As many of our readers are likely to be aware, if counted 'per capita', Iceland has the highest number of handball players of any country in the world. Handball is almost a religion for the Icelandic people. And in their frosty – although sometimes fiery – climate, it is not strange that they still rely very heavily on an active and vivid relationship with their old Viking Gods.

The Icelandic people have a strong sense of right and wrong. They are never hesitant about speaking up and letting the rest of the world know what they think. So when they heard about the proposed changes in the IHF Statutes they realized that something drastic needed to be done. The Viking Gods, with Thor as the main responsible, needed to be called into action.

By now you are beginning to sense where this is going… Thor shrewdly figured that a small eruption of the volcano at Eyjafjallajokull would do the trick. With a good deal of accuracy it should be possible to direct the resulting cloud of ashes to a position exactly over Italy, as a way of preventing the planned IHF Congress from taking place in Rome this coming weekend. At the most, the cloud would extend from Basel in the north to Cairo in the southeast.

But apparently something went badly wrong in the calibrations. Thor is known to be a bit heavy-handed and prone to be using more power than is needed. But it may also have something to do with his temper, and his reactions after reading the proposed changes in the Statutes. In any case, most of Europe is now under a cloud, somewhat to the embarrassment of the Icelandic. What started out as totally justifiable and well-targeted took on totally unexpected proportions and created a misery for far too many.

However, when the truth about the origin of the whole situation is now becoming known to the general public, I am sure that they will be forgiving and conclude that it was well-intended and for a very worthy cause. At least the IHF Congress has been 'postponed'…

In response to what has been written both by us in THN and in other media, I have had some feedback from persons who have either had some involvement in the process or are concerned about the results of the proposals before the IHF Extraordinary Congress.

It is understandable that people who are not directly involved have a very limited understanding of the issues, because the IHF has not exactly been open and transparent about what is going on. Not many have had an opportunity to review and understand the implications of the proposals. The same goes for the process that has been followed; not many know how it has happened that we now have a set of proposals that in many respects appear very dangerous and inappropriate. So I would like to dispel some misunderstandings.

Some persons have characterized the issue as essentially being a fight between the IHF and the EHF. This is mostly misleading, as it is true only in the sense that the EHF is the only entity that has openly protested against the proposals and pointed to the dangers involved. But this has happened only very late in the process, and personally I am not impressed with the overall role that the EHF has played; they have been far too unsuspecting or low-key until very recently. They were not invited to be part of an earlier Working Group but there is no indication that they were protesting this exclusion. Similarly, there is no indication that the EHF President ‘created an upheaval’ against what was happening, at the time of the most recent IHF Council meeting. Nevertheless, I am of course pleased that the EHF is now finally attempting to coordinate some kind of resistance.

Others have unfortunately focused more on the process than on the substance. There are indications of a ‘blame game’ between members of the Working Group and members of the IHF Council. From the Working Group it is said that ‘we just put forward a proposal but all decisions were taken by the Council’. From the Council it has been heard that ‘we are not experts so we felt we had reason to trust what was proposed by the Working Group’… If all the participants want to hold someone else responsible, guess who benefits from this kind of finger-pointing: the IHF President from whom almost all of the fundamental and dangerous proposals originated. Clearly, the process was not the issue. The President knew that he would not encounter any resistance. Far too many of the persons involved have their respective personal reasons for just going along with it!

So I simply want to restate briefly what I indicated in my lengthy article on March 21, https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.985 namely that there are [u]two completely inappropriate tendencies[/u] in the proposed new Statutes: [u]1. indications of a one-sided and heavy-handed shift in power in favor of the IHF, at the expense of all other levels and members in the international handball family, and 2. a major expansion of the personal power of the President.[/u] These are tendencies that run completely counter to all sound and modern principles for the management and decision-making in an international sports organization or, for that matter, in any democratic institution. Handball is being sent in a fast and dangerous down-hill slide. [u]Those of you who are in a position of influence must stop it before it is too late![/u]

As noted recently in Part 1 of my interview with Jaume Fort, he was for many years a world-class handball goalkeeper, playing on the Spanish national team during the period 1988-2000. In the process, he gained a bronze medal in the Olympic Games and a silver medal in the European Championships, both in 1996.

