopters are identified as those who are curious, willing to take risks and actively seeking novelty and likely to be opinion leaders. Testimony from early adopters in windsurfing (1968–75) suggests many were connected to sailing, whilst a further proportion were skiers or even did both.³⁸ California, Oregon and Washington state in the USA are all within a 6 hour drive to water or snowsport mountains. The same outdoor orientation and accessibility also existed, most pertinently in Scandinavia and around the European Alps.

Windsurfing images such as the early Seattle Times front cover were a common diffusion medium but now the reach and influence of DuPont’s globalised network was impactful. Wheaton argues that to analyse the globalisation of lifestyle sport requires exploring the impact of global interactions between and within local cultures, and their medias.³⁹ She draws on Appadurai’s framework of global flows and in the case of DuPont three flows are relevant.⁴⁰ These are: ‘technoscapes’, the global flows of technology, ‘ideoscapes’, flows of images and meanings, and ‘mediascapes’, the role of mass media in dissemination. These scapes help analyse the complex ways globalisation processes operate.

In 1970, DuPont, the supplier of polyethylene, produced a one-minute news film for consumption by US networks introducing the new recreational activity. It broke DuPont public relations records in early weeks.⁴¹ This was reinforced, with far greater global impact, via a front-page image in the 500,000 circulation DuPont Magazine (1971).⁴² Their motives were the promotion of DuPont’s plastic technologies: polyethylene, Zytel and their Dacron fibre used in the sail. Here is a technoscape and media capacity disseminating American plastics. The ideological meaning of their activity was to imbue their message of ‘Better things for better lives through chemistry’ a slogan DuPont used until 1982 to influence opinion about their products. The mediascape that DuPont could deploy (i.e. production and international dissemination) would simply not have been possible for the Schweitzers acting alone. Many entrepreneurs in Europe cite this magazine image and article as the stimulus for their engagement with the sport as evidenced in the following sections.⁴³ The DuPont Public Relations department crafted text in their magazine explaining the windsurfer signified a certain type of 1970s Americanised freedom and progressiveness: ‘A combination of the skill of sailing, the balance of surfing, and the vigor of water skiing That’s how fans of windsurfing describing the exiting new water sport … [the equipment] relieving surfers of the need to wait for the cry, ‘Surf’s up!’⁴⁴

One entrepreneur the DuPont cover image influenced was sailor, Calle Schmidt, in Germany who immediately had two boards air freighted to him in early 1972. In April that year, with supporting photographs, Der Spiegel, the national weekly news magazine, ran a story about the new sport which in Schmidt’s words ‘was like a Papal blessing’.⁴⁵ In Europe, there were multiple national mediascapes who competed to be the first to feature the new sport’s arrival in their country. In France, Le Figaro were the first to publish a story in 1971.⁴⁶ The publication of early photographs of the distinctive technological object, the Windsurfer, became part of the process of global and national diffusion.

European Enthusiasm and Entrepreneurship

The DuPont article was seen by many in Europe during 1972 and 1973 which resulted in orders from Sweden (the first 50-board order), Austria, Holland, Germany, France, Finland and Switzerland.⁴⁷ As Table 1 shows, from 1973 onwards more Windsurfer boards were sold in Europe than the USA. By 1975, about seventeen times as many were sold annually in Europe; Germany and France were most significant.

Table 1. Estimated windsurfing board sales (1972–1993) in USA, Germany and France including gross totals for Western Europe and the World (varied sources).

Year	USA	Western Europe	Germany	France	World
1972	484^a	90^a	10–30	5–20	574^a
1973	703^a	1,400^b	500–750^b	200–350^b	3000
1974	920^a	6,000^b	3,000^b	2,000	–
1975	1,176^a	20,000^b	9,000^b	7,000	–
1976	1,507^a	50,000^b	20,000^b	23,000	60,000
1977	–	–	–	–	–
1978	–	–	–	–	–
1979	–	–	–	–	–
1980	25,000	240,000	80,000^c	85,000	290,000
1981	–	–	–	–	–
1982	–	–	–	–	–
1983	70,000	290,000	100,000^d	120,000^e	400,000^f
1984	–	–	–	–	–
1985	–	–	–	–	–
1986	50,000	300,000	80,000	90,000	390,000
1993	30,000	130,000	45,000	50,000	190,000^e

Unless otherwise stated figures represent estimates. Years 1972–1976 (USA) and 1972 (Western Europe) is data from the producer of one product, the Windsurfer from one production plant. It is therefore likely to be accurate data. Sources. ^aThe Original Windsurfer, Timeline: 1972–1976 [five separate online archived pages] e.g. 1972 https://web.archive.org/web/20160812054715/http://www.originalwindsurfer.com/site/main_1972.html. ^bPeter Brockhaus, email message to author, June 15, 2023. ^cEEC Commission Decision, Article 85, Windsurfing International, EEC, July 11, 1983, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31983D0400&from=DE. ^dMartina Czadilek, ‘Die Entwicklung des Windsurfens unter Berücksichtigung sportmedizinischer Aspekte zur Planung einer Sommersportwoche’, Thesis, U. of Graz, 2021: 16. ^eArnaud Sébileau, ‘Time of Olympism, Time of Builders and Time of the Media: The Relative Views on Change of Venues. The Case of Windsurfing Promoters and the “Fun” Discourse’, Sciences Sociales et Sport 1, no. 4 (2011): 41–64. ^fUS Sailboard News data cited in Steven Greenhouse, ‘Europe Gaining in U.S. Sailboard Battle’, The New York Times, August 17, 1987.

