Please explain what Denmark did to deserve to be punished!?

The real purpose of this article is to emphasize that it is possible to combine clear principles with a little bit of practical judgment and that, above all, there should be no room for prestige in the handling of important matters. Moreover, as I noted in a recent posting, there is considerable room for improvement in the communications functions of the IHF. What is then causing me to offer these comments? Well, it is an issue that somehow IHF has preferred to keep rather hidden, namely the principles and procedures for the seeding of the teams that qualify for the men’s and women’s handball tournaments.

The seeding may be of considerable importance in placing a team in a group that is easier or more difficult, in terms of gaining one of the four top places (out of six) that give a place in the quarter-finals. When the concept of pre-Olympic qualifying tournaments was introduced for 2008, there was some controversy about how the seeding of teams qualifying directly for Beijing and those taking the route through qualifying groups should have been handled.

Accordingly, the IHF decided to review the issue and they reached agreement through a decision in the Council and the Executive Committee in 2010! But they ‘forgot’ to announce the decision… So it only became a public issue in the last couple of weeks, following the EURO 2012, when the European champion Denmark found out about their situation with respect to seeding. They were not happy and they told IHF so. As a result, IHF was not just unhappy, but tried to combine a factual announcement with a response to Denmark in the IHF web site. The explanation was mostly unclear and incomplete, and there as an anger directed at Denmark that seemed improper for a public statement. So what was then the specific issue?

The IHF had decided that the “top four teams in the 2011 World Championship should be given priority“. This would involve France, Denmark, Spain and Sweden. But as only France was an automatic qualifier for London, the indirect way of prioritizing the other three teams was to say that the winners of the three qualifying groups where these teams would normally be placed as hosts would benefit from seeding as teams 2-4 for London. Then would come the runners-up from the three qualifying groups as seeds 5-7 (which would quite possibly be the teams placed 5-7 in 2011), with the host Great Britain inserted as No. 8 (the kind of special treatment that the hosts tend to get). And that would leave the four continental champions for seeds 9-12. Personally, I find this quite logical and sensible!

However, all the people involved in the IHF decision-making overlooked one possibility, namely that one of the seeds 2-4 (or 5-7) might in fact ALSO become continental champion. This was the case with Denmark. So, because the IHF did not have (and did not hasten to insert) a supplementary clause to cover this special situation), they simply placed Denmark as a number 9 seed, as the champions from the highest ranked continent. In other words, having explicitly stated that Denmark as silver medalist in 2011 should be given priority with ranking number 2, the IHF in fact punished Denmark for also having won the European Championship. Having said above that I could fully support the IHF’s basic principle, I am even more firm in saying that this kind of misguided application, totally lacking in common sense and fairness, simply should never be allowed.

In a special clause, Denmark should have been allowed to keep seed number 2, with all the other teams moving down one position. I cannot imagine that anyone would find this unfair or improper. But now instead we have a situation where Denmark is moved down seven positions, and all the teams that were behind Denmark in the 2011 World Championship and in the EURO 2012 will be ahead of Denmark if they advance from their qualifying group. This includes, for instance Serbia (beaten by Denmark in the final of EURO 2012 and 10th in 2011) and even more conspicuously Poland. The only reason Poland was given a slot in a qualifying group for London (after having finished 9th in EURO 2012 and 8th in 2011) was precisely that Denmark no longer needed their slot because they qualify directly as European champions.

So, while I do not know exactly how Denmark argued their case, I fully understand why they wanted to appeal their situation to the IHF. Of course, after the rather insulting statement from the IHF on its web page, I could have foreseen that there would now be far too much prestige involved, and that if the IHF seriously wanted to listen to the Danes, they would never have used such a tone in public. But DHF president Bertelsen nevertheless went to Basel to meet with Moustafa today. As Bertelsen explains it, Moustafa was sympathetic and told him that he would ask the IHF Competition Commission (which was/is meeting in Basel) to review the matter. This left Bertelsen rather optimistic, he told Danish media.

But Bertelsen did not even get more halfway home before he found that the final IHF decision was negative. And to make it even more absurd, supposedly the impression was given that the final word was that of the Competition Commission. Anyone who knows the inner workings of the IHF knows that a Commission does not really ‘decide’ anything, it recommends. The real decision is taken by the President possibly after consultation with the Executive Committee and/or the Council. In other words, if the President genuinely had wanted to support Denmark’s claim, he would have asked for the support of the Executive or Council. It would not happen that the Commission ‘overrules’ him. So when Bertelsen expressed satisfaction that the IHF President had at least listened to him, perhaps Bertelsen was diplomatic; more realistically, he might have had reason to be upset that the IHF President made him waste a trip to Basel… Because clearly there was no intention to change the initial decision!