When Jaume finished his career as a player, he did remain firmly involved in handball, but not as a coach (and not even as referee, although I suspect he could have become a good one…). Instead he sensed a responsibility vis-à-vis his young successors. It is not surprising that, on the basis of what they knew about his character, his sense of ‘right and wrong’ and his eloquence in various languages, he struck them as the right person to have on their side.

[i]CA: So, Jaume, how did this ‘second handball career’ get started?[/i]

JF: I always tried to get 100% involved in Handball and be sensitive to what happened beyond the playing court. I was involved with ABM (Spanish Players’ Association) since its creation and I took up its presidency when I was playing for Teka Santander. When I retired, both the French and the Spanish players asked me to take the position of President for the European Handball Players’ Union (EHPU). There is a lot of work to be done, but it is a volunteer position without compensation, so for professional reasons I don’t know how long I will be able to carry on with this task.

[i]CA: In your role as Head of the EHPU, and looking at the situation of the top players in Europe, how do you view the current discussion about competition calendar, financial compensation, and the physical demands on the players?[/i]

JF: We have to be realistic: it will be very difficult to find global solutions which are valid to every stakeholder. Even among the players from different countries the situation varies a lot. Whereas top European players are completely burnt out by the inhuman physical and mental strain, the majority of players cannot complain about a brutal competition calendar. In my opinion, the only way out is to reduce the number of national team competitions, with just one EC and 1 WC in every Olympic cycle… and this will not happen in the next few years because the EHF and IHF events have been already awarded.

On the positive side, I would like to point out that the overall level of the 2010 European Championship recently held in Austria was considerably higher than in Norway 2008, where the players had to play 8 matches in 10 days. Planning more rest days at the major competitions is a small step in the right direction.

[i]CA: Am I right in sensing that while one talks a lot in public about pushing the players too far, most of the discussions involving federations and clubs in fact focus more on money?[/i]

JF: Absolutely right. Taking all competitions separately; no one can be directly “accused” of pushing the players too far. The problem arises when you add up all international club and national team competitions. The clubs want the return on their investments (players) to be achieved, so it is dramatic for them to get a player injured, especially if the injury takes place while the player has been released to the national team. If the clubs got a big sum of money as injury compensation, would they still be so concerned about the players’ health? Meanwhile, we’ll keep on seeing coaches “crying” when their players fall injured, but who is really going to stand up for the players’ rights?

[i]CA: Yes, it is difficult to see that the views and concerns of the players are being considered sufficiently? It seems that often it is assumed that the clubs can speak for the players, but isn’t there a bit of a conflict of interest?[/i]

JF: The concerns of the players are definitely not taken into account. To some extent, players are also to blame here, since they have often been concerned just by the figures on their contracts. The foundation of EHPU is a sign that collective awareness is slowly growing. In many aspects the player’s interests converge with those of their employers but it comes a point where players have to make their own voice heard. I am trying to convey the message to the players that they have to gain more influence. EHPU is promoting the creation of player associations in countries where such associations do not exist. The goal is to get a strong, united voice and use this influence in a responsible way. Having a constructive attitude towards the current situation is the only way to gain credibility among the other stakeholders, who have traditionally seen players’ unions or athletes’ commissions as a problem.

[i]CA: It seems to me that the issues are very much the same for both male and female players, with the same calendar issues and the same physical demands? But most of the discussions involve the men’s teams and the male players; how come? Are the female players ‘super women’ who do not need the same protection?[/i]

JF: Women have the same problems; especially in countries like Norway and Denmark, where the women’s handball is at a high level, with strong, busy club teams and top players who are also on their national teams around the world. In our last meeting with the EHF representatives in Innsbruck, we made it clear that this issue should also be dealt with. Annelise Vido, the EHPU board member representing the Danish players is doing a great job by raising all issues which affect especially women.

[i]CA: What are the keys to improving the overall situation as you see it?[/i]

JF: Basically, players should have a voice and a vote in the decision-making bodies. Apart from the competition calendar, other issues to be dealt with are the standardization of contracts, life after the sports career, medical care and a minimum level of insurance, and providing the players with all necessary anti-doping information.