Many individuals stimulated this growth in Europe. Here the focus is on just two for different reasons. First, Martin Spanjer, an executive at the large Dutch textiles company (TenCate) who was instrumental in the sport’s early European growth. Second, for an entrepreneurial perspective Peter Brockhaus from Germany is discussed. TenCate, based in Holland with 12,000 employees was struggling with competition from low wage countries. Spanjer had seen the DuPoint article and written expressing interest in TenCate engaging in the sport as a means of diversifying their business.⁴⁸After much negotiation they signed a license agreement in late 1972, since TenCate were willing to invest in the production of the Windsurfer in Europe. By 1975, they were selling 11,000 boards a year.⁴⁹ Spanjer confirmed that diversification was the main driver, overturning a persistent myth that it was all about promoting their sail cloth.⁵⁰ TenCate also illustrates a further element of Appadurai’s global flows framework.⁵¹ ‘Financescapes’ refers to the increasingly fluid movement of capital across borders and in this example an American product is financed for expansion in Europe across multiple national borders using Dutch capital and American knowledge. The diffusion of windsurfing beyond Europe was now also evident in Japan, South Africa, Tahiti, Australia, New Zealand and in Eastern European nations.

The entrepreneur Peter Brockhaus became the main importer of TenCate’s Windsurfers in Germany during late 1973. He had identified a missing ingredient as potential customers not being able to trial the new product before buying.⁵² This can reduce any uncertainty an individual might have about committing to a purchase and can increase the speed of diffusion. Brockhaus, Ernstfried Prade, Dago Benz and other German colleagues designed a more sophisticated teaching system and certification than the original Windsurfer supplied instructional drawings. They called it: ‘Instruction prior to purchase’.⁵³ This acted as a ‘try before you buy’ mechanism and bolstered the uptake of the sport, especially on German lakes. A windsurfing school network quickly became established in Germany and an organisation established in 1974 to coordinate this activity: the Verband Deutscher Windsurfing und Wassersportschulen (VDWS). It was mirrored in many other nations and helped increase diffusion. This also helped protect windsurfing from over-zealous authorities who sometimes wanted to ban people from windsurfing on inland waters without a competency certificate.

Brockhaus’s marketing skills were also realised in establishing a niche windsurfing media: a windsurfing magazine in Germany (1974) and another in France (1977). He also created a new windsurfing brand (Mistral, 1976) and another in 1981 (F2). Part of the European success story was in selling a lifestyle of ‘Californian vibe of the surf, the beach, and the lifestyle to the inland lakes’.⁵⁴ The windsurfing name for the sport certainly helped. Contributing to this lifestyle, the first one-design Windsurfer races became social gatherings. Keen racers started attending European or World Championship’s and the list of nations hosting such events (1973–1975) indicates the main centres of gravity of the sport in these pioneering years: USA (x2) France (x2) Germany (x1) and Holland (x1). Europe was becoming the main market for the sport.

Worldwide Interest and Market Competition: 1976–1985

A Plethora of Producers

Up until 1975, the author estimates that some 90% of those who were windsurfing were using one type of equipment: the original Windsurfer conceived in California. The other 10% were using home-made versions or other products beyond the reach of the patent. The growing popularity of the sport was demonstrated at the 4th Windsurfer World Championships (1976) in the Bahamas, where 456 competitors competed. The International Yacht Racing Union (IYRU) noticed this record entry and started exploring how they might recognise the sport.⁵⁵ The event also reinforced the distinct identity of the sport as a 13-year-old, Robby Naish from Oahu, Hawaii became World Champion thereby adding a Hawaiian slant to the sport’s existing beach image.

The dominance of the Windsurfer design was eroded in subsequent years as the diversity of the boards available and producers using newer technologies emerged. For example, by 1981 there were 100 different producers around the world.⁵⁶ Increasingly, Schweitzer found it hard to uphold his patent in the countries where he had chosen to lodge it (USA, Germany, UK, Canada, Australia and Japan).

Potts and Thomas suggest the evolution of a technology-first sport follows a similar pattern to that in other new manufacturing fields.⁵⁷ For instance, they draw on previous literature⁵⁸ describing a pattern of numerous firms at the start (phase 1), followed by a consolidation to a few dominant designs (phase 2), resulting in mature sector (phase 3). It is now clear that the year 1975 represents the beginning of strong diversity (phase 1) in windsurfing and the start of increasingly fervent market competition and evolution. Technology-first sports are experimentally developed by both producers and individual enthusiasts – a process repeated in technology-first sports previously studied such as skiing, snowboarding, yachting, mountain biking and cycling.⁵⁹ Evolutionary innovation in windsurfing did occur in Europe, but Hawaii became a key innovation hub and source of marketing imagery.

