IFBB UNDER FIRE!

NEW SCANDAL IN IFBB.

IFBB OFFICIAL SPEAKS.

Below is an independent, structured summary of the letter, distinguishing verifiable facts, allegations made by the author, legal interpretations, and conclusions that remain unproven.

Important: This assessment is based on the contents of the letter you provided. I have not independently verified the underlying Spanish registry documents, statutes, correspondence, financial records, or court decisions. The author's assertions should not be treated as established facts without reviewing the supporting evidence.

1. Executive Summary

The letter, written by Boris Presečki, General Secretary of the Croatian Fitness and Bodybuilding Federation (CFBF), challenges the legal status, governance, disciplinary authority, and financial transparency of the International Fitness and Bodybuilding Federation (IFBB) and the European Bodybuilding and Fitness Federation (EBFF).

Its central argument is that the IFBB and EBFF operate using publicly available constitutions that allegedly differ from the statutes registered with the Spanish Ministry of the Interior.

According to the author, the registered statutes do not grant the organizations the same governance, disciplinary, and anti-doping powers described in their publicly available constitutions.

The letter consequently challenges:

The authority of IFBB President Rafael Santonja to discipline or exclude members. The legitimacy of the IFBB's and EBFF's governance and election procedures. The legal basis for delegating anti-doping functions to the International Testing Agency (ITA). The treatment of the Croatian federation and its representatives. The financial transparency and potential conflicts of interest within the organizations. The accuracy of certain representations concerning the organizations' legal status and leadership.

The author also alleges irregularities involving other national federations, the appointment of officials, financial reporting, and Santonja's academic title.

Finally, the letter invites affected parties to consider collective legal action and questions whether the current leadership can lawfully continue to hold office following the scheduled elections.

Central issue: Does the constitution used by the IFBB for its international activities correspond to the legally registered statutes of the Spanish association, and, if not, what consequences follow for its decisions?

That question is important, but the letter does not, by itself, establish that the disputed constitutions are legally invalid or that all decisions made under them are void.

2. Distinguishing Facts, Allegations, and Legal Conclusions

The following classification distinguishes statements that can be objectively checked from claims that require further evidence.

A. Legal status of the IFBB and EBFF Claim 1: The IFBB is registered as a Spanish association.

Classification: Verifiable fact, subject to confirmation of the registry documents.

The letter identifies the IFBB with Spanish Registry Number 589776 and states that its registered purposes concern education, recreation, and advisory activities.

The author claims that the registered statutes do not expressly mention bodybuilding or fitness as sporting activities.

Evidence cited:

Documents allegedly obtained from the Spanish Ministry of the Interior. Registered statutes bearing official verification codes. Apostilles attached to the documents.

What needs verification:

The exact legal name of the registered entity. Its current registration status. The complete text of its registered statutes and amendments. The precise wording of Article 3. Whether additional registrations, statutes, or legal entities are relevant to its international activities.

Important distinction: Registration as a private association does not, by itself, establish that an organization is prohibited from organizing bodybuilding competitions or governing its own sporting activities.

Nor does the absence of the word bodybuilding automatically mean that all of its activities are unlawful.

Claim 2: The IFBB uses a constitution different from its registered Spanish statutes.

Classification: Specific, verifiable allegation.

The author alleges that the constitution published on the IFBB website contains provisions that do not appear in the statutes registered in Spain.

The letter provides links to:

A publicly available IFBB constitution. A historical version of the EBFF constitution. The alleged registered statutes, which the author says are attached to the original email.

This is arguably the most important factual allegation in the letter.

To establish it, the documents should be compared article by article.

The comparison should identify:

Differences in membership rules. The composition and appointment of governing bodies. Presidential powers. Disciplinary procedures. Election procedures. Anti-doping provisions. Assembly notice requirements. Provisions concerning suspension and termination of membership.

What remains unproven: Even if the documents differ, it does not automatically follow that the publicly available constitution is fraudulent. That conclusion would require evidence about the document's origin, intended legal status, adoption, and use.

The letter's use of terms such as fictitious, falsified, and illegal goes beyond the fact that two documents may differ.

B. Disciplinary powers and member suspensions Claim 3: The IFBB President has no authority to discipline or exclude members.

Classification: Legal conclusion requiring further analysis.

The author argues that the registered statutes do not establish disciplinary powers equivalent to those described in the IFBB's publicly available constitution.

He alleges that Rafael Santonja has imposed disciplinary measures and excluded members without an adequate legal basis.

What must be established:

The exact powers granted by the registered statutes. Whether validly adopted internal regulations supplement those statutes. Whether the association's members agreed to any applicable disciplinary rules. Whether Spanish law permits the relevant powers to be established through other instruments. Whether the particular sanctions complied with applicable procedural and substantive requirements.

The absence of an express disciplinary clause in the registered statutes would be relevant, but it would not, by itself, conclusively establish that every disciplinary measure is unlawful.

Claim 4: All long-term disciplinary sanctions imposed by the IFBB are illegal.

Classification: Unsupported generalization.

The letter concludes that all such sanctions are illegal because the registered statutes allegedly do not authorize them.

That conclusion is too broad without examining individual cases.

The legality of a sanction may depend on:

The applicable rules. The authority of the body imposing it. The procedure followed. The nature of the alleged violation. The available appeal mechanisms. The law governing the relevant association and sporting relationship.

Assessment: A lack of authority could provide grounds to challenge particular sanctions. It does not establish that every sanction is automatically void.

C. Anti-doping authority and the ITA Claim 5: The IFBB lacked authority to delegate anti-doping functions to the International Testing Agency.

Classification: Legal argument, not an established fact.

The author argues that because the registered Spanish statutes allegedly lack anti-doping provisions, the IFBB could not have delegated anti-doping testing and related functions to the ITA.

This argument requires a more detailed examination.

Relevant questions include:

What authority did the IFBB possess under its registered statutes and other applicable rules? What obligations did it accept under the applicable anti-doping framework? What agreements or delegations were made with the ITA? Which organization is responsible for each particular anti-doping function? What rules govern the specific athlete or federation concerned?

The ITA's authority to conduct testing or administer anti-doping activities may arise from contractual arrangements, applicable anti-doping rules, and the relevant sporting framework.

Consequently, the alleged absence of an express anti-doping clause in the Spanish statutes does not, without further analysis, establish that the delegation was invalid.

Claim 6: The IFBB altered its publicly available constitution in August 2025 to shift responsibility for anti-doping irregularities.

Classification: Allegation requiring documentary evidence.

The author alleges that provisions concerning the appointment of the President of the Medical Commission were changed on August 20, 2025.

He further alleges that the changes were intended to shift responsibility to Dr. Alfonso Moran and enable the President to dismiss him unilaterally.

