[John Tofalis]

With the number of available players post-covid feeling lower than it’s ever been, smaller clubs are finding elite clubs monopolising players, where cities (at least in Europe) are becoming 1 elite team, with squad sizes of +35, and 1 smaller team, struggling to break its way into the elite circle. If, at tournaments, we set the maximum number of players to 18, this would allow for depth to be created in more clubs across the world. With this, I think 18 can also be really good for broadcasting – without having a completely new line every three points, the line calls are more likely to look like an o line at 7 people and a D line at 7 people, with 2 subs for both, which would create a new perspective of lines battling it out, with more consistent 1-on-1 match-ups. It would decrease the number of people going to a tournament and playing 1 in every 8 points, and in turn, I think this would also make the game harder and more physically demanding.

[Gearoid O Fearghail]

This is a substantial change but I like this. I see benefits such as:
It makes the sport more accessible, as teams can be viable with smaller numbers.
It will encourage more teams to play.
It will be more broadcast friendly, as the audience can learn the names of players over a match or tournament (vs only recognizing the stars in 28 person rosters).
It also makes it more feasible to host tournaments, as less accommodation per team is needed, and less games would be needed per team.

But the concern is that it may result in reduced participation as players train with a squad but aren’t able to play any tournaments.

[Duncan Tarrant]

I like the idea of such a cap and the benefits that it brings in terms of broadcasting, team development and tactics, however our sport is already very physically demanding, with intense tournaments held over weekends or just a few days, and adding more physical expectations in the form of forcing players to play more often will also lead to more fatigue, and more injuries, which further compound one another and result in lower quality of games.
I also agree with Gearoid that it risks decreasing participation as players do not make the squads they want and can not financially afford to be registered with multiple clubs (think insurance, federation fees etc) or devote time to multiple clubs.
It may even have the opposite effect in that top clubs who are monopolising players will just end up entering more teams in national tournaments, as players will still prefer to train with the top players and coaches.

[John Kofi]

Although 35+ players may be too many, I would rather set the cap around 21.
In France, the Federation doesn’t allow to register to multiple clubs, so if you don’t make it into the main roster, you don’t have a team to play (if there is no B team).
Having big rosters also allows you to bring new players and make them experience high level ultimate, even if it’s for a few points. I think this is the best way to make new generations of players into the club.
Our games are 100 minutes, playing 5 over the weekend. It is already very demanding.
It is clubs/teams/players’ problem if some players only play a couple points in a game, we shouldn’t make a rule for it.

Hope that helps.
Cheers
John Kofi