A puzzling article suddenly appeared on the IHF web site a couple of days ago. http://www.ihf.info/front_content.php?idcat=57&idart=2553 It came ‘out of the blue’ and it would be interesting to know what the IHF (read: its president) believes it has at stake here. It is stated that the IHF met with representatives of other international federations (IFs) for team sports, and that these (or all?) IFs have joined together, in collaboration with the IOC (!!) to express its concerns with/to CAS (the Court of Arbitration in Sports) in a formal letter.

It was claimed that ‘more and more decisions of Executive Committees and Congresses of IFs are appealed to CAS,’ and it was argued in the letter to CAS that “such appeals obviously undermine the authority of the IFs”. Superficially, such concerns may seem legitimate but, if one is familiar with the background, then they may seem rather farfetched and either laughable or scary, depending on how one wants to interpret the claims.

CAS was established in 1983, at the initiative of the then IOC president Samaranch, as a specialized body to resolve disputes involving issues such as eligibility, sports governance and doping, outside the normal court system. It plays a particular in role relation to issues regarding the Olympic Games. For the most part, the issues that come before the CAS are handled in ways similar to those of normal court cases, with written submissions, hearings, and a careful review of applicable laws and regulations. Most cases heard by CAS take the form of appeals, after the normal appeals mechanisms within an IF have been exhausted, but CAS also handles mediation cases and provides advice upon request. The web site of CAS offers a wealth of information about its rules and its operations. http://www.tas-cas.org/news

As far as the IHF is concerned, the experience with CAS is limited to one case only, but an absolutely infamous one, viz., the scandalous manipulations in the Asian qualification tournaments for the 2008 Olympics in Beijing. Here the IHF Council found it necessary to set aside the results of both the men’s and the women’s events due to clear indications of an orchestration of heavily biased refereeing and other forms of fraudulent behavior. The IHF decision was appealed by the Asian Federation and the nations that had ‘won’ the events that the IHF decided to annul. The IHF president then took upon himself, in collaboration with the Asian president, to bring the matter straight to CAS for resolution, even though the internal IHF appeals mechanisms had not been used. In other words, it was the IHF specifically asking CAS to become involved, and anything else would have been impossible under the CAS statutes. Then it is a different matter that the revelations during the CAS proceedings ended up being most embarrassing for the IHF president… THN report at the time: https://teamhandballnews.com/comment-n380.html the complete text of the CAS decision: http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/sites/CaseLaw/Shared%20Documents/1483.pdf

FIFA’s experience with CAS is a bit more extensive. Perhaps the most awkward case, from FIFA’s vantage point, involves the issue of releasing players under the age of 23 for the 2008 Olympics. Some clubs, for instance FC Barcelona in the case of Messi, refused to release their player. FIFA got up on ‘high horses’, referring partly to a Committee decision and partly to ‘well-established practices’. CAS, however, did not accept the validity of the FIFA committee decision, and simply noted that the ‘well-established practices’ could not be seen as prevailing inasmuch as they directly contradicted relevant clauses in FIFA’s own regulations. This was at the time a rather embarrassing defeat for the FIFA and its president Blaetter. Moreover, it is well known that FIFA, possibly even more strongly than the IOC, constantly asserts its autonomy and lashes out against member countries with accusations and punishments regarding government interference in matters of federations and clubs. Clearly, FIFA must be just as unhappy with any notion that CAS might be inclined to question FIFA decisions and intervene in its decision-making.

But comparatively, it is absolutely astounding, if it is indeed correct, that IOC is now also expressing concerns about the role of CAS. As noted at the outset, CAS exists at the initiative of IOC, and the concerns in the early days were just the opposite of what now is being alleged. CAS was seen as too closely linked to IOC and therefore had its credibility and impartiality questioned. Decisions had to be taken, especially regarding financing and administration, which demonstrated a higher degree of independence. Even so, CAS was earlier often accused of being rather reticent in its role. So it would be a truly remarkable turnaround if the IOC now was seen as accusing CAS of being excessively active and involved.