[i]CA: Apropos decision-making bodies, you have had a frustrating experience, being on paper a member of the IHF Athletes’ Commission but being given basically no opportunity to be active and participate. Recently we have observed severe problems regarding the governance of the IHF, with frequent scandals at the top level and now currently a clearly deliberate attempt to change the By-Laws in a way that would seem to create a dictatorship with no ‘checks and balance’s and no room for other opinions; how do you view this development from the standpoint of the athletes?[/i]

JF: Handball has recently caused too many negative headlines on the media, and this has damaged the image of handball. Instead of releasing clear and transparent statements and taking appropriate actions, there was a long silence before the IHF at best showed some kind of weak-willed reaction. There is a need to urgently bring more transparency to the governance of the IHF, and the new By-Laws proposal is definitely a dangerous step in the wrong direction. I hope that all those who will be casting their votes at the next IHF Congress understand what is at stake!

Already in 2005, when the IHF Athletes’ Commission (AC) was created, we expressed our willingness to contribute in many ways to the promotion of our sport. Unfortunately, the AC has been totally ignored. Meanwhile, we have seen all these negative events and witnessed important staff changes within the IHF without any clear explanation. The recent comments from IOC President Rogge on Moustafa’s contract with Sportfive should clearly be a serious warning for the IHF and its President. I appeal to common sense and hope that the well-being of handball will prevail.

[i]CA: On a more positive note, if we look to the ability of handball to compete with other sports and other leisure activities, for young athletes, for spectators, media interest, and sponsors, what can we do to increase our attractiveness? (new tactics, rules changes, the ‘framework’/atmosphere for the matches etc)[/i]

JF: I’m afraid that any substantial change of the rules will collide with the traditional reluctance of coaches, players and fans to change the essence of handball. The new IHF rule book that has recently been issued contains no big changes.

The Bundesliga has made some steps in the right direction by presenting handball in a very professional way, where fans consider every match as the event of the day. The spectators gather together in the sports hall long before the match begins and they stay until all interviews are over. There are big halls where sponsors (and occasionally also fans) can have close contact with the players. Furthermore, the atmosphere during the matches is really hot.

It would be interesting to make our sport become more popular in other countries and continents. I follow the initiatives to introduce handball in the USA, and I can’t help wondering if these attempts have been properly coordinated with the national and continental federations. The celebration of the next Olympic Games in London should also be accompanied by promotional activities in Great Britain. Could the Super Globe, which is now scheduled to take place in Qatar, not have been celebrated in London for example? The IHF AC could very well serve the promotion of handball worldwide.

Some actions to be taken are, for instance:
• Creating a handball “Ambassador Tour”
• Developing handball schools in countries where handball is not so popular.
• Releasing a short “hype” video showcasing big celebrations, crazed fans, incredible plays and goalie saves with spirited music.
• Make the technical videos available to the handball community through the internet.

[i]CA: THN is happy to have been able to provide a forum for interesting observations and ideas from a player perspective. As can be seen above, the views presented are not selfish or controversial but constructive and for the common good of all parties. We thank Jaume and hope that it will be a more common occurrence to have the voice of the players as an integral part of any discussions about the development of handball.[/i]

[i]'Part 1'with background information about gender issues and some provocative examples from the world of handball can be found here[/i]: https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.979

First of all I want to thank both the contributors who kindly accepted my invitation (their names will be show up throughout the text below and also down at the bottom) and those of our readers who took the trouble to send me their ideas.

In the feedback, there was a clear demarcation between the issues related to the ‘active participants’, i.e., players, coaches and referees, and the problems involving gender issues in the management of our sport. I will first pull together the comments regarding the differences in the men’s and the women’s game.

It was stressed by several, for instance Ekke Hoffmann, that we have to accept the realities related to basic physical differences between men and women. The men can play a stronger and faster game, and there is no point in having the women compete along those dimensions. Some noted that for a large proportion of both men and women watching sports, speed and raw strength is a fascination (compare the interest in Formula 1 racing, boxing and wrestling), so this will create an edge when it comes to TV coverage, sponsors and spectator numbers.

However, as many pointed out, including Frantisek Taborsky on the basis of scientific studies, and on the basis of years of observations, there are aspects of the game where the women can gain an edge. There is no reason why they should not excel on the basis of technical skills and interesting tactics. They also have some typical advantages in terms of psychological aspects. All in all, women’s players and women’s teams can indeed offer spectacular handball, as long as they are not focusing on competing with the men in ways where they have a natural disadvantage.