Hawaii became important partly due to the important designs that were created and the spectacular photographs that emerged from a group in Kailua, Oahu (Hawaii) in the 1974–1980 period. Mike Horgan, Larry Stanley and Pat Love were particularly active enthusiasts in this group. They started tinkering with the original Windsurfer to allow them to use it in higher winds and waves with added harness, footstraps and changes in board shapes and high-wind sails.⁶⁰ Shah studied the collaborative working process of this group who were not strongly aligned with any producer and established their own business, Windsurfing Hawaii.⁶¹

There was increased technological competition between producers. This competition was most visible when ‘open’ races allowed any board to compete with the winning producer being able to claim their superior design or technology over others. The first Open World Championships was staged in Jamaica (1977) and the Hawaiian group attended (funded by the new producer, Mistral).⁶² A Dutchman, Dirk Thiys was victorious using a Windglider (produced in Germany) with French and German designs filling the other podium places. European designs showed far superior performance compared to the original Windsurfer technology which was now 10 years old and its plastic construction was becoming outdated. An equipment arms-race had started with producers trying to outperform each other for prestige and sales. There are similar competitive dynamics in other technology-first sports such as motor sport, yacht sailing, bobsleigh and cycling where eventually, rules are introduced to attempt to control spending (with varied impact). However, there was also intense competition between the niche windsurfing media which helped shape the sport in a particular direction.

Niche Media: A Focus on New Innovations and Practices

By 1985, in most nations where the sport was popular niche magazines had emerged. This niche media started testing equipment and publishing the results (from 1976). The competitive evolutionary process in the media started to take hold as they competed to gain readership. For example, in 1978–1979 Surf magazine (Germany) speculated by paying $10,000, in cash to a leading photographer, to secure 120 high wind images of Mike Horgan, Larry Stanley and colleagues using their new innovations in the surf. Reflecting, the editor said, ‘This triggered a real boom … the circulation skyrocketed, we showed a [Hawaiian] dream … it created a frenzy’.⁶³ The readership of Surf (1977–1982) expanded by a factor of six and magazines started to promote the extreme, spectacular side of the sport.⁶⁴ Both magazine publishers and producers often used photos of big waves rather than flat water imagery to sell the dream: it represented the extreme spectacular side of windsurfing.⁶⁵

The influence of this was a competitive process that often led the niche media to increasingly focus on technological developments, use of new materials and new high wind practices. Since the niche media largely relied upon advertising revenue in their business model and they collaborated with producers, this all contributed to increasingly specialised products not suited to newcomers (see later discussion of the 1986–1990 consolidation).

Schweitzer Attempts to Protect His Patent

Schweitzer and Drake, the joint 1970 patent holders, knew nothing of the large number of producers that would later emerge in this 1976–1985 period. In fact, they became estranged after Drake sold his interests for a $36,000 fee to his partner in 1972.⁶⁶

The first patent challenge came in 1978 in Germany and was unsuccessful. However, in 1982 the biggest windsurfing producer in the world Tabur Marine, owned by BiC the major French plastics company (producing pens, razors and lighters) were claimed to be contravening the patent by selling in the UK without a WI license. Hence WI had initiated legal action. Tabur’s lawyers had discovered Chilvers’ childhood experimentation (1958) and they were successful in arguing Chilvers’ construction demonstrated Prior Art⁶⁷ in patent law. The case went to appeal, and his evidence was upheld.⁶⁸ This sent shockwaves reverberating around the other countries where a patent existed ((USA, Germany, Canada, Australia and Japan) and people started sensing that Darby’s 1964 evidence might also support a claim of Prior Art.

Schweitzer was aggressive in defending the patent in the following years. Both the rancour created, and the uncertainty about the future hindered industry collaboration or long term investment. Also, the money spent on patent license fees (7% of trade price) and legal costs placed many companies under financial stress. For example, it was reported that Windsurfing International had won 40 suits against infringers in Germany and in England, proceedings against 24 alleged infringers were ongoing.⁶⁹ Gradually, several court proceedings successfully used Chilvers and Darby’s evidence, often with backing from BiC. This along with appeals, re-worded patents and an EEC fine for breach of competition laws⁷⁰ meant WI’s ability to uphold their patent was eroded. Funding from BiC one of the major plastic producers in the world had contributed to a more open market in the 1980s. It confirms that any history of windsurfing and many other technology-first sports (e.g. skiing, skateboarding, snowboarding) is also one connected to the plastics industry. However, most other technology-first sports do not have the complexity of patent battles in their histories which supports the case for windsurfing’s unusual development.

A Cultural Shift and Sales Zenith

In its first decade, the sport was developed as a radical cousin of sailing culminating in the decision of the IOC to accept it as an Olympic sailing discipline, in late 1980, for the 1984 Olympic Games. It signalled a milestone and early legitimisation of a new global sport and technology. Windsurfing was the first new or lifestyle sport to be accepted and it demonstrated sports with a more youthful athlete profile could contribute to the Olympic Games. Case study literature explores both the complexities and tensions of becoming an Olympic discipline as the sport was rapidly evolving.⁷¹

In its second decade (1981–1990) the sport shifted more towards surfing in its orientation and culture. 1981 saw the start of a fundamental cultural shift in the sport. Innovators in Hawaii and elsewhere attached a sail to a short surfboard – in higher winds it proved much more satisfying to sail, although the skills needed were harder to master.⁷² This stimulated a design paradigm shift for producers and increasingly shorter boards with footstraps became the norm. The only drawback was that they did not work well in lighter winds which is often a feature of smaller inland lakes.

