The new president Thomas Bach and his main supporter Sheikh Ahmad — who is leading whom in this ‘dance’?

It seems that during the final stages the only excitement involved the question as to whether Bach would gain an absolute majority among the 93 voting members already in the first round. As it happened, he had to wait until the second round, where he obtained 49 votes. But as had been predicted, the only candidate other than Bach who had a reasonable showing was Richard Carrion from Puerto Rico, the IOC ‘finance minister’. He got 29 votes as compared with the 49 for Bach, whereas the other remaining candidates got between four and six.

The results seemed to confirm that several of the candidacies were totally without any hope, and many are now wondering why these candidates came forward: was it just an ‘ego trip’, or did it for some of them involved a tactical step for some future situation? Indeed, many of those who did not want to see Bach elected tended to regret that his opponents had not been able to unite behind one strong opponent, who could then have stood a better chance to come across as a strong alternative.

What are the likely implications of a Bach presidency?

Many IOC insiders and external observers had expressed the hope that the election would bring about serious change, at a time when many difficult issues are brewing in the world of sports. I am talking about corruption, doping, match-fixing, suspicions regarding the way of awarding events etc. But personally I was never optimistic on that point. Jacques Rogge was never seen as a strong President in this regard, but as I see it, it is more related to the actual role and priorities of the IOC machinery.

It is a mistake to see the IOC as some kind of supervising entity for individual sports and for national sports, with a role in ensuring ethical behavior and good governance. The IOC members do not really have any interest, or any incentives, for getting their hands dirty in this way. The existence of WADA in the area of anti-doping is as far as it gets, and arguments for the establishment of a similar organ to deal with anti-corruption are quickly dismissed.

Instead, I think it comes close to the truth if one describes the IOC as the entity which organizes Olympic Games and serves as a business machinery in doing so. And for this purpose one needs a leader with business experience, a hard-nosed attitude in looking after the interests of the IOC, and a willingness to close eyes and ears to observations and arguments that would get in the way of enriching the IOC. For those who recognize that this is the priority, it seems that Bach would indeed be a great choice.

But many already express concerns that Bach and his supporters, again especially Sheikh Ahmad, who also is the head of ANOC (the Association of National Olympic Committees), will start exercising power in a ruthless and dictatorial way. The skeptics worry that there is not likely to be much room for a serious internal debate or for transparency. Media comments also suggest that the success of different sports and the various countries and regions will depend far too much on how comfortable and able they are to take advantage of such an environment. I would prefer to avoid becoming too pessimistic, and it may be safer to judge the situation on the basis of decisions and initiatives in the next few years.

What does the selection of Tokyo in 2020 suggest regarding possible bids for 2024?

Following the decision to award the 2020 summer Games to Tokyo, and the ascendance of Bach (and Sheikh Ahmad), many potential hosts are now quickly beginning to speculate about the likely impact on bids from various regions and countries for the period beyond 2020. John Ryan already wondered if USA might now be in a good position for 2024, but the prevailing view in Europe seems to be that, following Rio de Janeiro and Tokyo, the pendulum would swing back in favor of a European bid.

Of course, the situation regarding the 2022 winter Games will also be relevant. But I really wonder what European country will be prepared to come forward for the 2017 decision on 2024. Perhaps it could give Turkey a second chance, depending on the geopolitics of that region. But many assume that the Sheikh will want the Gulf Region to become the first host from that part of the world. So he just might want to see a USA bid become successful in the meantime… Let the scheming begin!

if I have all the answers, why should I listen…

The International Handball Federation has a really bad track record when it comes to taking athlete representation seriously. The IHF President likes the idea of All-Star Games, voting for the ‘Player of the Year’ etc., but he has never shown any interest in giving the players a voice in the IHF planning and decision-making. On paper, the IHF has had an Athletes’ Commission for a number of years now, but it has never been allowed to function. It was introduced only after there was too much pressure from the IOC to do so. And some form of ‘elections’ of players to the Commission has taken place. (Former USA National Team player Dawn Allinger Lewis has been a member, together with a group of prominent players).

However, during all my years in the IHF, there was never any activity or influence. The Commission was even getting its requests for meetings denied, and it was made rather clear that there views were not sought or wanted. I am unofficially aware of situations where the Athletes’ Commission protested this situation to the IHF President, but the IHF Council (where I was a member during five years) was never officially told about the protest.