IHF Announcement on seeding:  http://www.aipsmedia.com/index.php?page=news&cod=7390&tp=n (Note:  This announcement has been removed from the IHF Webpage)

Perhaps raising your hand is taken as an illegal protest!?

This is the result of a governmental campaign, aided by the BHA, who gladly collaborated with draconian measures of the government and provided names, photos and other information about the referees and officials who were accused of participating in protests. The government tries to convince the world that most of the detained and dismissed persons are now leading their normal lives again and that the charges against them have been dropped. But the reality is that many of them are still in prison, and others are kept away from their earlier involvement in sports and their old jobs.

The BCHR internet posting reports about the individuals, essentially referees and their instructors and supervisors, who continue to suffer in the hands of the government and ‘their own’ Association. The list, with names and other details, confirms that a large proportion of the international, continental and top national level referees are affected. Moreover, what is not mentioned in the article is that the BHA has tried to force the remaining referees to pick up the slack and also combine into newly formed couples to keep the national league going and to give the impression that everything is running in the usual manner.

There is also a suspicion that it is a quite intentional and cynical decision to target the referees in this way. The top players and coaches are so well-known that their absence would be noticed, and the quality of the national team and the league would suffer. But the referees tend to be more anonymous, so the calculation appears to be that they can be punished more harshly without a strong public attention to their situation. Moreover, they do not have clubs and supporters who might stand ready to agitate on their behalf.

All this happens at a time when many observers outside Bahrain are misled to think that most of the problems that started a year ago are now over. This is especially the case after the government in Bahrain last November took the unusual step of accepting an investigation undertaken by a prestigious, international ‘Independent Commission of Inquiry’. Moreover, the findings of the Commission were published and the King made statements to the effect that there would be a serious follow-through on the recommendations through a ‘national commission’.

To some limited extent, positive action has been taken, but mostly in a forward-looking sense. In other words, there has been legislative action intended to ensure that those authorities who abused their position would no longer be in position to do so in the future. But this does not mean that it is tolerable to see that the situation of those who were already subjected to excessive or unjustified punishment are allowed to continue to suffer. While it is true that many prisons sentences have been cut short and that charges have been dropped in a number of cases, the indications of a continuation of capricious and despotic treatment are too numerous to ignore.

It is also sad to see international observers commenting on the situation in Bahrain out of ignorance or political convenience. Government statements are accepted at face value, Bahrain is given lower priority due to acute, serious events elsewhere, and in some countries there are special reasons for maintaining a positive façade in the relations with Bahrain. For instance, during a visit Bahrain, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, Michael Posner, last week commented overwhelming in positive terms, focusing on action taken and giving relatively short shrift to the many things that still need to be done. The comments were offered in the context of an emphasis on “long-standing alliance”, “important partner” and on “both countries benefitting from stability and prosperity”.

February 14 is the anniversary of the start of the unrest a year ago. Let us hope that it will be marked by explicit steps in action in line with the recommendations of the Independent Commission of Inquiry, with respect to having charges dropped against all persons accused of offenses involving political expression and to having dismissed professionals and official reinstated. Finally, it continues to be a matter of serious concern that there are no signs of a willingness on the part of the International Olympic Committee to intervene adequately on behalf of suffering athletes and sports officials in Bahrain.

There is now a verdict in the well-known case, where Uwe Schwenker and Zvonimir Serdarusic, former THW Kiel manager and coach, respectively, were accused of bribery, embezzlement and fraud. The accusation dates back to a Champions League final in 2007 between Kiel and Flensburg, where they supposedly would have used club funds for payments to the referees in the game, in an attempt to influence the outcome. The prosecutor had requested prison terms to the tune of 17-18 months, in addition to rather substantial fines.

The process lasted four months in the local court in Kiel, and 17 witnesses were called in. From a handball standpoint, it is important to note that, from the outset, there has been general agreement that the game actually was played, and refereed, in an absolutely correct way, without any indications of manipulation. This, of course, has always been an important conclusion as far as the referees, Baum and Goralczyk from Poland, are concerned. However, this in itself would obviously not constitute evidence against the possibility of an attempt to influence.