The impact of this shift towards wind and waves also impacted on competitions. Minimum wind limits started to be imposed at professional competitions. When the wind blew spectacular imagery from a new professional World Cup was created.⁷³ New producers with links to the plastics industry continued to join the sport and in the 1980s the faster, lighter, stronger, and stiffer equipment evolved and windsurfing was becoming a carbon-enhanced performance sport a long way from its 1970 polyethylene origins. An example of the performance trajectory of windsurfing can be seen in the remarkable progression of the windsurfing speed record. In 1979, it was 19.1 knots (Dirk Thijs, Holland) and within two decades it had doubled.⁷⁴ Equipment was becoming more specialised for niches. Enthusiasts now needed to replace their equipment to cover the different sailing conditions and therefore sales continued to rise, reaching a worldwide zenith in 1983–1985, although figures are only available for 1983 (see Table 1).

Consolidation and Competing Recreational Activities: 1986–1990

With specialisation some of the equipment being more technically demanding to use, and it being optimised for higher winds, it meant some users began to lose interest as they often needed to wait for the right conditions. At the base of the sport, the teaching infrastructure to sustain the sport and provide windsurfing tuition gradually came under threat. With increasingly sophisticated and expensive equipment, more money could be made by selling equipment than through the complexities of running a windsurfing school. The infrastructure of retailers and teaching operations began to be consolidated and as a result many schools closed. The entry level aspect started to be neglected.⁷⁵ The sport started contracting.

The rapid technological evolution process had partly been driven by the needs of elite competitors and partly by a fiercely competitive market. Producers had refined their designs and technologies, the niche media were keen to report on these changes contributing to equipment moving beyond the skills and budget of the average windsurfers.⁷⁶ Rapid evolution in technology and for some, patent license payments, caused many of the early companies to fail and a consolidation period was occurring.⁷⁷ Added to these structural issues in the sport there was the beginning of competition from other accessible recreational outdoor activities. For example, the jet ski and mountain bike becoming mainstream in the late 1980s: roller blading and paragliding soon followed. The plastics industry found a major new outlet for their material in cheap plastic kayaks which provided further competition from another water-based activity. Table 1 shows the estimates for worldwide board sales in 1993 being some 50% what they were in the mid-1980s with a similar pattern reported in many nations. Rapid evolution and growth in a technology-first sport had created an unstainable environment for newcomers and for businesses but this was not the same everywhere.

The Influence of Socio-Political Context

Using a technology-first sports lens may involve going beyond competitive evolutionary processes and technology insights. Other important factors can contribute to diffusion such as national politics, policy, socio-economic circumstances and culture. To explore this, given much of the research on sports like windsurfing has been focused on Western Europe, Australia/New Zealand or North America it is important to consider other nations. A focus on how the sport spread eastwards from Europe to Eastern European nations (i.e. pre-1989) reaching China in 1979 is used to discuss these important socio-political factors.

Eastern Europe

The cultural and political contrasts between 1970s Western societies and those with Eastern European socialist regimes were pronounced however the new sport diffused eastwards despite these contrasts. For instance, Jutta Braun details how American activities such as windsurfing, aerobics and bodybuilding swept through West Germany into East Germany in the late 1970s with a growing popularity.⁷⁸ These new activities touched an idealogical nerve within the Socialist Unity Party of Germany (Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands, SED). Participants in these activities were following the latest Western trends, watching Western television and reading magazines. People were strongly attracted by windsurfing’s ‘aura of freedom, of the American way of life’.⁷⁹ State officials found many reasons to object to these ‘imported’ sports and restrictions were placed on windsurfers having their own independent association, their private windsurfing school facilities were closed down, and they had to practise their sport inland, avoiding the coast.⁸⁰ Throughout Eastern Europe the earliest windsurfers often built their own boards since access to western equipment was difficult and costly. Home-made craft skills were already used as people improvised to cope with shortages in other parts of their daily lives. With many boards produced at home the technological arms race and competitive market forces experienced in the West were far less evident. Braun describes enthusiasts as ‘forced to use semi-legal procedures, mixed in with a good share of camouflage, tricks, and wheeling and dealing’⁸¹ to practice their sport.