Accordingly, it is now rather interesting to see that apparently the IHF President is giving the impression that he wants to change this situation. (See the link in the 16 September Handball News Summary). It even seems to be suggested that, under revised By-Laws, the Athletes’ Commission should have such formal status that its Chair would become a member of the IHF Council, just like the Chairs of the ordinary Commissions. However, while the players have a form of ‘union’ and would be fully capable of putting forward their own candidates, the emerging IHF proposal seems to have the national federations putting forward candidates. Moreover, the idea seems to be that the IHF would thereafter pick and choose among these candidates. In my view, this would be an absurd approach.

However, this approach fits right in with the IHF President’s refusal to recognize clubs and stakeholders in the IHF. Clubs are employers of all the players on the national teams that participate in World Championships and Olympic Games. So, as I have written many time before, the clubs have a very legitimate interest in issues such as the international competition calendar, the compensation to the clubs when the players are taken away from them, insurance matters etc. But the IHF refusals have been taken so far that the clubs, through a number of German Bundesliga clubs, have now felt forced to take legal action to obtain the right to negotiate with the IHF.

Clearly, the IHF President is much more comfortable to deal with individual national federations from a position of power, with an opportunity to divide and conquer, considering the vast differences in experience and interests among national federations around the world. He does not want to deal with the top clubs, as these are generally run by strong managers in a very business-like way. And it now seems clear that he does not want to deal with the players as a group their unions. Instead he prefers to be able to co-opt some of them to give the impression of allowing some kind of real participation. One can only hope that the players do not go along with such methods.

Top row: Wu, Oswald, Bubka; bottom row: Bach, Ser Miang Ng, Carrion

Starting this coming Saturday, the eyes of the sports world will be on Buenos Aires, where the International Olympic Committee will hold its 125th IOC session. This time there will be more suspense than usual, due to confluence of the decision to the taken regarding the host city for the 2020 Summer Olympics, the selection of one of three sports to be the final one included in 2020, and above all, the election of a new President of the IOC to replace Jacques Rogge.

Many of you are likely to be aware that there are three remaining candidates for the 2020 Games, namely Istanbul, Madrid and Tokyo. After roughly 20 cities appeared ready to submit bids, there were six coming forward, with Baku, Doha and Rome being the additional three. Rome withdrew the candidacy for financial reasons, and Baku and Doha were eliminated in a preliminary round. Now, I am not in the possession of a crystal ball and I do not personally claim any special insights as to which city is likely to come out as winner. There are lots of indications to be had from betting companies and self-proclaimed experts, but I suspect it will be as exciting as always in the past, with some room for surprises.

My only take on it is that this time it seems likely that instead of selecting one of the cities for positive reasons, we are more likely to find that the IOC members will see it as a process of eliminating candidates for negative reasons. Istanbul would want to see it as giving an edge that they are the first serious candidate from their region, but in these days of unrest in many neighboring countries, this may instead turn out to be a disadvantage. Many wonder why Madrid is persisting instead of pulling out for the same reasons as Rome did. Will Spain really be in shape financially to take on the burden and risks of such an event in the near future? Tokyo has therefore been seen by some as the ‘safe bet’, but now some wonder if the continuing horror reports in the aftermath of the nuclear disaster at Fukushima soon three years ago might not scare some voters off.

You may wonder how much of a role the technical selection criteria will play in the end. There is an Evaluation Commission assessing each city on the basis of a large number of factors, for instance overall vision, competition venues, Olympic village, transport, environment, finances, safety and security, political and public support and several others. The answer tends to be that nobody can clearly figure out how the written report should be interpreted in terms of weighing together all this factors in an objective manner, when it comes down to the final two or three candidates. It is much more likely that political considerations and subjective judgment will play a role. This time there may also be a link to the election of new IOC President. Could realistically the same continent get the nod twice, will there be some ‘horse trading’ as between the two decision-making processes etc?