The court announced, on January 26, the verdict that Schwenker and Serdarusic had been acquitted. However, in doing so, the presiding judge specifically indicated that the reason for the decision was a lack of binding evidence. “The court is not convinced about the guilt of the accused; however, it is not convinced about their innocence either”, was the rather pointed statement. This seems to suggest that the evidence presented by the prosecutor had been found to be merely circumstantial.

The relief for Schwenker and Serdarusic did not last very long, however, as a few days later it was announced that the prosecutor had appealed the verdict. The lawyer of Serdarusic commented that “this should merely be seen as a routine procedure”. There is now initially a period during which the prosecutor must justify the appeal and the initial verdict must be further clarified by the judge. Thereafter, assuming that the appeal is not withdrawn, the federal court in Leipzig will decide whether it is inclined to hear the appeal. As some commentators have noted: ”the game may be going into overtime”…

Zarko Sesum, victim of his own 'fans', recovering in hospital instead of playing in the final

Often the problems among a group of fanatic sports spectators reflect more general trends in the society as a whole. When the notion of ‘hooligans’ began in English football, it could easily be traced to the desperation and unrest among the participants also in their lives away from football. In many instances, politics and religion enter into the picture. Rivalries between specific clubs often take violent forms. And not surprisingly, a history of previous wars and civil strife will then often live on in the area of sports. So it is not strange if the Balkans becomes a notorious region, although it may require some explanation as to why specifically the Serbs have done so much to deserve the worst reputation.

Without getting too far off track, one can remember the violence from Serbian fans that caused a European qualification game in football between Italy and Serbia to be abandoned in 2010. And there was even an incident in the Australian Open in tennis in 2009, in connection with a match between Novak Djokovic from Serbia and a Bosnian-born player representing the U.S. It is also hard to remember any football game between bitter Belgrade rivals Partizan and Crvena Zvezda (Red Star) that has not deteriorated into a serious battle in and around the stadium. But the worst situations tend to arise in connection with Serbian-Croatian encounters.

I have seen, and even supervised, many of those battles over the years in international handball, for instance in strange locations such as Ismailia, Egypt, where not many team supporters had found their way. So there the atmosphere was as peaceful in the stands as on the court. In last year’s World Championship in Sweden, the authorities had to put on special security measures to keep the Serbian and the Croatian supporters separated. But the frustrating aspect is that the crowds are not able to observe and follow the example of the players, who typically go out of the way to maintain respect for each other on the court, also in a physical and intense match where a lot is at stake.

Already prior to the semifinal game in EURO 2012, there had been serious events involving Serbian hooligans smashing cars and beating up Croatians who were traveling peacefully from a match in Novi Sad towards the Croatian border. And severe beatings in the streets of Belgrade were also reported, although in some instances it was suggested that Croatian provocations played a role. So the Serbian police clearly knew what they were doing, when they already prior to EURO 2012 announced strict security measures for the spectators. Not just were fireworks, trumpets, whistles, flags and banners on posts prohibited; the same held true for perfume and deodorant containers, cigarette lighters, plastic bottles and coins. This caused surprised reactions from ignorant visitors.

But prohibition is one thing and enforcement is another. The presence of 5.000 police among 20.000 spectators did not help. During the Serbia-Croatia semifinal an object was thrown, with the apparent target of either the Croatian coach or the star player Ivano Balic. It still remains disputed what the precise object was, but perhaps it was ‘simply’ a coin. Nevertheless, instead of hitting a Croatian, it happened to hit one of Serbia’s own key players, Zarko Sesum, in the eye. He started bleeding profusely and had to be taken to hospital on an emergency basis. Initial reports even suggested that he might risk losing his sight on that eye. And his participation in the final was of course ruled out. It is ironic that Sesum’s club team is Rhein-Neckar Loewen in Germany, i.e., precisely the club of Karol Bielecki, who did lose his eye-sight in a game, although through a pure accident and not as the result of fan violence.

After the final, which Serbia lost against Denmark, the Serblan player Vuckovic expressed his frustration: “The stupidity of the person who threw the object may have been what cost us the gold medals, as it kept Sesum out of the game”. I am sure it would be too naïve and optimistic to think that this kind of result may have much of an impact in making the hooligans think and put a stop to the dangerous behavior. As I said at the beginning, it is too deeply rooted in what goes on in the society at large. One only wonders why the Serbian population tolerates this kind of situation, where inevitably all of them get to be perceived and judged as being afflicted by the same mentality as the hooligans!?