Evidence needed:

Archived copies of the constitution before and after the alleged change. Reliable timestamps or other evidence establishing when the changes occurred. The relevant minutes or resolutions, if any. Evidence supporting the alleged motive.

Even if a change can be demonstrated, the allegation about its purpose remains separate and requires independent evidence.

3. Governance and Elections A. Composition of governing bodies Claim 7: The publicly available constitutions provide for governing bodies larger than those authorized by the registered statutes.

Classification: Verifiable documentary allegation.

The letter states that:

The publicly available IFBB constitution provides for an Executive Council exceeding 25 members. The registered IFBB statutes provide for eight members. The publicly available EBFF constitution provides for a governing body of approximately 17 members. The registered EBFF statutes provide for eight members.

These numbers should be checked against the complete documents.

If confirmed, the discrepancy could raise questions about the legal basis for appointing or electing particular officials.

However, it would still be necessary to establish whether the publicly available documents apply to the same legal entities and whether subsequent amendments or separate organizational structures are relevant.

B. Presidential appointment powers Claim 8: Santonja appoints officials despite lacking authority under the registered statutes.

Classification: Allegation supported by a potentially verifiable legal question.

The author claims that the registered statutes require governing-body members to be elected by the relevant assembly and do not permit the President to appoint them personally.

If the documents confirm this, particular appointments could be open to challenge.

However, the letter does not identify every contested appointment or provide the resolutions needed to establish the circumstances of each one.

C. General Assembly notices Claim 9: Members were not given the required 15-day notice and agenda.

Classification: Allegation requiring meeting records and correspondence.

The author states that the registered statutes require members to receive advance notice specifying the date, location, and agenda of General Assembly meetings.

He alleges that the required notice was not provided.

If the relevant statutory provision and the absence of proper notice are established, this could raise a significant question about compliance with the association's rules.

Nevertheless, the further claim that all decisions adopted at those meetings are automatically unlawful requires legal analysis.

The consequences of a procedural defect depend on the applicable law, the seriousness of the defect, and the circumstances of the meeting and the decisions concerned.

D. The November 2, 2026, term-expiry claim Claim 10: Santonja's and Ralph Decelis's terms expire on November 2, 2026, and they will no longer be legally registered.

Classification: Prediction and legal assertion, not an established fact.

The letter states that their terms expire on November 2, 2026, and predicts that they will no longer be officially recorded in the Spanish Register of Associations.

To verify this, it would be necessary to establish:

The applicable term limits and commencement dates. The relevant election and appointment records. The legal effect of the term expiry. The procedure for registering changes in the governing bodies. Whether the Spanish registry has taken or announced any relevant action.

An approaching term-expiry date does not, by itself, establish that the registry will refuse to record an individual or that the individual's subsequent acts will automatically be invalid.

4. Recognition by Spanish Sports Authorities Claim 11: The Spanish High Council for Sports does not register the IFBB as a Spanish sports federation.

Classification: Potentially verifiable official fact.

The letter reproduces a purported response from the Spanish High Council for Sports, the Consejo Superior de Deportes (CSD).

According to the quoted response, a search of the relevant register did not identify a Spanish sports federation under the name Federación Internacional de Fitness y Fisicoculturismo or a similar name.

If authentic, this would establish a limited but important point: the authority did not find an entity registered under that name in the specified register at the time of its inquiry.

It would not necessarily establish that:

The international IFBB does not exist as a legal entity. The IFBB cannot organize international competitions. The IFBB cannot establish membership requirements for its own events. Every IFBB decision is invalid. The IFBB has no legal rights or obligations.

Key distinction: Recognition as an official national sports federation is different from registration as a private association and different again from recognition by international sporting bodies.

The letter's legal conclusions must account for these distinctions.

Claim 12: Bodybuilding is not recognized as a sport in Spain.

Classification: Broad legal claim requiring clarification.

The letter uses the alleged absence of an IFBB entity from the CSD register to support the broader assertion that the Spanish authorities do not recognize bodybuilding as a sport.

These are not equivalent propositions.

The absence of a particular federation from a register does not, by itself, prove that a sporting discipline has no legal recognition or status in Spain.

The precise legal status of bodybuilding and the applicable recognition framework would need to be examined separately.

5. IFBB's Relationship with IFBB Inc. in Canada Claim 13: The Spanish IFBB could not have been the natural successor to IFBB Inc. because the Canadian entity was dissolved in 2015.

Classification: Historical allegation with an incomplete legal argument.

The author claims that:

The Spanish association was established in 2007. It was presented as the successor to IFBB Inc. The Canadian entity was not dissolved until June 18, 2015. Ben Weider continued to conduct business through IFBB Inc. in 2008.

The letter provides links to company-record websites and a historical webpage.

The dates and corporate records may be independently verifiable.

However, the dissolution date alone does not determine whether the Spanish association could have become a successor in 2007.

That would depend on the legal nature of the succession, the applicable corporate law, the relevant resolutions and agreements, and the meaning of successor in the documents concerned.

The distinction between a legal successor, an organization continuing sporting activities, and an organization claiming historical continuity is particularly important here.

6. Croatian Federation and National Representation Claim 14: The IFBB unlawfully prevented the Croatian federation's leadership from representing Croatia.

Classification: Allegation requiring evidence from both organizations.

The author alleges that the IFBB refused to recognize the leadership of the Croatian Fitness and Bodybuilding Federation, despite its election in Croatia and confirmation by the Croatian Olympic Committee.

He further alleges that Croatian athletes were prevented from competing under the Croatian national flag and anthem.

Evidence needed:

The Croatian federation's election records. Relevant Croatian Olympic Committee documentation. The IFBB's recognition and membership rules. Correspondence between the parties. Decisions concerning Croatian representation. Competition rules and records showing the arrangements imposed on athletes.

Even if the Croatian leadership was lawfully elected under Croatian law, it does not automatically follow that the IFBB was legally required to recognize that leadership for all purposes under its international membership arrangements.

Conversely, the IFBB's internal rules would not automatically exempt it from applicable legal obligations.

The legal question is whether the IFBB's decisions were authorized, procedurally fair, consistent with applicable rules, and lawful under the relevant legal framework.

Claim 15: The IFBB President is attempting to install Filip Dropulić as Croatian federation president.

Classification: Allegation of motive and conduct, currently unverified.

The letter alleges that Rafael Santonja and Ralph Decelis are attempting to install a particular individual as president of the Croatian federation.

It also refers to alleged scandals, unlawful conduct, and court judgments involving that individual.

These claims should not be repeated as established facts without supporting documents.

A responsible assessment would require evidence of the alleged intervention and identification of any relevant court judgments.

7. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Boris Presečki Claim 16: Santonja initiated a disciplinary proceeding against Presečki after an anonymous email became public in April 2025.

Classification: Specific allegation with potentially verifiable supporting evidence.

The author states that:

An anonymous email raised allegations of irregularities and anti-doping violations. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him on the same day the email became public. A lifetime ban was sought. He submitted an appeal. No response had been received for more than a year.

These claims can be checked against correspondence, dated decisions, the appeal submission, and the applicable disciplinary rules.

The sequence of events, if confirmed, could be relevant to assessing procedural fairness.

However, the timing alone would not establish that the proceeding was fabricated or retaliatory.

The absence of a response to the appeal could be significant, but its legal consequences depend on the applicable rules, the appeal body's obligations, and any available remedies.

Important: The letter's account represents the author's version of the events. The IFBB's response and the complete procedural record are not included.

8. Allegations Involving Other National Federations Claim 17: The IFBB improperly replaced the Georgian federation, sanctioned the Jordanian federation, and lost the Iranian federation to a competing organization.

Classification: Mixed claims requiring separate verification.

The letter refers to:

A change in the Georgian federation's recognized leadership. Sanctions involving the Jordanian federation. The Iranian federation's departure from the IFBB and reported move to the World Bodybuilding and Physique Sports Federation (WBPF). Changes involving Indian bodybuilding organizations.

The cited announcements may help verify whether organizational changes occurred.

However, the fact that a federation changed affiliation or was sanctioned does not, by itself, demonstrate that the IFBB acted unlawfully.

Each case would need to be examined independently, including the applicable membership rules, decisions, reasons, and procedural history.

These examples may provide context, but they do not establish the central legal argument concerning the Spanish registered statutes.

9. Financial Transparency and Potential Conflicts of Interest A. EBFF tax identification Claim 18: The EBFF's tax identification number does not correspond to its status as a registered association.

Classification: Verifiable allegation requiring official tax and registry records.

The letter states that the Spanish Register of Associations does not show an official tax identification number for the EBFF, while invoices issued by the organization display the number V: 83519447.

The author infers that the entity may have an unclear or inconsistent legal status.

To evaluate this claim, the following would be required:

The official registry extract. The entity's tax registration records. The relevant invoices. Confirmation of the legal entity to which the number belongs. An explanation of the Spanish tax identifier's classification and meaning.

The absence of a tax number from a particular association-register extract does not establish that an organization lacks a valid tax identification number or legal personality.

Conclusion: This is a legitimate verification question, but the alleged discrepancy does not yet establish wrongdoing.

B. Annual revenues and financial reporting Claim 19: The EBFF generates several million euros annually without adequate financial transparency.

Classification: Financial allegation requiring documentary evidence.

The author refers to an official credit report and raises questions about annual revenues and financial reporting.

The letter does not provide the underlying report, financial statements, accounting records, or a detailed reconciliation of revenue and expenditure.

The following should be obtained:

The credit report and its methodology. Annual accounts for the relevant years. The entity's accounting and reporting obligations. Documents showing which legal entity received the funds. Any applicable statutory or regulatory reporting requirements.

An organization's legal reporting obligations depend on its legal form and applicable law.

The absence of public annual accounts does not, by itself, prove a legal violation.

C. Premises and possible related-party transactions Claim 20: IFBB or EBFF funds may have been used to pay rent benefiting the President's family.

Classification: Serious allegation of a potential conflict of interest, not proven by the letter.

The author states that the organizations have paid rent for premises in Las Rozas and that Santonja's wife owns property in the same area.

He suggests that the rental arrangement may have benefited the President or his family at the organizations' expense.

The letter does not establish that the rented premises are owned by Santonja's wife or a company she controls, nor does it provide the relevant lease agreements or rental amounts.

To substantiate the allegation, evidence would be needed of:

The actual property owner. The contracting parties. The lease terms and rental payments. The market value of comparable premises. The approval process and any disclosure of related-party interests. The organizations' accounting treatment of the payments.

Even a related-party transaction would not automatically be improper. The critical questions would include whether it was properly disclosed, authorized, commercially reasonable, and consistent with the applicable duties of the governing body.

10. Academic Title and General Secretary Claim 21: Rafael Santonja improperly uses the title of doctor.

Classification: Allegation requiring documentary verification.

The letter cites a sports news article concerning Santonja's use of the title.

The allegation should be evaluated using reliable evidence about his academic qualifications, the institution concerned, and the circumstances in which the title was used.

A media report alone is not necessarily sufficient to establish deliberate deception.

Claim 22: William Bill Tierney performed the General Secretary's duties without holding the corresponding registered position.

Classification: Historical allegation requiring records.

The author claims that Jose Ramos Tomas Munoz was listed as General Secretary in the Spanish registry while Tierney actually performed the role.

To verify this, one would need:

Registry extracts covering the relevant years. Appointment and resignation records. Minutes of governing-body meetings. Evidence of the duties performed by each individual. Any applicable delegations of authority.

A discrepancy between a registered officeholder and the person performing administrative work could raise governance questions, but it would not automatically establish that the latter lacked all legal authority.

11. Liability Under Spanish Association Law

The letter refers to Article 15 of Spain's Organic Law 1/2002 on the Right of Association.

It argues that governing-body members may face personal liability for losses caused by fraudulent, intentional, or negligent conduct.

Classification: Legal principle requiring precise application.

The provision is relevant to the responsibilities of association governing bodies. However, the letter's description of liability should not be treated as a complete statement of the law.

In particular, the existence of a board position does not automatically make every board member personally liable for every disputed decision or financial loss.

The relevant legal analysis would need to consider:

The exact statutory provisions. The conduct attributable to each individual. The applicable standard of fault. The existence and amount of actual damage. The causal relationship between the conduct and the damage. Any applicable defenses or other legal requirements.

The assertion that all board members must necessarily pay the full amount of every loss from their personal assets is too categorical without examining the circumstances and applicable legal rules.

Similarly, the letter's references to potential multimillion-euro lawsuits and a joint action should be understood as statements of intended legal action, not evidence that liability has already been established.

12. European Union Law and Sports Governance

The letter invokes European legal principles and refers generally to judgments of the European Court of Justice in 2024 and 2025.

Classification: Potentially relevant legal framework, but insufficiently specified.

The letter does not identify the particular judgments, case numbers, or precise legal holdings on which it relies.

That makes it impossible to determine from the letter alone whether those judgments support its conclusions.

European Union law can be relevant to sporting rules, particularly where they affect competition, market access, or other matters within the scope of EU law.

However, it does not follow that every internal sporting decision is automatically governed by every EU principle in the same way.