Czechoslovakia provided a more lenient socio-political context. Following the Prague Spring (1968), most people stopped taking much interest in the political process. ‘People played the game to the extent demanded by the regime; yet … they withdrew into their private lives’.⁸² Unlike East Germany, outdoor pursuits such as windsurfing became a non-politicised and a non-policed public sphere in which people could socialise. In Czechoslovakia, like all other Eastern European nations including the USSR, pioneers used early photographs of windsurfers to try to make the equipment as do-it-yourself projects.⁸³

Popular science and technology youth magazine front covers in Hungary (1975) and the USSR (1977) heavily promoted plans to make your own equipment.⁸⁴ The Soviet publication was widely read (circulation 1.7 million) with a front cover including a surfing image to promote ‘the new wave’. The Windsurfer ‘product’ as defined in the west became a personal construction project in Eastern Europe with no disturbance from patents. Technological aspects were more about trying to obtain suitable materials to work from. By 1975, competitions in the USSR consisted of homemade equipment and city race teams from Riga, Tallinn, St. Petersburg, Moscow, Minsk and Tbilisi.⁸⁵ Three years later the USSR National Championships had almost 150 competitors. A key dissemination event in Eastern Europe was the staging of the Windglider World Championships on Lake Ballaton (Hungary) in 1980. The decision of Olympic equipment status for the German Windglider board months later gave further encouragement for sailing and government institutions in Eastern Europe but also further east in China.

China

Observations about diffusion circumstances in communist China are informed by the author’s study visits (1986 and 2001). Politics had a considerable impact on sports development China in the 1970s and beyond. The Cultural Revolution (1966–1976) was a turbulent time. Mao Zedong’s unparalleled authority was established through this period in which elites, including in sport, were severely criticised and often physically assaulted.⁸⁶ In May 1968 almost every sports activity including sailing was suspended. Eventually, an appropriate environment emerged for a new technology-first sport through three factors. The end of the Cultural Revolution, Deng Xiaoping’s taking office as a new leader and the adoption of large-scale domestic reform and the ‘open-door policy’. Symbolic of change was the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) 1979 reinstatement of China’s membership of the IOC after a 21-year absence.⁸⁷

Indirectly, the French media brought windsurfing to China. The screening of a French windsurfing film on state TV in January 1979 inspired four curious sailing coaches to build a single board. As in Eastern Europe, pioneers worked from small photos as a guide.⁸⁸ This provides further support for the role of globalised images supporting the diffusion of a technology-first sport. The date of their first water trials, June 6, 1979 was later memorialized in the state media: a China Daily story title ‘This Day, That Year’ celebrating past events associated with ‘the 40th anniversary of China’s reform and opening-up policy’.⁸⁹ Here windsurfing’s image is co-opted as a symbol of political and social modernisation.

Wang Li, the groups leader and a senior sailing coach helped organised the building of 100 boards for the government’s 20 watersports centres. He became an activist seeking all important state recognition for the sport⁹⁰ and achieved success with the first National Championships staged in 1981.⁹¹ The Olympic status of windsurfing was important in China since this in turn led to its inclusion in the Asian Games. China’s sports policy became increasingly focused on prioritising elite sport and international success with supported full-time athletes becoming a policy emphasis. This policy succeeded in 1984 when Zheng Xiaodong won the women course racing event at the Windsurfer World Championships (Perth, Australia). Subsequently the sailing federation invested heavily purchasing 115 French windsurfers (the Crit brand). Eventually, when Olympic windsurfing first included women, Xiaodong won the silver medal (1992).

The ways in which a technology-first sport was propagated in Eastern Europe, the USSR and China help recognise the role of national culture, politics and public policy in its diffusion. Evolutionary technological dynamics was not a feature in the East in the early years of the sport but these other factors were important with an activity associated with the USA and individualism.

Technology Fragmentation

This final section illustrates how a technology-first lens can offer a useful starting point to understand the provenance of subsequent new sporting activities. The way evolutionary dynamics can lead to technology fragmentation is outlined. It demonstrates how the technology-first and rule-first sports distinction is useful. As already discussed, technology is always evolving and windsurfing has long-held relationships, culturally, and in terms of industries with many other new board sport technologies. Ruiz and Makkar identify adjacent board sports such as kitesurfing, Stand Up Paddleboarding (SUP), wing surfing and different forms of foiling (use of a hydrofoil).⁹² To this ice boarding (windsurfing on ice) can be added. Board sport technologies on water could therefore be said to have fragmented. ‘The boundaries separating the board sports are porous, dynamic, and have multiple overlaps in terms of technical solutions’⁹³ and there are also overlaps in participants with many being proficient in two or more. Furthermore, the companies selling equipment for these fragmented genres often overlap selling across boundaries (e.g. Naish, Starboard, Neil Pryde, O’Neill and Gul).

This complex blend and fragmentation has led the original 1970s novelty of windsurfing to be replaced with new developments since 2000. It is noticeable how changing styles and genres in technology-first sports create new sporting practices and sometimes new Olympic sports (e.g. kitesurfing, Paris 2024). In rule-first sports the changes to rules over time lead to few differences to the sporting practice (e.g. football) or create different competition formats (e.g. cricket, beach volleyball) but the game has a similar fundamental structure. The contrast between these two categories of sport are useful when considering development paths and histories.

Concluding Thoughts: Technology-First Sport Diffusion

The technology-first sport distinction began with a discussion of three early windsurfing creations clustered within nine years (1958–1967: Chilvers, Darby and Drake) and the trajectory of technological competition, diffusion and change over time. A key concluding thought of technology-first sport diffusion is that a position that recognises individual technological design characteristics needs to be considered alongside influences from the social, political, and economic context. For instance, the early context in windsurfing points to the favourable Californian milieu combined with the American plastic industry's capabilities in the 1960s.