It might seem easier to speculate about which one of the three sports (squash, wrestling or baseball/softball) that gets in. Or, in the case of wrestling, stays in. Wrestling seemed to be subjected to some kind of coercion: you will be out unless you clean up your act! But that galvanized strong forces to come to the rescue, including such strange political constellations as USA-Iran-Russia. Chances are that wrestling may have atoned sufficiently. Squash is more and more a true world sport and many would give it a chance, but they may have to wait. Baseball/softball also tries to project itself as more of a global sport than a purely American-based, but the many controversies related to professional baseball may turn out to be too big a handicap.

It may be that most observers see the choice of host city as the most exciting one on the agenda, but for me personally it may be more intriguing to see who gets the chance to become the next IOC President. As some people put it, the bidding host cities get a chance every four years, while the mandate period for the President is eight years with an opportunity for a four-year extension. So the election for the Presidency just may be more important for the world of sport. Of course, some cynics argue that these days the IOC is a glamorous but rather toothless organization, where the role is essentially limited to running the Olympic Games. This makes it a financial and political behemoth, but does it really have much influence over the evolution of individual sports and the sports movement across the globe.

Well, in one sense the IOC can be seen as an umbrella organization for the matrix of International Sports Federations (IFs) such as FIFA, FIBA, IHF etc, and the National Olympic Committees (NOCs). But the reality is in fact that the IOC out of its own volition is really acting rather ‘hands off’ in relation to these many organizations. For instance, many IFs are frequently accused of corruption, bad governance or at least incompetence. But the IOC simply says that the stakeholders within the respective sports must be the ones to clean up their own act. The IOC is more likely to intervene if the politicians in a country try to get involved in running the national Olympic affairs. Then the IOC gets all uptight about the importance of the autonomy of the sports movement. But when in certain countries the Sheikhs, Emirs and Princes de facto run the entire complex of sports organizations and furthermore serve as IOC members, then the IOC does not seem to want to raise a stink.

Apropos Sheikhs, many seem to think the ‘puppet master’ in all the IOC elections is a certain Sheikh, namely Sheikh Ahmad of Kuwait, head of the Olympic movement in Asia and also the powerful chairman of the Association of National Olympic Committees (ANOC). Handball fans will also remember him as an apparent manipulator behind the scenes in the fraudulent Olympic qualifying match Kuwait-Korea some years ago. As I wrote in a recent posting, he has been seen as the crucial supporter behind the frontrunner candidate Thomas Bach of Germany. Whether this support will last until the finish line and whether it will be enough remains to be seen. In recent time, Ser Miang Ng of Singapore seems to be the main challenger, but Puerto Rican Richard Carrion also seems to have considerable support. The other three candidates, Denis Oswald of Switzerland, Ching-Kuo Wu of Taiwan and Sergei Bubka of Russia appear less likely to succeed, unless perhaps President Putin takes over the role of ‘king maker’.

But you can rest assured that all the candidates are insiders from the Olympic movement. If you read their manifestos, you could almost suspect that they have the same agent. They all have very similar ideas in terms of priorities for the IOC and their respective strengths that would make them the best person for the job. They have the experience and the political skills. Whether any one of them could turn out to be a rejuvenator or a person ensuring that ethics and integrity will become more important than money and influence, that remains to be seen. Among the top contenders, there may be small issues and margins making the difference in the end. But while Bach shows signs of becoming less confident and more inclined to ‘play defense’; I think he is still the one to beat.

Now, if you want to go beyond this rather superficial overview, both now and after the decisions have been taken, then I have a really good recommendation for you. The foremost expert on these issues is the German investigative journalist, Jens Weinreich, whose name I have mentioned to you before. At this moment he is already in Buenos Aires, with better access than most other media representatives on account of his ‘seniority’ among IOC followers and also due to his really solid knowledge of the issues and the people involved. You really should follow his blog and buy his emerging E-book. Again: jensweinreich.de

Adi Dassler progressing from modest cobbler to founder or Adidas

In 1971, a few years before I moved from Goteborg, Sweden, to Washington D.C., I had an interesting assignment in the context of being a referee not just in handball but also in football. The (West) German national team was coming to Goteborg for a game against Sweden, spending a whole week at a small sports hotel in the area. I was then asked to serve as the host/liaison on behalf of the Swedish Federation, accompanying the team around the clock. The team at that time had established or emerging stars such as Beckenbauer, Breitner, Vogts, Mueller, Maier and Hoeness. But as guests accompanying the team were ‘three generations’ Dassler: Adi with wife, and son Horst with wife and daughter.