The analysis must identify:

The relevant judgment. The legal rule established by that judgment. The sporting decision being challenged. The connection between that decision and the applicable EU legal framework.

The allegation of discrimination against the Croatian federation also requires evidence that comparable cases were treated differently without an adequate justification.

Assessment: The legal argument may be worth investigating, but the letter does not provide enough detail to establish the alleged violations.

13. Claims About Pending Investigations and Future Consequences Claim 23: Spanish and international institutions have been alerted to irregularities.

Classification: Assertion about procedural developments, requiring confirmation.

The author states that multiple institutions have been notified.

This could be verified through copies of complaints, acknowledgments of receipt, reference numbers, and official correspondence.

A complaint being submitted does not establish that its allegations are true or that an investigation has confirmed wrongdoing.

Claim 24: Changes to the Spanish Register of Associations will soon be suspended.

Classification: Prediction requiring official evidence.

The letter predicts that the processing of changes to the register will be suspended pending clarification of alleged irregularities.

No formal suspension order or official notice is reproduced in the text.

The prediction should therefore not be presented as an established decision by the Spanish authorities.

Claim 25: A collective lawsuit will be initiated.

Classification: Statement of intent.

The author invites affected parties to contact him regarding a proposed joint claim for compensation.

The letter does not establish that proceedings have been filed, that a court has accepted the case, or that a particular collective-action procedure is available under the applicable law.

The procedural route, standing, jurisdiction, and individual claims would need to be assessed by qualified legal counsel.

14. The Most Important Distinction: What the Evidence Could Actually Prove

The letter sometimes moves directly from a factual allegation to a broad legal conclusion.

The following examples illustrate the difference.

If the evidence establishes…

It could support…

It would not automatically establish…

The published constitution differs from the registered statutes.

Questions about which document governs the Spanish association.

That the published document is fraudulent.

The registered statutes do not expressly provide a particular disciplinary power.

A challenge to the legal basis for a specific sanction.

That every IFBB sanction is void.

The IFBB is not registered as a Spanish national sports federation.

A distinction between private-association status and official national-federation recognition.

That the IFBB cannot organize international competitions.

A General Assembly did not receive the required notice.

A possible procedural challenge to the meeting or its decisions.

That every decision is automatically null and void.

A related-party rental agreement exists.

A need to examine disclosure, authorization, and commercial terms.

That the arrangement constitutes fraud or financial misconduct.

A person is absent from a particular registry extract.

A need to check the relevant registration requirements and records.

That the person has no authority under any other valid arrangement.

A complaint has been filed with an authority.

Confirmation that an allegation was formally submitted.

That the authority has confirmed the allegation.

A federation changes its international affiliation.

Confirmation of a change in sporting relationships.

That the previous federation acted unlawfully.

15. Final Summary: The Strongest and Weakest Parts of the Letter Strongest points to investigate

1. The alleged discrepancy between the registered statutes and the publicly available constitutions.

This is the central documentary issue. If the documents differ materially, the consequences should be examined under the law governing the relevant legal entities.

2. The legal basis for disciplinary decisions.

Specific sanctions may be challengeable if the decision-maker lacked authority or failed to follow applicable rules and procedures.

3. The validity of governing-body appointments and election procedures.

The registered statutes, meeting notices, minutes, election records, and appointment resolutions could provide objective evidence.

4. The treatment of the Croatian federation.

The Croatian election records, Olympic Committee documentation, IFBB decisions, and correspondence could help establish what happened and which rules applied.

5. Financial governance and potential conflicts of interest.

Lease agreements, accounting records, tax documentation, and related-party disclosures could establish whether there are genuine compliance issues.

Weakest points as currently presented

1. The assertion that all IFBB disciplinary sanctions are illegal.

This is an overly broad conclusion without case-specific legal analysis.

2. The claim that the IFBB cannot conduct or delegate anti-doping activities.

This requires examination of the applicable anti-doping framework and the specific agreements and rules involved.

3. The assertion that the absence of registration as a Spanish sports federation invalidates the IFBB's international activities.

These are distinct legal questions.

4. The allegation that the disputed constitution is deliberately falsified or fraudulent.

A difference between documents does not establish intent to deceive.

5. The claim that the President and all governing-body members will necessarily be personally liable for substantial damages.

Liability must be assessed against the applicable legal requirements and the evidence concerning each person.

6. Predictions about the Spanish registry's future actions.

These should not be presented as confirmed unless supported by official decisions or correspondence.

16. Recommended Next Steps

If the purpose is to prepare a credible legal complaint or communicate with international sports organizations, I would prioritize the following:

Obtain certified registry documents for both the IFBB and EBFF, including their complete registered statutes and amendments. Compare the documents article by article against the constitutions published on the organizations' websites. Obtain the records for specific disputed decisions, including disciplinary sanctions, appeals, elections, and governing-body appointments. Verify the CSD's response and establish precisely what it confirms about registration and recognition. Collect financial evidence before making allegations about tax status, revenue, rental arrangements, or conflicts of interest. Identify the specific European court judgments relevant to the claims of arbitrary exclusion or discrimination. Separate each complainant's alleged harm from general criticisms of the organizations, identifying the decision, evidence, applicable rule, and remedy sought. Have a Spanish association-law specialist review the evidence before asserting that particular decisions are void or that named individuals have incurred personal liability. Overall conclusion

The letter raises several potentially significant questions about organizational governance, the relationship between registered statutes and publicly available constitutions, disciplinary authority, election procedures, and financial accountability.

However, it also contains serious allegations and legal conclusions that cannot be accepted as established merely because the author states them or refers to official documents.

The most defensible approach is to establish the documentary discrepancies first, identify the legal consequences second, and assess individual allegations of misconduct separately.

That approach would produce a stronger, more credible submission than treating all the allegations as proven or asserting that every IFBB decision is automatically illegal.

WORLD FITNESS FEDERATION (WFF-International) WORLD BODYBUILDING FEDERATION (WBBF-International)

International sporting activities since 1968 | 141 member countries | 60 international events annually!

MAJOR INTERNATIONAL SPORTING EVENTS OF 2027

May 7–9, 2027 | Klaipeda, Lithuania

Three major international bodybuilding and fitness competitions will take place in Klaipeda over three days:

60th AMBER PRIX INTERNATIONAL

27th AM/PRO UNIVERSE CHAMPIONSHIP

31st AM/PRO EUROPEAN CHAMPIONSHIP

KLAIPEDA WELCOMES THE INTERNATIONAL SPORTING COMMUNITY!

The World Fitness Federation (WFF-International) and the World Bodybuilding Federation (WBBF-International) invite athletes, coaches, sports officials, bodybuilding and fitness enthusiasts, and the general public to join these outstanding international sporting events.