Let me go back to the question of possible reasons for the IHF to participate in action against CAS, and in fact being the only team sport IF currently even mentioning the issue in public. It might be a sufficient reason to support initiatives that are close to the heart of the ‘role model’ FIFA/Blaetter (a very unfortunate choice, but nevertheless), and it might be ‘politically correct’ to support action that is said to be embraced by the IOC. (See also the recent IHF decision to suspend Kuwaiti handball http://www.ihf.info/front_content.php?idcat=57&idart=2424 ).

But the precise issue that saw FIFA overruled by CAS may also provide a hint. IHF has recently asserted its position (as reflected in its Transfer Regulations) that clubs worldwide must accept to release, without compensation, players for World Championships. This IHF position is already being appealed in civilian courts and the European Union. Could IHF be concerned about getting also CAS as an adversary in such matters? But this seems highly unrealistic, as CAS does not have the mandate to get involved in setting aside existing IHF regulations. Is it instead just an effort to try to eliminate one of the few existing forms of external scrutiny, in matters where the IHF does [u]not[/u] wish to follow its regulations or where it does not want it autonomy/autocracy challenged!!??

European web sites today report about interesting developments on several fronts. One of the hottest topics involves the competition calendar for the elite level and related aspects regarding the rights of players, clubs, national federations and the IHF/EHF. Clearly, both the IHF and the EHF are attempting to grab the initiative by organizing meetings with representatives of other stakeholders. Just recently, as reported by THN, https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.932 the IHF got a ‘working group’ together for a meeting in Vienna during the EURO2010. As we also reported some time ago, https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.881 the EHF will want to continue its efforts to create a forum for discussions about changes in the structure of European handball. A meeting will now take place at the end of this week.

In the IHF meeting, participants were handpicked, and Group Club Handball (GCH), the entity representing 19 top clubs in Europe was specifically excluded, not just quietly but with a slap in the face, in the form of a statement that IHF does not meet with entities that have no formal link to the IHF. Apparently, the EHF does not have similar concerns, as GCH is likely to play a key role in the upcoming EHF forum. This may be one reason why the GCH now reports, on its own web site, http://www.groupclubhandball.com/?p=636 that a formal legal complaint that was lodged almost a year ago by GCH against IHF and EHF challenging their ‘monopoly’, may now be split up into two separate complaints. The purpose of this move would be to suspend temporarily the complaint against EHF, while the complaint against IHF remains in place. Clearly, the directions that the upcoming EHF meeting will take, will be crucial for the atmosphere on the European scene.

Right at this point in time, the President of the German Handball Federation, Ulrich Strombach, who has tended to be an ally of IHF president Moustafa, went out on a limb in an interview (as also reported, inter alia, on the GCH web site) http://www.groupclubhandball.com/?p=636 with a series of ‘demands’. He wanted to see: a reduction of the number of teams in the German Bundesliga; a reduction of teams in the EHF Champions League; a re-scheduling of World and European Championships to the summer months; an abolition of the European Championship in Olympic years; and finally, a larger share of the IHF revenue for the national federations. At first sight, this list seems tilted in favor of the IHF, away from the EHF, as the critical question of reducing ‘from five to four’ big events in each four-year period is answered by removing one European Championship. However, much of the focus of federations and clubs has been on revenue-sharing and compensation for the time spent by players on their national teams, so the monetary side may weigh heavily.

One can only hope that the upcoming meeting will be a productive next step. It would also seem that, while the issues and the stakeholders by definition differ somewhat, the IHF and the EHF should have far more in common in this whole process than they have been able to demonstrate so far. Competing initiatives and actions colored by prestige are not likely to be helpful. Also, there is that lingering concern about an exclusive focus on men’s handball and a reluctance to give player representatives a seat at the table.

First of all, like John Ryan, I want to express my delight over the high-quality broadcasts from Austria. Thank you, EHF, for ensuring that. One would wish that such handball propaganda would be available worldwide more often!