It was also pointed out, for instance by Jesper Harborg from Denmark, that often what matters the most is not the nature of the game but simply the success team are having. When the Danish national team had a long period when they were dominating globally, they automatically created a strong interest, and there was no lack of spectator or media support.

Some were commenting that women players tend to have a general disadvantage from a young age, being discriminated in terms of training time, resources and attention. As Ekke was noting, a major longer-term improvement would depend on targeted efforts with higher-quality coaching for female players in the younger age groups.

It was noted that media treatment of women’s handball may continue to be discriminatory in many places, not the least because, while changes may be coming, the majority of the handball journalists are still men. The watch and compare handball from a man’s perspective, sometimes failing to recognize the special qualities of women’s handball. Or, as Jesper pointed out, also in countries with strong support for the women’s game, there may exist tendencies to sexism in the reporting, i.e., comments on the way the players look (or even lead their lives) instead of on their qualities as players.

The fact that an overwhelming proportion of the coaches at the elite level are men, also for the women’s teams, was not seen as surprising. A lot simply depends on traditions in most cultures, where it is perfectly normal for men to be the ‘bosses’ of women but not the other way around. There is no reason why this should not gradually be changing, as women who have been leaders on their teams as players and have an instinct for teaching would be excellent candidates for good coaching careers. Indeed, chances are that it would be a clear advantage for the development of women’s handball if female coaches were more to become much more common. But it is a trend that needs to be strongly and explicitly supported by federations, at both higher and lower levels, for instance through facilitated access to the necessary education.

The issues related to women referees are somewhat similar to those of women coaches. But it seems that decisions to go into refereeing often depend, for both men and women, on strong personal characteristics that make individuals ignore traditions and what is expected from them. In other words, being interested in a referee career requires a certain willingness to fight obstacles.

As Patricia Malik de Tchara noted, the women need to view their goals and interests more on an individual basis, not as members of the female gender, with an attitude that dedication and hard work will yield results for a determined individual. Tetiana Rakytina and Irina Tkachuk agreed, but noted that the drop-out rate for women starting refereeing careers may be higher due to pressures related to traditional family roles and other expectations.

But there was clear agreement that the acceptance for women referees at the elite level has been surprising good. Prejudices are noted in some parts of the world, but the teams tend to appreciate and focus on the actual performances. It has also helped that the IHF and continental federations have made a special effort to prioritize and integrate women at the top level; it has created a ‘demonstration effect’. But ‘artificial’ efforts are not a longer-term solution. A sufficient volume must be reached, from the bottom up, so that a natural progression to the higher levels can be had. Federations must simply sense their obligation to make serious efforts to increase the proportion of female referees, through recruitment, education, mentoring and strong opportunities for advancement.

[u]Leadership positions[/u]

When the discussion turned to the gender inequalities in positions of leadership in handball, especially at the IHF and continental/national levels, there was virtual unanimity and a much stronger tone. The current situation simply is not acceptable.

Carin Nilsson-Green talked about frequent embarrassment at IHF events in different parts of the world, where host countries showed a better gender balance than the very one-sided IHF picture. Desperate efforts to fit in some women delegates and referees at least at the women’s world championships have not helped much. And the nice PR photos of an IHF Council with one woman out of 17 are telling it the way it is. Dawn Allinger-Lewis commented that it is one of the saddest realities for her, after retirement as a player, to continue to see the massive male dominance in all areas of handball management internationally.

While the clear preference was for a focus on what needs and can be done, there were several comments about why the situation is the way it is. Ward Hrabi talked about reflections of societal norms and traditions as regards the filling of positions of leadership. As I myself noted in Part 1, one must keep in mind that in sports there is a gap of 1-2 generations between the active athletes and the managers. In other words, the pool of candidates for top positions reflects more what was available and typical among athletes quite some time ago. Not only was the gender balance not quite what is was today, but former star athletes were affected by traditions and confliction priorities in a way that one hopes will now gradually be in the past.

But there was a strong consensus that is just not good enough to wait for demographics and traditions to change, so that the balancing will begin to happen by itself. Strong and active measures are needed, not the least because the current, one-sided cadre of leaders is not likely to relinquish positions and power voluntarily at an accelerated pace just to make room for a better mix.

Despite the urgency, there was a clear trend among the comments received that change will not be achieved and embraced unless it supported by quality. Any measures that would lower standards for the sake of it are likely to backfire. This has a special relevance when it comes to the perceptions and effect of any kind of quota system.