Distinguished guests from various countries are also expected to attend, including representatives from political, sporting and public life.

Klaipeda will become an international meeting point for the bodybuilding and fitness community!

Dates: May 7–9, 2027
Location: Klaipeda, Lithuania

For further information, visit:
www.wff.lt
www.worldfitness.lt

See you in Klaipeda in 2027!

PRESS RELEASE WFF History and Identity Once Again in the Spotlight: WFF-WBBF International Calls for Facts, Documents and Transparency

September 24, 2026

WFF-WBBF International is drawing public attention to recent developments in Singapore involving an organisation using the World Fitness Federation (WFF) name and activities publicly promoted by Graeme Lancefield.

A document issued by WFF Singapore announces the appointment of Ibrahim Sihat as Athlete Director and his participation in the WFF Singapore Executive Committee. The document also refers to the establishment of the WFF in 1968.

This development is significant in the context of an ongoing dispute concerning the history, identity and organisational continuity of the World Fitness Federation (WFF).

A Dispute Over WFF History

The position of WFF-WBBF International is clear: the history and legacy of WFF should be established through historical documents, official archives and verifiable organisational records.

At the same time, the organisation associated with Graeme Lancefield presents its own historical account of WFF and also connects the federation's origins with 1968.

As a result, there are currently different publicly presented accounts of WFF's history and organisational continuity.

The Latest Example: Singapore

The WFF Singapore document states that Ibrahim Sihat has been appointed Athlete Director, with responsibilities including identifying promising athletes, encouraging participation in competitions and developing a pathway from beginner level to international competition.

Graeme Lancefield has also publicly congratulated Ibrahim Sihat on the appointment and referred to the development of the WFF Singapore fitness community and the identification of local talent for international teams.

WFF-WBBF International points out that these developments once again raise an important question: who represents the historical legacy of WFF, and on what documented basis are different organisations using the WFF name?

“History Must Be Supported by Documents”

WFF-WBBF International emphasises that the history of an international sporting organisation should not be established solely through public statements, social-media publications or recently issued national documents.

“WFF has a history spanning many decades. Therefore, claims concerning the organisation's origins, continuity and international identity should be examined through historical documents, official records and verifiable evidence.”

WFF-WBBF International continues to publish historical information, competition records and archival material through its international website:
WFF-WBBF International – WFF.lt

A Question for the International Fitness Community

WFF-WBBF International believes that athletes, coaches, federations and the public have the right to know which organisations represent the WFF name, what their documented history is, and what evidence supports their claims.

The organisation therefore calls on the international fitness community to examine this matter on the basis of facts, historical documentation and verifiable evidence.

WFF history should not be rewritten through social-media statements alone.

A history dating back to 1968 is too important to be defined by declarations without supporting documentation.

About WFF-WBBF International

WFF-WBBF International is an international organisation involved in bodybuilding, fitness and related sports disciplines, with historical records and archives documenting international competitions and organisational activities.

More information:
WFF-WBBF International – www.wff.lt

Media contact: WFF-WBBF International
Subject: WFF history, organisational continuity and the use of the WFF name.

WORLD FITNESS FEDERATION (WFF-INTERNATIONAL)
WORLD BODYBUILDING FEDERATION (WBBF INTERNATIONAL)

SERIA INTERNATIONAL EVENTS 2026

Nida, Lithuania, October 24–26, 2026

Over 300 international athletes gathered in Nida, Lithuania, for a series of prestigious international bodybuilding and fitness events.

FINAL RESULTS

OVERALL WINNERS

37th WORLD AMATEUR CHAMPIONSHIP
Diana Vasylijeva (Ukraine)
Iori Nishizawa (Japan)

Over All Women Aerobic Fitness Champion Amelia Idzikowska (Poland)

Over All Men Aerobic Fitness Champion Nazarii Sokolovskyi (Poland)

22nd WORLD PRO CHAMPIONSHIP
Marina Legenzova (Lithuania)
Piotr Sevcenko (Lithuania)

16th WORLD AMATEUR CUP
Eva Tejfalussy-Gesce (Hungary)
Piotr Soszynski (Poland)

16th WORLD PRO CUP
Iori Nishizawa (Japan)

41st AMATEUR WORLD GRAND PRIX
Jevgenija Stepanova (Lithuania)

19th PRO WORLD GRAND PRIX
Kamil Kowalczyk (Poland)

51st LITHUANIA CUP INTERNATIONAL
Ernestas Matukas (Lithuania)
Austeja Mazelyte (Lithuania)

3rd NERINGA MAYOR'S CUP
Dominika Volodina (Lithuania)

DIVISION AND CATEGORY WINNERS

Over All Fitness Dance Champion Ada Kurkowska (Poland)

Over All Fitness Show Champion Nina Kurkowska (Poland)

Over All Fitness Acrobatic Champion Lena Pankau  (Poland)

Over All Fitness Performance Champion Wiktoria Grabowska (Poland)

Over All Mini Trampoline Champion Katarzyna Malgorzata Rybak (Poland)

INTERNATIONAL JUDGES

General Judge Darius Daubaras (Lithuania)

Svetlana Pugacheva (Lithuania)

Aleksandra Kobielak (Poland)

Aleksej Filatov (Estonia)

Agata Pietrzyk (Poland)

Adele Guožerytė (Lithuania)

Kaoru Nagata (UK)

Alina Pelepko (Lithuania)

Anna Kwietniewska (Poland)

Iori Nishizawa (Japan)

Mantas Panavas (Lithuania)

Jelena Ivanova (Latvia)

Juzef Tamoševič Jakovič (Lithuania)

Meda Žemgulytė (Lithuania)

SECRETARIES
General Secretary Ugnė Raudytė Daubarienė (Lithuania)

Secretary Karolina Mlot (Poland)

Secretary Aneta Mucha (Poland)

BACKSTAGE JUDGES

Aistė Adomanskaitė

Vilius Rupeikis

David Melikov

CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL THE WINNERS!

Congratulations to all the champions and participants who contributed to the success of these international events!

Full results will be published soon.

For the latest updates, visit the official international website:
www.wff.lt

WORLD FITNESS FEDERATION (WFF-INTERNATIONAL)
WORLD BODYBUILDING FEDERATION (WBBF INTERNATIONAL)

SERIA INTERNATIONAL EVENTS 2026

Nida, Lithuania, October 24–26, 2026

Over 300 international athletes gathered in Nida, Lithuania, for a series of prestigious international bodybuilding and fitness events.