Analysis of the early years of the sport demonstrated globalisation processes playing a key role in windsurfing’s diffusion. For example, the way the original Windsurfer product reaped benefits from DuPont and TenCate corporate networks and finance. Globalisation processes were also linked to how flows of ideas, media and images helped diffuse the sport. Also, publishing early windsurfing photographs became part of both national media and niche media competition. The intense competitive evolutionary processes amongst producers and niche media supported the notion of technological competition rather than solely price competition being a key feature. This perspective helps explain how rapid evolution and equipment specialisation came about and faster, lighter and stronger equipment led to windsurfing becoming a performance sport. However, unlike most sports the impact of intellectual property legal proceedings in the 1980s, often funded by BiC the major plastics company, had an influence in some countries. This fuelled the already intense competition between brands, reduced investment and created uncertainty. Finally, as the end of the 1980s approached the impact of the sport’s rapid technological trajectory was felt and a consolidation process took hold with a significant drop in sales and newcomers. The availability of other new outdoor activities competing for participants against windsurfing also contributed to this consolidation.

Windsurfing diffused globally most successfully when two factors aligned. One was there being a significant demographic with an outdoor sport orientation (e.g. skiing, sailing) who were open to change and risk. The second was, a network of local teaching infrastructure that would provide easy water access. However, socio-political factors were also very significant in Eastern Europe and China. The influence of Olympic status was most obvious in China which stimulated active investment in windsurfing and use of the sport as a symbol of progress and change.

A greater focus in sports history on the different development trajectories of and influences upon technology-first sports is perhaps needed as now many new Olympic sports have technology-first characteristics. The trajectory and diffusion processes of new sports warrant continued study to further explore how technology-first sports and rules-first sports differ in their histories.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Ben Oakley

Ben Oakley originally established the Sport and Fitness qualifications at the Open University in 2007, having previously lectured at Portsmouth and Southampton Solent universities. Formerly he worked as National Coach in windsurfing including attending two Olympic Games. His teaching expertise in online learning includes a distinctive approach to work-related study. This has been deployed in writing online content for a range of courses and platforms beyond the Open University for clients such as Sport England, FIFA and UNICEF. His academic research (1997–2003) originally focused on sport policy and in particular the development of elite sport systems in different countries. More recently his enquiry has focused on articles and publications on coach development (2019) and windsurfing evolution stories (2023). He has published six sole author or edited collection books. Ben has been an OU academic consultant for BBC sports related programmes and contributed articles to the BBC Sport website.

Notes

1 Jason Potts and Stuart Thomas, ‘Toward a New (Evolutionary) Economics of Sports’, Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal, 8, no.1 (2018): 82–96.

2 Ibid.

3 The sportization term for this process is used later in the paper.

4 Belinda Wheaton and Holly Thorpe, Action Sports and the Olympic Games: Past, Present, Future (Abingdon: Routledge, 2021).

5 Ibid., 5.

6 Roslyn Kerr, Sport and Technology: An Actor-Network Theory Perspective (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2016).

7 Ibid., 3.

8 Frédéric Savre, Jean Saint-Martin, and Thierry Terret, ‘From Marin County’s Seventies Clunker to the Durango World Championship 1990: A History of Mountain Biking in the USA’, The International Journal of the History of Sport, 27, no.11 (2010): 1942–67.

9 Sonali Shah, ‘From Innovation to Firm Formation: Contributions by Sports Enthusiasts to the Windsurfing, Snowboarding & Skateboarding Industries’, The Engineering of Sport 6, Vol 3: Developments for Innovation (2006): 29–34.

10 Tim Dant and Belinda Wheaton, ‘Windsurfing: An Extreme form of Material and Embodied Interaction?’, Anthropology Today 23, no. 6 (2007): 8–12.

11 Ibid.

12 Belinda Wheaton, ‘Introducing the Consumption and Representation of Lifestyle Sports’, Sport in Society 13, no. 7–8 (2010): 1057–81.

13 Nigel Hacking, Boardsailing – Yachting’s New Olympic Event (Los Angeles: LA84 Foundation,1983), https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/8028600/boardsailing-la84-foundation (accessed April 23, 2023).

14 Potts and Thomas, ‘Towards a New Economics of Sports’.

15 Wheaton, ‘Introducing Consumption of Lifestyle Sports’.

16 See Toby C. Rider, Matthew P. Llewellyn, and John T. Gleaves, ‘Sun, Surf, and Toned Bodies: California’s Impact on the History of Sport and Leisure’, Journal of Sport History 46, no. 1 (2019): 1–4. Also, Tolga Ozyurtcu, ‘Living the Dream: southern California and Origins of Lifestyle Sport’, 46, no.1 (2019): 20–35.

17 ‘Here She Is, the True Love Boat’, Sports Illustrated, September 20, 1982, https://vault.si.com/vault/1982/09/20/here-she-is-the-true-love-boat (accessed April 23, 2023).

18 Lord Justice Oliver, Court of Appeal, Judgement: Windsurfing International Inc. v Tabur Marine (Great Britain) Ltd, January 31, 1984, London: Royal Courts of Justice, https://vlex.co.uk/vid/windsurfing-international-inc-v-792781809 (accessed April 23, 2023).