Carin talked about the norms established by the IOC, and the fact that the IHF remains woefully short of that. But it seemed to be agreed that quotas should mainly be seen as an interim measure and only as a component of a broader package of measures. Short of an immediate switch to some kind of 50-50 requirement, which may not at all reflect the recruitment realities, there are clearly ways of insisting on a certain proportion that each board or committee or formal group must have. While this may be more difficult when individual positions are filled by individual constituencies, there are many positions that are filled on a group basis and leave room for considerable flexibility. Again, it is a ‘demonstration effect’ that is sought, and a first step towards a ‘critical mass’.

Beyond mandatory measures in terms of representation, there needs to be a strong emphasis on facilitation and encouragement, including a hand-picking of talents and then the education, nurturing and support needed to launch careers successfully. It needs to start at the ‘grassroots’ level, but accelerated progress for former elite athletes and other special candidates to move faster to the top must also be part of the package.

Just like in any work environment, it must be recognized that work processes, methods and schedules need to be adjusted and kept flexible so that the combination with other responsibilities (jobs, families) seems reasonable. This is not really just a gender issue, as it is needed for both genders to ensure a general rejuvenation. Work practices geared towards the ‘old boy network’ must be a thing of the past.

With that remark I draw the line for the moment on this important topic, and again thank the contributors to Part 2 who were:

Dawn ALLINGER-LEWIS, Ex-player on U.S. national team; Member of IHF Athlete’s committee; TV commentator
Jesper HARBORG, Editor, web site Haandbold.com in Denmark
Ekke HOFFMANN, Coach of German women’s national team for many years; former Head of Sports at the IHF;
Ward HRABI, President, Canadian Team Handball Fed.; former IHF referee
Patricia MALIK de TCHARA, the first woman at the IHF elite referee level
Carin NILSSON GREEN, Former President of the IHF’s Commission for Promotion and Public relations, and the IHF Working Group for Women; veteran leader in Swedish Handball Federation
Tetiana RAKYTINI / Irina TKACHUK, IHF referees and former players, Ukraina
Frantisek TABORSKY, Member of EHF Exec Comm and Chair of Methods Commission; career as University Professor and Researcher in Sports; veteran coach

Many persons in leading positions in this world have a completely false understanding of what [u]leadership[/u] means and what is needed and wanted from that kind of position.

A traditional and out-dated (mis)understanding is to [u]confuse leadership with power[/u] and decision-making authority. A more [u]modern, constructive and helpful[/u] way of defining leadership is to think in terms such as [u]strategizing, coordination, facilitation, motivation and encouragement[/u]. Most experts emphasize that it has less to do with personal knowledge, actions and decisions, and much more to do with how one gets strong groups together and provides them with the structure, resources, independence and inspiration to achieve great things as a [u]team[/u].

The form of leadership needed also depends on the [u]context[/u]. An international sports federation consists of a spectrum of participants, from traditional powers with substantial expertise and resources, to beginners with lots of enthusiasm but with inadequate know-how and resources. In this setting, like in any society, the focus must be on organizing a [u]sharing or redistribution of resources[/u] (technical know-how, best practices and financial capacity). There is also a need for a degree of coordination and standardization (for instance, adherence to the same rule book). Of course, there is a need for a central function through which competitions are organized. In summary, we are talking of a [u]service organization[/u], which exists for the aggregate benefit of its participants, not an organization that exists for its own sake. This must be reflected in the leadership style.

With this emphasis on [u]coordination and facilitation[/u], where the needs must be matched with existing resources, it should be apparent that the key ‘players’ are [u]those who require help[/u] and best understand their own needs, and [u]those who are being asked to share their knowledge and resources[/u], as a sacrifice but for the common good in the form of the global growth and the development of the sport. It goes without saying that this latter group deserves a major say regarding the goals and their implementation. And it should also be obvious that a ‘[u]bottom-up’ approach[/u] to leadership and management is what is needed. The active stakeholders need to be listened to, for the sake of fair and efficient resource sharing. A ‘top down’ direction from someone who thinks they ‘know better’ is out of place. The key direction comes through the [u]team[/u] of experts and administrators that is handling the coordination and facilitation

In my experience, it is quite clear that the desirable form of leadership and management has for some time been pursued by the EHF. By contrast, a steadily increased emphasis on outdated forms of ‘leadership’ is being pursued by the IHF and its president. The proposed changes in By-Laws or Statutes would clearly make things worse. Therefore, it is not surprising that the EHF is protesting these changes and warning about their serious consequences. Moreover, it is necessary for the EHF not just to think globally but also to speak for the majority of those handball federations who are the [u]providers[/u] of know-how and best practices and also the main [u]providers[/u] (through the IHF elite events and related income) of the financial resources that are being shared.