FINAL RESULTS

OVERALL WINNERS

37th WORLD AMATEUR CHAMPIONSHIP
Diana Vasylijeva (Ukraine)
Iori Nishizawa (Japan)

22nd WORLD PRO CHAMPIONSHIP
Marina Legenzova (Lithuania)
Piotr Sevcenko (Lithuania)

16th WORLD AMATEUR CUP
Eva Tejfalussy-Gesce (Hungary)
Piotr Soszynski (Poland)

16th WORLD PRO CUP
Iori Nishizawa (Japan)

41st AMATEUR WORLD GRAND PRIX
Jevgenija Stepanova (Lithuania)

19th PRO WORLD GRAND PRIX
Kamil Kowalczyk (Poland)

51st LITHUANIA CUP INTERNATIONAL
Ernestas Matukas (Lithuania)
Austeja Mazelyte (Lithuania)

3rd NERINGA MAYOR'S CUP
Dominika Volodina (Lithuania)

CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL THE WINNERS!

Congratulations to all the champions and participants who contributed to the success of these international events!

Full results will be published soon.

For the latest updates, visit the official international website:
www.wff.lt

WFF-WBBF International — Since 1968!

141 member country representing all continents.
60 international events held every year.

37th World Amateur and Professional Championships
October 24–26, Nida, Lithuania
„Agila“ Palace

More than 300 competitors have gathered in Nida for this prestigious international sporting event.

DAY ONE REVIEW

The first day of the championships is over. Competition results coming soon!

For more information, visit our official international websites:
www.wff.lt
www.worldfitness.lt

 

WFF-WBBF tarptautinė federacija – nuo 1968 metų!

141 valstybė narė, atstovaujanti visiems žemynams.
Kasmet surengiama 60 tarptautinių renginių.

37-asis pasaulio mėgėjų ir profesionalų čempionatas

Spalio 24–26 d., Nida, Lietuva
„Agila“ rūmai

Nidoje į prestižinį tarptautinį sporto renginį susirinko daugiau nei 300 dalyvių.

PIRMOSIOS DIENOS APŽVALGA

Pirmoji čempionato diena jau baigėsi. Varžybų rezultatai – netrukus!

Daugiau informacijos rasite oficialiose tarptautinėse interneto svetainėse:
www.wff.lt
www.worldfitness.lt

 

Международная федерация WFF-WBBF — с 1968 года!

141 страна-член, представляющая все континенты.
60 международных мероприятий ежегодно.

37-й чемпионат мира среди любителей и профессионалов

24–26 октября, Нида, Литва
Дворец «Агила»

В Ниде собрались более 300 участников престижного международного спортивного мероприятия.

ОБЗОР ПЕРВОГО ДНЯ

Первый день чемпионата завершён. Результаты соревнований — в ближайшее время!

Более подробная информация на официальных международных сайтах:
www.wff.lt
www.worldfitness.lt

60 YEARS OF THE HISTORIC AMBER PRIX!

In 2025, the Lithuanian bodybuilding community celebrated the 60th anniversary of the sport in Lithuania in Gargždai.

In 2026, it marked 60 years since the first international bodybuilding tournament in Eastern Europe was held in Vilnius.

In 2027, it will be 60 years since the first Amber Prix International tournament was held in Klaipėda in 1967. This international tournament has continued to this day, becoming an integral part of Lithuanian bodybuilding history and a unique sporting tradition in Eastern Europe.

Other long-established competitions also hold a special place in the history of world bodybuilding. One of the oldest is the NABBA Mr. Universe competition, first held in London in 1950. The Mr. Olympia competition, launched in the United States in 1965, also became an important milestone in the history of international bodybuilding.

In May 2027, Klaipėda will host three days of celebrations marking the 60th anniversary of the Amber Prix International. Distinguished figures from Lithuanian and international sport, public life, and politics are being invited to this special commemorative event.

To mark the anniversary, the organizers also plan to publish a historical book in several languages. It will document the history of the Amber Prix International, its development, and its significance for Lithuanian and international bodybuilding.

Six decades represent not only a remarkable anniversary but also a testament to enduring sporting traditions, dedication to bodybuilding, and a legacy that unites generations of athletes, organisers, and enthusiasts of the sport.

For more information, visit the international website: WFF.lt

New Names in the World Sport History. The 37th World Championship for Professionals and Amateurs – A Spectacular Sporting Event in Nida!

From October 24 to 26, Nida will host the 37th World Championship for Professionals and Amateurs, bringing together several hundred athletes from countries around the world.

Spectators can look forward to a truly spectacular event featuring athletes of different ages, exciting competitions, and outstanding performances by representatives of several generations.

A year ago, the Olympic Committee discontinued the popular “Sport for All” initiative. However, the World WFF–WBBF Federation continues this tradition successfully.

Children, teenagers, young athletes, and sports veterans will compete in Nida, including athletes in their seventies.

At the same time, professional athletes will compete for top honours, striving to demonstrate their skills and inscribe their names in the history of world sport forever.

This is an event that brings together sporting excellence, determination, experience, and people of different generations!

For more information, visit the international websites:

www.wff.lt
www.worldfitness.lt

“AMBER PRIX INTERNATIONAL”: 60 YEARS OF HISTORY THAT CANNOT BE ERASED FROM LITHUANIA’S SPORTING MAP.

In 2027, the “Amber Prix International” competition in Klaipėda will reach a remarkable milestone. It will mark the 60th anniversary of this historic event. Six decades is a period in which states, borders, political systems, sporting cultures and even the very understanding of competition have changed. Yet “Amber Prix” has survived. And the history of its champions allows us to see not only the development of bodybuilding, but also Lithuania’s place in the history of international sport.

It Is More Than Just a List of Winners

The name of the first “Amber Prix International” champion entered the competition’s history in 1967. The inaugural winner was Lithuanian athlete Klemensas Alšauskas.

Almost six decades later, in 2026, the title was once again won by a Lithuanian athlete — Grazvydas Naruševičius.

These two names, separated by nearly sixty years, symbolically close one great historical circle.

Between them lies an entire era of Lithuanian bodybuilding.

It is the story of athletes who trained under conditions completely different from those of today; the story of a period when Lithuania was not yet an independent state; the story of preserving sporting traditions after 1990; and, ultimately, the story of a competition that grew from a regional Baltic event into an international arena.

That is why “Amber Prix International” cannot be viewed simply as another bodybuilding competition.

It is a living sports archive.

Lithuania Was There From Day One

One of the most striking features of the competition’s entire history is the dominance of Lithuanian athletes.

The first years of “Amber Prix” were, in many ways, a chronicle of Lithuanian sport. In 1967, Klemensas Alšauskas won the title; in 1968, Leonas Pivoriūnas; and in 1969 and 1970, Antanas Mineikis.

The list of Lithuanian champions continued to grow.

During the 1970s, titles were won by athletes such as Risardas Krinickis, Stasys Cukanovas and Vytautas Zenkevičius.