19 Newman Darby, ‘Sailboarding: Exciting New Water Sport’, Popular Science 187, no. 2 (1965):138–41.

20 ‘Guide to the Newman Darby Windsurfing Collection’, Smithsonian Archives Center, National Museum of American History, https://sova.si.edu/record/NMAH.AC.0625?s=0&n=10&t=C&q=Sports–1950-2000&i = 7

21 James Drake, ‘Windsurfing a New Concept in Sailing’, document no. P-4076 (1969), Rand Corporation, https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P4076.html (accessed April 23, 2023).

22 This term draws on the book of the same name. Jeffery Meikle, American Plastic: A Cultural History (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1995).

23 Ibid.

24 Ibid. 1.

25 Susan Freinkel, Plastics: A Toxic Love Story (New York: Henry Holt, 2011), 4.

26 Meikle, American Plastic.

27 Ibid., 189.

28 Chris Gibson and Andrew Warren, ‘Making Surfboards: Emergence of a Trans-Pacific Cultural Industry’, The Journal of Pacific History 49, no. 1 (2014): 1–25.

29 John Chao, ‘Origins of Windsurfing: Hoyle Schweitzer’, American Windsurf Magazine 4, no. 4 (1996): 50.

30 John Chao, ‘Origins of Windsurfing: Jim Drake’, American Windsurf Magazine 4, no. 4 (1996), https://www.americanwindsurfer.com/articles/origins-of-windsurfing-jim-drake/ (accessed April 23, 2023).

31 Drew Kampion, ‘The Varieties of Life in the Wind’, Windsurf: The International Boardsailing Magazine 12, no. 4 (1982): 30.

32 Ibid.

33 Savre et al., ‘History of Mountain Biking in the USA’.

34 For example, see these historical accounts. Paul MacAuthur, ‘Snowboarding: Its Older Than You Think’, International Skiing History Association, December 1, 2016, https://www.skiinghistory.org/news/snowboarding-it%E2%80%99s-older-you-think, and Becky Beal, Skateboarding: The Ultimate Guide (Santa-Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2013).

35 Michel Desbordes, ‘Empirical Analysis of the Innovation Phenomena in the Sports Equipment Industry’, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 14, no. 4 (2002): 481–98.

36 The Original Windsurfer, Timeline: 1970 [online] https://web.archive.org/web/20160812054715/http://www.originalwindsurfer.com/site/main_1970.html (accessed April 23, 2023).

37 One of the main starting points in this literature is Rogers, 1962 original work where stages of diffusion were presented, with innovators and early adopters being the first two stages. Here, an updated retrospective article is cited. Everett M Rogers, ‘A prospective and Retrospective Look at the Diffusion Model’, Journal of Health Communication 9, no. S1 (2004): 13–19.

38 Kampion, ‘The Varieties of Life in the Wind’.

39 Belinda Wheaton, ‘Selling Out?: The Commercialisation and Globalisation of Lifestyle Sport’, in The Global Politics of Sport (Abingdon: Routledge, 2004), 127–46.

40 Arjun Appadurai, Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996).

41 Diane Schweitzer, ‘Windsurfing News’, Windsurfing International Dealer Newsletter, April 15, 1971.

42 George Neilson, ‘Surfing without Waves: A New Sport Sets Sail on Boards Made of Alathon Polyethylene Resin’, DuPont Magazine 65, no. 4, July–August (1971): 5–8. https://digital.hagley.org/1971_65_04?solr_nav%5Bid%5D=8f2f8331aaa325d5a16a&solr_nav%5Bpage%5D=0&solr_nav%5Boffset%5D=3#page/1/mode/2up.

43 For example, the Dupont Magazine is cited in both these articles: ‘10 jahre windsurfing in Europa: Martin Spanjer im surf-interview’ [German], Surf Magazin 5, 1982: 86. ‘10 Jahre Windsurfen in Deutschland: Callle Smidt, die erste Surferin des Landes’ [German], Surf Magazin 5, 1982: 88.

44 Neilson, ‘Surfing without waves’, 1 (Front cover: caption).

45 ‘30 Jahr Surf Magazin’ [German], Surf Magazin 5, 2007: 27, https://www.syltsurfing.de/downloads/callesurfmagazin.pdf.

46 ‘Les Debuts des Windsurfer en France’ Windsurfing International Magazine 1 (1976): 4.

47 The original windsurfer, Timeline: 1972 [online] https://web.archive.org/web/20160812054715/http://www.originalwindsurfer.com/site/main_1972.html (accessed April 23, 2023).

48 ‘10 jahre windsurfing in Europa: Martin Spanjer im surf-interview’ [German], Surf Magazin 5, 1982: 86.

49 Ibid.

50 Ibid.

51 Appadurai, Modernity at Large.

52 Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations.

53 West and Seer, Hooked: Windsurfing’s Stories, 58.

54 Ibid., 167.

55 Hacking, Boardsailing – Yachting’s New Olympic Event.

56 Robert Marmis, ‘Hoyle Schweitzer’s Decade of Discontent’, INC Magazine, February 1, 1982, New York, NY, https://www.inc.com/magazine/19820201/2262.html (accessed April 23, 2023).