For me personally, it was a special experience to sit at home, like a ‘spider in a web’, having an overview of everything that was going on. During many, many years, my typical experience from World Championships amounted to ‘being stuck’ in one group, seeing the same few teams and referee couples for a week at a time. One then becomes somewhat ‘myopic’, getting an in-depth view of one segment of the overall event, but without any opportunity to make comparisons across the whole event and to spot any important trends. Indeed, despite not being on duty this time, I felt more ‘on top of things’ than ever before.

Nevertheless, I will try to tread carefully, not intervening unduly with the job of my old EHF and IHF colleagues. But apropos individual referee performances, it was especially nice to see the good progress of two younger couples, Horacek/Novotny (CZE) and Nikolic/Stojkovic (SRB). By contrast, I feel that several of the more experienced couples did nothing to strengthen their status The exceptions were Olesen/Pedersen (DEN) and Lazaar/Reveret (FRA) who confirmed their standing from 2009, and I was also happy to see that Abrahamsen/Kristiansen (NOR) had such a strong showing. Some other couples were able to use their experience to keep some games under a semblance of control and to appear reasonably even-handed, but this is not enough if questionable observations or judgments then start piling up. Finding the right mix of more experienced couples and younger, motivated couples will be a key issue for 2011. Fortunately, there are also a few couples who recently showed a good level in the women’s World Championship.

But the clearest impressions involve overall problem areas. It is a bit frustrating, but rather typical, that [u]the same old issues tend to come up[/u]. For instance, it tends to get me ‘worked up’ when I see so many unwarranted 7-meter decisions given, with the ‘excuse’ that a defender was in the goal-area. In far too many cases, these observations were simply wrong; as I have asked myself over the years, why does this have to be so difficult? And then the decisions regarding ‘offensive foul’, in those situations where an attacker tries to penetrate at the 6-meter line, at the same time as one or two defenders move laterally to close the gap. In no other area did the inconsistencies seem to be as great as in this one. Of course, the continuous struggle between pivot and defender, also when the ball is not anywhere near, continues to present difficulties. Nothing new for the referees or for my old colleagues, but the hard work needs to continue.

Editor's Note: Christer elaborates in detail on 'the same old issues' in the forum: https://teamhandballnews.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?1434

This leads me to what was for me the real revelation from my position of overview. One tends to focus on the strengths and weaknesses of individual couples, and their ability or inability to stay consistent during a game. But here the striking thing was the [u]clear differences in approach from one couple to another[/u], regarding style, game control, ‘tactics’, observation skills, concentration, judgment of key situations, or essentially the whole spectrum of refereeing. Each couple may have maintained some notion of consistency, but there was no ‘common line’, not a strong consistency among couples. Clearly, this must be a source of concern and problems for the teams. It should not be necessary to become surprised and have to adjust from one match to the next in this way. Here I believe is a key target for further, urgent improvements. Easier said than done, of course, but critical for the happy co-existence between teams and referees.

As regards this co-existence, for the most part the atmosphere on the court and between referees and team officials was no worse than what is normal. The number of ‘incidents’ was relatively limited, and some of those cases that did arise clearly resulted from inconsistencies between couples, as just discussed. But, as I commented in an article a couple of months ago, https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.889 most of the awkward scenes involving referees and coaches were more related to [u]systematic, ‘tactical’ provocations[/u]. All of us can easily distinguish between the spontaneous and brief reactions that are fully normal and understandable, and the continuous 60-minute ‘drama’ along the sideline, with gestures and outcries before and after referee decisions. The latter is a behavior against which not enough action is taken. Coaches are smart enough to understand that such behavior is not likely to improve referee performances, but they are also ready to believe that they may occasionally succeed, more than the opponents, in causing referee mistakes in their favor.

Finally, what is also frustrating is the awareness that some teams are capable of having a subtle influence in other ways that I view as unethical. Some of the methods involve on-court ‘theater’, where some players, often the ‘stars,’ have mastered the skill of faking and provoking, ‘dying’ on the court several times during a game. The referees need to be supported strongly in their efforts, not just to avoid falling for the tricks but to punish them. But it is even worse if the influence takes place off the court, when political clout enables teams to have impact on referee nominations and/or to create an atmosphere such that everyone involved in the games, including the referees, feel the pressure.