In the 1980s, a new generation emerged — Vladas Kapcevičius, Saulius Misevičius, Jevgenij Gorelik, Vincas Dubickas, Algirdas Ivanauskas and Rolandas Bučinskas.

And then came the era of Viktoras Jucys.

In 1987, 1988 and 1989, he became the “Amber Prix International” champion three consecutive times.

Three consecutive victories are more than a statistical fact. They demonstrate that the competition stage was a place where an athlete could establish a reputation and become part of history.

The Soviet Era: A Competition That Survived

The history of “Amber Prix” cannot be separated from the era in which it was born.

In 1967, Lithuania was part of the Soviet Union. This means that the competition’s first decades developed within a completely different political and sporting system.

But sport has a special quality — it can preserve things that official documents sometimes fail to preserve.

Names remain.

Results remain.

Victories remain.

And today, by looking at the history of “Amber Prix International,” we can trace the development of entire generations of Lithuanian bodybuilding from a time when an independent Lithuanian state sporting system did not exist.

That gives the competition additional historical significance.

The 1990s: Lithuania Rediscovers Itself

After Lithuania restored its independence, it was not only the country’s political status that changed.

The sporting world changed as well.

Lithuanian athletes gained greater freedom to participate in international competitions, new opportunities emerged, new connections were established, and a new competitive environment developed.

But the “Amber Prix International” tradition did not disappear.

In 1990 and 1991, the winner was Olegas Žuras.

In 1994 and 1996, the title went to Algirdas Kilčiauskas.

In 1997, Rolandas Pocius became champion; in 1998, Ricardas Gurskas; and in 1999, Darius Buksnaitis.

This was a critically important period.

Lithuania was now independent, yet a competition that had begun during the Soviet era continued to exist.

This means that “Amber Prix” managed to cross the boundaries of political eras.

Klaipėda Becomes an International Stage

In the 21st century, the competition entered another fundamental phase.

“Amber Prix International” gradually ceased to be primarily a regional event.

Athletes from an increasing number of countries began travelling to Klaipėda.

In 2003, the winner was Latvia’s Aivars Visockis. In 2005, the title went to Russian athlete Ivan Sergeyev. In 2006, Latvia’s Aleksandr Liubomirov won, followed by Estonia’s Aleksandr Sevcov in 2007.

These names matter not only because they belong to champions.

They demonstrate that the competition had become a meeting point for the sporting schools of the Baltic region.

Klaipėda, geographically situated on the Baltic Sea, proved to be a particularly appropriate setting for an international sporting tradition.

The Real Turning Point — The Second Decade of the 21st Century

If, during the previous decades, the geography of “Amber Prix” had been primarily connected with Lithuania and other European countries, the 2010s changed the situation.

In 2010, Dharmender Singh of India won the title.

In 2011, another Indian athlete, Naftej Singh, became champion.

In 2012, victory went to Pir Sarandib Mehdi of Iran.

In 2013, Andrzej Brzezinski of Poland won.

In 2015, the champion was Ahmadi Arash of Iran.

In 2016, the title went to Jörg Fuchs of Germany.

In 2018, Aleksandr Sacharov of Uzbekistan won.

In 2019, the champion was Golap Rabha of India.

This was no longer simply a Baltic geographical footprint.

It was an international stage.

India, Iran, Uzbekistan, Germany, Poland, Slovakia, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania — different sporting schools, different cultures, different training traditions.

And at different points in history, all of them met on the stage in Klaipėda.

“Amber Prix” Is Also a Story of Champions Returning

Another interesting feature of the competition is the return of former champions.

Radik Manafov won in 2000 and 2002.

Aleksandr Maslovskij won in 2001 and 2004.

Darius Buksnaitis won in 1999 and 2008.

Maroš Kanaš won in 2017 and 2020.

This means that “Amber Prix” was not simply a one-time stop in an athlete’s career.

For some champions, the stage became a place worth returning to.

From a sporting perspective, this is one of the strongest indicators of a competition’s prestige.

The Modern Era: The International Character Is Here to Stay

In 2021, the champion was Poland’s Artur Kamieniak.

In 2022, the title went to Ukrainian athlete Vasilij Bespalenko.

In 2023, Estonia’s Aleksej Lapshin won.

In 2024, the champion was India’s Rahul Joshi.

In 2025, Poland’s Szymon Lubecki took the title.

And then came 2026.

Grazvydas Naruševičius. Lithuania.

This victory came at a particularly significant moment.

Exactly 60 years earlier, Klemensas Alšauskas had become the first “Amber Prix International” champion.

Now, on the eve of the competition’s 60th anniversary, a Lithuanian athlete has once again brought the title back to Lithuania.

It is a powerful symbol.

2027 — More Than an Anniversary

Sixty years is a point at which a competition can no longer be judged only by what is happening today.

Its history begins to matter.

How many athletes have appeared on its stage?

How many times have champions changed?

How many countries have been represented?

How many athletes went on from “Amber Prix” to become recognised on the international stage?

And, most importantly — why has this competition survived while many other events from the same era have disappeared?

The answer lies in tradition.

“Amber Prix International” has survived political changes, transformations of the sporting system, the restoration of Lithuania’s independence, the emergence of new international federations and the appearance of new competitions.

It survived because it was never merely a one-year event.

It became an institution in the history of Lithuanian bodybuilding.

From Lithuanian Champions to the World

During the competition’s first decades, Lithuanian athletes were the undisputed leaders.

Then athletes from Latvia and Estonia arrived in Klaipėda.

Later came competitors from Russia, Poland, Slovakia, Ukraine and Germany.

Eventually, the competition opened its doors to Asia — India, Iran and Uzbekistan.

This evolution is extremely significant.

It does not represent the loss of Lithuania’s position. It represents the growth of “Amber Prix” itself.

When a competition becomes attractive enough for athletes from different continents to compete for its title, its significance automatically changes.

It is no longer simply a Lithuanian or Baltic championship.

It is an international stage whose roots are firmly planted in Klaipėda.

A History That Must Be Preserved

Today, when sporting events are often judged by the results of a single day, “Amber Prix International” reminds us of another value of sport — continuity.

One champion arrives.

Another leaves.

Records are broken.

Generations of athletes change.

But the competition itself can survive.

And that is the greatest value of “Amber Prix International.”

From Klemensas Alšauskas to Grazvydas Naruševičius — almost six decades of history.

From Lithuanian dominance to champions from India, Iran, Uzbekistan, Poland, Ukraine, Slovakia, Germany, Latvia and Estonia.

From the Soviet era to independent Lithuania.

From a regional stage to an international competition.

“Amber Prix International” does not simply count the years — it counts generations of sporting history.