Personal instincts in favor of autocracy tend to be deeply rooted and do not normally diminish over time, as has been seen apropos the IHF Statutes. The letter from the IHF to the EHF (see THN article immediately below) sadly confirms that. It becomes absurd when the autocratic IHF accuses the two EHF leaders of ‘acting out of personal interest’, it becomes almost amusing when the IHF leaders suggest that it is a sign of democracy when the IHF council votes in support for its president (after he personally insisted on 95% of the final changes in the current version of the Statutes), and it becomes truly embarrassing for the IHF when their letter essentially accuses Messrs. Lian and Brihault of racism.

(Yes, this is long, but it is so important that you do need to read it!)

We have criticized the European Handball Federation (EHF) in recent time for refusing to stand up to the IHF President when he has brought the IHF and world handball in disrepute through scandalous actions. My colleague, John Ryan, even asked Tor Lian and Jean Brihault some time ago to “quit hiding and speak out.” https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.969 I will not rehash now all these issues, but here are the links to reports about ‘IHF Payments to President and Council members,’ https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.964 https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.968 Moustafa’s attack on the Court of Arbitration in Sports (CAS), https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.947 revelations about the conflict of interest caused by the President’s personal contract with the IHF TV rights holder, https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.930 https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.933 https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.948 https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.935 and the mysterious and secretive hiring of an Egyptian crony and her subsequent elevation to the position of Managing Director. https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.920 https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.932 And this just in past few months…!

So now surely it must have gone far too far, when the EHF leaders send protest letters to the IHF and to all European member federations, https://teamhandballnews.com/request66.html warning about outrageous changes in IHF Statutes proposed by the President https://teamhandballnews.com/request65.html and the disastrous consequences such changes would have![/u] Indeed, any intelligent person can see what the President is up to, when the proposed changes would give him the full legal authority to do the many things that he has previously done without authority and/or without the necessary consultations. The problem is that not enough persons, not even among the delegates at the upcoming Extraordinary IHF Congress, may have sufficient awareness and background information to see the implications!

I will not try to cover here the entire spectrum of problems with the proposals; it would simply be a far too extensive text. Instead I will focus on three aspects:

1. major examples of the expansion of his personal power that Moustafa is trying to achieve;

2. indications of the one-sided and heavy-handed shift of power to the IHF from all levels and members of the international handball family;

3. the amazing arrogance and incompetence demonstrated when somebody puts forward a proposal for Statutes, the most fundamental and essential document in any organization, that is so poorly written, in part incomprehensible and in part totally ambiguous; it amounts to a sick joke that an IHF Congress would actually have to try to comprehend the details of the text and be asked to vote on it!

1.a. The proposals keep emphasizing that as the President is now a ‘professional, available full-time at IHF Headquarters and thus with full insight in the operations’, he is now the best person to take all urgent decisions personally, and he is supposed to have full authority do so ‘between meetings of the Executive Committee’, meetings that will only take place three times per year. This means that, de facto, there is always an excuse for the president to take unilaterally any decision he wants. The statements about the type of decisions that normally would be taken by the Council are so vague that they can be interpreted as the president wants. And despite the easy access to quick and convenient consultations or decision-making through electronic communications, the entire document contains no provisions for any such efforts. But as insiders know, the president ‘knows that he knows best’, so why should he not decide alone!?

b. It is proposed that the position of an elected Secretary General should be abolished. The explanation is that it is, suddenly, made redundant by the powers vested in an employee, the Managing Director. But the only thing that has changed in that position is, of course, that it is now awkwardly filled by the president’s long-time, fully loyal confidant. The position of Treasurer has been spared. But it is emphasized that the Treasurer is mainly responsible for ‘establishing and controlling the budget.’ The Council has no role in establishing the budget (which of course is a way of determining priorities); the only scope for Council decisions is ‘within budget constraints.’ By contrast, the responsibility for ‘controlling financial transactions’ will rest with the President. Moreover, the IHF President is also automatically president of the separate entityIHF Marketing Inc. As a further ‘exclusivity’ for the President, it is also proposed that he, separate from the rest of the Executive Committee, be given the right to present motions to the Congress.