57 Potts and Thomas, ‘Toward a New Economics of Sports’.

58 Steven Klepper and Kenneth L. Simons, ‘Industry Shakeouts and Technological Change’, International Journal of Industrial Organization 23, no. 1–2 (2005): 23–43.

59 Desbordes, ‘Empirical Analysis of the Sports Equipment Industry’.

60 West and Seer, Hooked: Windsurfing’s Stories, 82–95.

61 Sonali Shah, ‘Sources and Patterns of Innovation in a Consumer Products Field: Innovations in Sporting Equipment’ Sloan Working Paper no. 4105, March (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2000), https://flosshub.org/sites/flosshub.org/files/shahsportspaper.pdf

62 West and Seer, Hooked: Windsurfing’s Stories, 82–95.

63 ‘Wie aus ketten befrit’ [German] Surf Magazin 4, 2017: 4.

64 Ibid.

65 Jason Potts and Stuart Thomas, ‘The Curious Case for Media Monopoly in Technology-Driven Sports’, Media International Australia 155, no. 1 (2015): 144.

66 Drake later claimed that the TenCate European arrangements were taking place simultaneously to his fee negotiation with Schweitzer but without his knowledge. See Chao, ‘Origins of Windsurfing: Jim Drake’.

67 Prior Art is any evidence that an invention is already known. Prior art does not need to exist physically or be commercially available. It is enough that someone, somewhere, sometime previously has described or shown or made something that contains a use of technology that is very similar to an invention.

68 Lord Justice Oliver, Court of Appeal, Judgement: Windsurfing International Inc. v Tabur Marine (Great Britain) Ltd, January 31, 1984, London: Royal Courts of Justice, https://vlex.co.uk/vid/windsurfing-international-inc-v-792781809 (accessed April 23, 2023).

69 European Economic Community (EEC) Commission Decision, relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/29.395—Windsurfing International) EEC, July 11, 1983, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31983D0400&from=DE (accessed April 23, 2023).

70 Marmis, ‘Hoyle Schweitzer’s Discontent’.

71 Wheaton and Thorpe, Action Sports and the Olympic Games; Holly Thorpe and Belinda Wheaton, ‘Generation X Games’, Action Sports and the Olympic Movement: Understanding the Cultural Politics of Incorporation’, Sociology 45, no. 5 (2011): 830–47.

72 West and Seer, Hooked: Windsurfing’s Stories, 182–91.

73 Ibid.

74 ‘500 Metre Records’, World Sailing Speed Record Council (2023), https://www.sailspeedrecords.com/500-metre (accessed April 23, 2023).

75 Stuart Thomas and Jason Potts, ‘How Industry Competition Ruined Windsurfing’, Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal 6, no. 5 (2016): 565–78.

76 Ibid.

77 Klepper and Simons, ‘Industry Shakeouts and Change’.

78 Jutta Braun, ‘The People’s Sport? Popular Sport and Fans in the Later Years of the German Democratic Republic’, German History 27, no. 3 (2009): 414–28.

79 Ibid., 420.

80 Ibid., 421.

81 Ibid., 427.

82 Tomáš Kvasnička, ‘Equipment and changing outdoor culture in the Czech Republic’, Anthropology of East Europe Review 25, no. 1 (2007): 54. 53–63.

83 Tomáš Muzejník, ‘Držet si vítr v zádech’[Czech] in Herbert Slavík (ed.), Naše léto, voda, lode: 161 (Praha: WWA Photo, 2021).

84 Ezermester [Hungarian], no. 7 (1975); Tekhnika Molodezhi [Russian], no. 7 (1977). The surfing image and ‘a new wave’ reference appeared in the Russian publication.

85 ‘Соревнование по виндсерфингу в Минске, Ленинграде и Москве’, Катера и яхты [Russian], no. 59 (1976), http://www.barque.ru/sport/1976/windsurfing_in_minsk_leningrad_moscow (accessed October 7, 2023).

86 Jinming Zheng, Shushu Chen, Tien-Chin Tan, abd Patrick Wing Chung Lau, ‘Sport Policy in China (Mainland)’, International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 10, no. 3 (2018): 473.

87 Ibid.

88 Wang Li, Chinese Windsurfing from Scratch to the Road to the World Championship’ Sina Sports Comprehensive, October 8, 2019, https://sports.sina.com.cn/others/sailing/2019-10-08/doc-iicezuev0683628.shtml (accessed April 23, 2023).

89 ‘This Day, That Year’ China Daily, June 8 (2018), https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2018-06/08/content_36350087.htm (accessed April 23, 2023).

90 ‘Wang Li: Chinese’, Sina Sports Comprehensive.

91 Ben Oakley, ‘The Chinese Way’, Boards Magazine 33 (1986): 96–7.

92 Carlos Diaz Ruiz and Marian Makkar, ‘Market Bifurcations in Board Sports: How Consumers Shape Markets through Boundary Work’, Journal of Business Research 122 (2021): 38–50.

93 Ibid., 41.