60 Years — And the Story Continues

The 2027 anniversary edition of “Amber Prix International” in Klaipėda will be more than another competition.

It will be a moment when today’s athletes meet six decades of history.

In 1967, the first stone was laid.

In 2026, a Lithuanian athlete once again brought the title back to Lithuania.

And in 2027, the 60th anniversary will arrive.

That is why the history of this competition should be regarded as more than a collection of bodybuilding results.

It is part of Lithuania’s sporting memory.

And as long as new champions continue to step onto the stage in Klaipėda, this story is not finished.

It continues.

16 YEARS OF WORLD CHAMPIONS.

WFF-WBBF WORLD CUP — 2010–2025.

Since 1968 — more than five decades of international bodybuilding and fitness history. Since 2010 — a World Cup stage where new champions have been crowned year after year.

WFF-WBBF International — World Fitness Federation and World Body Building Federation — has been active on the international sports scene since 1968. Over the decades, the Federation has developed into an international sports organization uniting national federations and athletes from countries and continents around the world.

This is the history of a sport where there are no shortcuts.

It is a story of training, discipline, determination and years of preparation. A story of athletes who step onto the stage not only to demonstrate their physical condition, but also to represent their countries and write their names into international sports history.

2010 — THE BEGINNING OF A NEW WFF-WBBF ERA

In 2010, WFF-WBBF International began organizing World Cup competitions.

From that moment, the absolute winner of each year became part of a special chapter in WFF-WBBF history — the World Cup Overall Champion.

The first men's overall World Cup champion in 2010 was Aleksandr Sevcov of Estonia.

It was the first name in a new generation of champions.

In 2011, the title was won by Igor Belodedov of Russia, followed in 2012 by Abolfazi Aghakhani of Iran.

In 2013 and 2014, the overall World Cup title went to Reinaldo Jose Roberto Da Cruz, representing the UK–Portugal. Two consecutive titles became a remarkable achievement in WFF-WBBF World Cup history.

In 2015, the champion was James Sylvester Ono, representing the UK–Nigeria.

In 2016, the top position was claimed by Normunds Jurans of Latvia, while in 2017 the title went to Rasoul Vahid Faraziaghchehkand of Iran.

The 2018 champion was Aleksandr Kuznecov of Russia, followed in 2019 by Maros Kanasz of Slovakia.

In 2020, the overall title was won by Roman Polshin of Estonia.

However, from 2021 onward, a new and particularly notable chapter began in the history of WFF-WBBF World Cup champions.

POLAND AND LITHUANIA — A NEW ERA OF CHAMPIONS

In 2021, the men's overall World Cup title was won by Artur Kamieniak of Poland.

In 2022, the top position went to Vilius Pranckevicius of Lithuania.

In 2023, the title was claimed by Lukasz Kulinski of Poland.

In 2024, the overall World Cup champion was Andrius Pauliukevicius of Lithuania.

And in 2025, the newest WFF-WBBF World Cup men's overall champion was Kamil Kowalczyk of Poland.

Thus, in the most recent five-year period, athletes from Lithuania and Poland have been particularly prominent among the men's overall World Cup champions.

A new chapter in WFF-WBBF World Cup history has been written.

WOMEN — THE HISTORY OF WORLD CHAMPIONS

The women's World Cup history is equally rich, reflecting the international character of WFF-WBBF competition.

In 2010, the first women's overall WFF-WBBF World Cup champion was Liudmila Kolesnikova of Russia.

In 2011, the title went to Natalia Bykova, followed in 2012 by Jelena Kursanova.

Both athletes represented Russia.

In 2013, the overall title was won by Aleksandra Dolzenkova of Belarus, while in 2014 the champion was Svetlana Pugacheva of Russia.

In 2015, the title went to Liudmila Senciugova, and in 2016 to Liudmila Kakaulina.

In 2017, Leonor Hilario Greffel, representing Denmark–Mozambique, entered the history of the World Cup as overall champion.

In 2018, the title was won by Hollie Jade Feeney of the United Kingdom.

The years 2019 and 2020 belonged to Hanna Skytta of Finland, who became overall World Cup champion two years in a row.

In 2021, the title was won by Laura Siugale of Latvia.

In 2022 and 2023, the top position belonged to Anna Sobolewska Kucharska of Poland, who became overall World Cup champion for two consecutive years.

In 2024, the title was won by Vaida Budriene of Lithuania.

And the 2025 WFF-WBBF World Cup women's overall champion was Milena Mlynarczyk of Poland.

FROM ESTONIA TO LITHUANIA AND POLAND

Looking at the entire period from 2010 to 2025, we see much more than simply a list of champions.

It is 16 years of international sporting history.

During this period, WFF-WBBF World Cup overall champions have represented numerous countries, including Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Russia, Finland, Slovakia, Iran, Belarus, the United Kingdom, Portugal, Denmark, Nigeria and Mozambique.

Each country has contributed its athletes, sporting traditions and champions to this history.

The Baltic region and Poland have held a particularly visible position during the most recent years.

2022 — Lithuania.

2023 — Poland.

2024 — Lithuania.

2025 — Poland.

Four years, four champion names and two countries whose athletes have claimed the men's overall World Cup title.

THE TITLE OF A CHAMPION — A PART OF HISTORY

The WFF-WBBF World Cup overall champion title is more than a victory on a single competition day.

Behind every title stands a long journey.

Training.

Discipline.

Nutrition.

Preparation.

Stage experience.

The ability to compete against athletes from different countries around the world.

And above all — the determination to become better every day.

That is why every name that enters the history of the WFF-WBBF World Cup Overall Champions becomes part of the international legacy of the Federation.

From Aleksandr Sevcov in 2010 to Kamil Kowalczyk in 2025 — the men's history.

From Liudmila Kolesnikova in 2010 to Milena Mlynarczyk in 2025 — the women's history.

16 years. 32 champion names. Many countries. One World Cup history.

WFF-WBBF — A HISTORY THAT CONTINUES

Since 1968, WFF-WBBF International has worked to develop bodybuilding and fitness on an international level, unite national federations and provide athletes with opportunities to compete on the world stage.

Since 1990, the Federation has organized the annual World AM-Pro Championships, which have become an important part of its international sporting activities.

Since 2010, the WFF-WBBF World Cup has added another important tradition to this history — the annual recognition of overall World Cup champions.

Today, the names of the 2010–2025 champions already form a distinct chapter in WFF-WBBF history.

But the story does not end here.

Because every new season brings new athletes.

New challenges.

New champions.

And new names that will one day become part of this history.

WFF-WBBF WORLD CUP.

Since 2010 — the road of champions.

Since 1968 — international sporting history.

And the history continues.