c. It is repeated over and over in the document that the president ‘is’ or ‘must’ be a ‘professional’, meaning essentially that he must be given a huge salary. The vague explanation is that this is due to the rapid development of world handball. Why this requires a ‘professional’ president, as opposed to full-time duties for other elected officials or true professionalism on the part of Managing Director and staff, is not explained. While, as a practical matter, an already elected president could be converted into a paid employee, this combination is completely awkward and inappropriate as a requirement in the Statutes. It is clearly necessary to have the position of President filled on the basis of an election. Then it creates totally undesirable limitations and inequities for future elections, if there is a requirement that only full-time incumbents who are prepared to become ‘de facto’ employees can be considered.

2.a. There is a strong theme throughout the proposal that the IHF is in charge of a pyramid of ‘stakeholders’, which include groupings such as continental and national federations and clubs, as well as individuals such as trainers, referees, officials, players, and medical staff. The document is full of provisions to the effect that these other stakeholders must be respectful and cooperative, above all fully complying with IHF Statutes, regulations and decisions. There are clear indications of punishments for non-adherence. The entire focus is on requirements and duties, not on rights and privileges. Unmistakably, it is a top-down approach, where IHF tells all other stakeholders what is right or wrong, not a more logical situation where those who are the active stakeholders in our sport can count on a bottom-up approach with federations and especially the IHF functioning as an ‘umbrella,’ serving the active stakeholders and with their best interests in mind!

b. There are also complications and confusion arising from the inclusion of both organizations and individuals among the ‘stakeholders’. The discussion in the proposals is a traditional one, with relevance to continental and national federations, where the issues, and the rights and duties, do not really fit individuals. The relationship between the IHF and the individual categories of stakeholders is less clear and convincing. Except in a negative sense, there does not seem to be much of a concrete role for the IHF. And in a way that totally undermines a genuine opportunity for these stakeholders to be heard, it is demonstratively stated that no groups will be recognized by the IHF, such as associations of players, referees, clubs etc. How does one realistically expect a dialog and a level playing field for all these individual stakeholders without such channels?

c. The treatment of continental and national federations in the proposed Statutes is totally paternalistic. It goes from absurd and capricious formalities to the most fundamental issues of sharing of rights and responsibilities. Somehow the IHF wishes to refer to the continental federations as ‘confederations,’ but surely that should not require all the well-established continental entities to change their specific names… More important is that after the Statutes have simply defined continental confederations as ‘groups of federations that belong to the same continent or geographic regions,’ they go on to specify which particular entities will be recognized by the IHF. Clearly, the Statutes must allow for the possibility that such ‘groups’ may change over time, as long as they meet the definitions. Moreover, capricious changes are being introduced as regards the minimum number of countries required for a ‘continent’ to exist and for such a continent to have one or two members of the IHF Council. Again, no sensible rationale is being offered.

d. But given the history of the matter, the most conspicuous attempt for the IHF to grab power involves the assertion that the IHF will now become the owner of all rights emanating from IHF competitions. A recent legal battle involved the qualifying events for World Championships and Olympic Games. Whether intended or not, the wording of the existing IHF By-Laws was deemed to give such rights to the respective continents. The only remaining issue was that the IHF needed to assert and retain the right to supervise such events, to ensure full compliance with existing IHF regulations and the absence of corruption and manipulations. It appeared that this was a settled matter, but the IHF now unilaterally completely removes all rights from the continents, except of course the work involved in physically organizing the events. This is really outrageous!

e. The international competition calendar, as it relates to excessive demands on the top players, has been a matter of intensive dialog lately, with both IHF and EHF attempting to bring the relevant parties together in a search for solutions. Now, however, the proposed Statutes suggest a ‘top-down’ approach also on this issue, as it is specified that the IHF will initiate an 8-year calendar, leaving it to continents and nations to adapt and plan accordingly. There is also a blunt statement to the effect that ‘all stakeholders shall not boycott official IHF competitions’. A benevolent interpretation would be that non-participation as a form of political demonstration or as a form of discrimination is not tolerated. But apparently that is not it, because in a different place one finds the completely astounding statement that members ‘have the obligation to take part in competitions organized by the IHF’. On what basis could the IHF ever force a federation to send a team if it does not have the quality or the resources to do so???