In EURO 2012, not all players and teams ended up in the position they had hoped for...

Of course, the Danes will have a very simply answer: to show that we are the best! And the Serbs and Macedonians who secured places in the Olympic qualifying will be pleased (although one perhaps did not need precisely this kind of event for that purpose). The local spectators, mostly Serbs and Macedonians, certainly enjoyed the event, as did lots of TV and web case viewers. At least if their main focus was on close and thrilling games and not so much on enjoying top class handball.

But I would insist that the main group for whose sake one would arrange a EURO is the players, their teams and their federations. They want to display their skills, they want to beat their rivals and get medals or a good ranking, and they want to make good PR for the handball in their respective countries. But how often and at what points in time is it necessary and positive to organize this kind of Championship, and indeed the whole set of World and Continental Championships in a four-year period that also includes the all-important Olympic Games?

Clearly there is a balance between (1) having enough opportunities for the players to be in the spotlight and for the federations to create PR and revenue, and (2) the burden it places on the players, their employers (the clubs) and also the federations who must make every effort to present their teams in the best possible light. The participation in a EURO or a World Championship does not come without a sacrifice, in terms of ‘wear and tear’, new injuries or worsening of existing ones, empty periods for clubs and leagues, extended periods away from families etc etc.

It was clearer than on other occasions that this time there really were players who had to think hard: Should I deal with my nagging injury or should I risk playing? Should I make myself available (perhaps towards the end of a long career) even though I really would benefit from the time off? And what about those family obligations that I must give up on if I go away for a few weeks, considering how stressful my handball life is for my family also during the rest of the year?

It also seems that even if the players do make themselves available, even if they are not (or do not become) injured, the overall burden on them does show up in the sense that many of them actually are not in top form, or they are not totally motivated. Put differently, if these events come too frequently or at an awkward time, the teams and the players cannot do themselves justice and keep showing top skills, new moves, new tactics, and full effort in every game.

And in another way the national teams also have a more difficult time than the club teams who have their players available almost around the year. In their situation it is less difficult to lose old star players, to integrate newcomers, to modify tactics or to introduce a new style of playing. But for the national team coach, there are very limited opportunities to bring the players together and make them function as a team.

And it is especially bad when a national team, as inevitable happens, faces a ‘generation change’ or at least needs to integrate several new young talents into the collective. Not to mention when a new coach takes over a national team and needs to get his or her style and ideas reflected in the way a mix of veterans and newcomers should play. This kind of adjustment may be realistic over a 2- or 4-year period, but constantly from one year to the next, with a big Championship every year, plus then the Olympics!?

So, is it realistic, is it desirable to have five big events in a four-year period? I think a lot of the people affected will say NO. They will say that at least we do not want more than one event per year. Perhaps we should even go down to three events in four years (including the Olympics) as is the situation in football, where furthermore they do not even take the Olympics very seriously. Is anyone really complaining that we do not have a Continental or a World Championship every year in football?

Of course, I know that there is ‘another side of the coin’. While in Europe it might be easier to get acceptance for a reduction, given the high level and the importance attached to the continental championship, the ‘EURO’, the situation is not viewed the same way in the other continents. Argentina and Brazil cannot be blamed for getting tired of the routines and the predictability of their continental top event. And the current and very recent Championships in Asia and Africa do not generate enormous publicity and excitement throughout the continent. Moreover, for the top countries in each continent the ‘big deal’ is to have a chance to measure themselves against the Europeans.

If only one could come up with a model with a supplementary opportunity for these countries to have that exchange more regularly without ‘needing’ a World Championship or the Olympic Games three times in four years. And with the recognition that from Europe there are typically about 12 participants in any World Championship, could one then not cut back on the frequency of the EUROs? In any case, quite frankly, while 16 teams get to participate in the EURO, the reality is that one would be hard pressed to find more than 10-12 top rate teams on each occasion. Perhaps, it would be beneficial, instead, to have more exchange between the top dozen and the next dozen, instead of these one-time home and away qualifying games (like for the 2013 World Championship) that will soon come up.

Having attended the 2011 World Championship for men, and having now watched a lot of EURO 2012 games on the internet, I am getting more and more convinced that the current competition cycle contributes to a dilution of quality, as an important negative factor in addition to those mentioned above. I do not have a great proposal to offer, and I am not prepared to put myself in the middle of an agitated fight between legitimate European and non-European viewpoints, but something needs to be done!