f. The proposal contains a provision that any kind of [u]corruption, bribery or undue influence is forbidden and punishable. This is in itself fine, but again there is a lack of symmetry or responsibility on the part of the IHF. There is [u]no indication of the responsibilities that the IHF will assume for clear policies, protection of referees, effective monitoring etc. Moreover, in the light of recent events, corruption is not limited to other stakeholders and to game-related situations. What will the IHF do to ensure a corruption-free internal environment, including at the top? There is a mention of an Ethics Commission, but this appears to be a mere after-thought, without any real substance. It is more disturbing than reassuring that such an idea can be just thrown in, without any prior focus on role, procedures and composition. Given the heavy emphasis on duties and demands on various stakeholders, and a dictatorial IHF decision-making, procedures for recourse and appeal become critical. However, the scope of tasks for the Arbitration Commission and the type of issues anticipated for referral to the Court of Arbitration for Sports seem as intentionally restrictive as before.

3. The document with the proposed Statutes is essentially full of problems with ambiguities, contradictions, poor wording and even incomprehensible statements. In a 38-page document one could easily find several hundred (!) examples, but it would obviously overburden this article to try to capture too much of that. Instead of focusing on the many laughable language problems, I will mention only a few particularly important topics where the problems in the text make it useless or dangerous in a substantive way:

– The basic statement of the ‘Purpose and Objectives’ of the IHF is so unclear as to what the IHF actually intends to accomplish and how it will go about it, so that the statement is rendered meaningless;

– Together with the Executive Committee, Council and Commissions, the IHF Anti-Doping Unit is a key entity in the entire organizational structure and obviously needs to be regulated in the Statutes. However, except for an indirect reference when the Medical Commission is discussed, there is no mention whatsoever about the status, role, procedures and composition of the ADU;

– There is a statement that through Council decision, “the IHF may open branches and subsidiaries in Switzerland and abroad”, “to deal with certain matters;” this broad, puzzling, and ominous authority is totally lacking in justification, and one begins to wonder about a second headquarter in Cairo or a secret bank account in the Cayman Islands…

– It is declared that is the Congress that makes the decisions about accepting new member federations; but this is contradicted by another statement that gives the Council the power to decline or accept new members;

– The proposal contains a list of ‘Rights and Duties’ for the continental federations; apart from the earlier indicated bias in favor of moving power to the IHF, it is of course inconceivable in a governance document that one combines rights and duties in this way, so that the result is a total confusion for each item, what is a right and what is a duty;

– The Council is said to ‘have the right to suspend stakeholder that violates its obligations’; stakeholders, by the definition in the documents include clubs, individual players, referees, trainers and so on; most of these operate exclusively at the national level and not in IHF events; from a practical and a legal standpoint, what could conceivably give the IHF the right to take action against these stakeholders who are clearly under the jurisdiction of their national federations;

– It appears that, after the Congress has used its prerogative to award World Championships to specific member nations, the Council can simply set aside such decisions, ‘if there are discrepancies’; this is a totally nonsensical clause, seemingly intended to create a power to override the Congress without any justification at all;

– Under the heading ‘Executive Committee’, there is a totally cryptic and dangerous clause providing that ‘any additional powers of the President shall be included in the internal organization regulations of the IHF’; what unspecified powers are intended, and what is meant by the unknown concept of ‘internal organization regulations’??

In a normal organization, it would not be tolerated that a proposal for changes in Statutes would be developed and presented in this way; the proposal would simply be dismissed, and it would likely cause a widespread demand for the resignation of those responsible. In the IHF, by contrast, the President moves ahead with this kind of initiative in the full expectation that he can convince the membership or that they will be blind to what he is trying to achieve. For the sake of the image and future development of world handball, one can only hope that this time there will be enough people who understand what is happening and who will show the determination to put a stop to it!

Just in case it might occur to you to say that it is too easy to criticize, let me remind you that a number of months ago I presented, in three parts, a careful analysis, and constructive specific ideas of what are the type of changes that are really needed and desirable. Here are the links: https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.857 https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.868 https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.877