As the team had its strict schedule with focus on practicing, many of my duties were instead with the Dassler family. I remember Adi as a shrewd but modest man, in line with his background as a cobbler turned business mogul, not interested in making a fuss but enjoying the perks. His main obsession was to sit in the front of the bus or the car and observe and assess the job of the motorcycle police escort! The one story I got out of him was his pride about his breakthrough when he supplied shoes to Jesse Owens at the Berlin Olympics in 1936. (A rather odd situation for someone who soon thereafter became a known Nazi sympathizer, producing boots for the German army during the World War).

Adi’s wife was entirely charming. Towards the end, Adi wanted to offer me a tiny pair of souvenir shoes as a ‘thank you’. But his wife reproached him: “the young man has told us he is a referee, so please make sure he gets a real pair of shoes that he can use”, was her comment… By contrast, the relations between the old couple and their son seemed to be a bit strange or strained. It struck me that Horst seemed unable to hide some contempt for the old habits and style of his parents. He frequently needed to attend to business matters in the city center, and unlike his father he showed little interest in what was going on with the team. And more generally, there was an arrogance about him that was not very attractive.

Moving on from my own encounter with the family, it could be noted that at the time I met them, Horst had already taken over the main responsibility for the company from his then 70-year old father, and he soon also started up Adidas France and the Adidas swimwear subsidiary Arena. But it seemed he was never content with being just involved with sports equipment. As a major sponsor, he had seen the money involved in the hosting of big events and the holding of the rights to TV broadcasts and marketing. So in 1982, just a few years before his early death due to cancer, he started the company International Sport and Leisure (ISL). He became a close associate with IOC and IAAF but especially FIFA.

In these early years of the ISL, and while still in charge of Adidas, Horst Dassler acquired a new employee and protégé, none other than the former Olympic fencer, Thomas Bach. It seems that Dassler with his contacts was also a key person in getting Bach into the IOC circles, initially as a member of the Athletes’ Commission, which ten years later led to the nomination as an IOC member. This could all have sounded rather innocuous, had it not been for what gradually became the revelation of Dassler’s business methods and the ISL’s reputation. If one wants to find out all the gory details about the workings of the ISL until its collapse in 2001, then there is a vast spectrum of web sites where one can find the story from multiple perspectives. So I will only add a few sentences to give a sense for it.

The ISL essentially bought up TV and marketing rights from IOC, FIFA, IAAF (track & field), FINA (swimming), ATP (tennis) and many other organizations, and then sold the rights to sponsors, broadcasters and license holders. But as was openly admitted both at the time and now afterwards, in that business the rights cannot just be obtained in fair competition and for an agreed amount of money. What makes the deal possible is the bribery involving those key figures in the respective sports organizations who decide where the rights are going. And this has over the years implicated IOC members, FIFA executives and others, who have had to resign. But as of this day, the names of most of the recipients of the bribes remain a secret, the revelation of which would really shake up the world of sports. And there is also a question of vast amounts of money still hidden somewhere. So, as the Forbes magazine recently put it, ‘the web woven by Dassler still ensnares the world of soccer’.

While there is little doubt that Horst Dassler started and nurtured a venture that has become the symbol of corruption in the world of sports, I want to emphasize that Thomas Bach has never been implicated in these dealings. But many, especially in Germany, find enough concerns regarding the role Dassler played in positioning and influencing Bach at a critical juncture. Through the usual notion of ‘guilty by association’ it is seen as casting a shadow over the candidacy of Bach and the opportunity he has had to make a career in the Olympic movement. Inevitably, you are judged not just by your own actions but also through the company that you have kept. It remains to be seen how relevant this may become, when added to other factors for and against Bach’s candidacy. My own conversations and dealings with Bach are far too limited to allow me to have any kind of personal judgment.

Strombach on his way out but wants to assert his authority

When the International Handball Federation (IHF) announced a few days ago, which countries had submitted a Letter of Intent for the hosting of the 2019 Men’s World Championships, it surprised many that Germany was on that list. The reason for the surprise was that Germany has already been named as the host of the Women’s World Championships just 14 months earlier than the men’s event. There were even some sarcastic remarks to the effect that the German federation must have become really desperate after the recent failure to qualify for the European Championship. Hosting a World Championship is of course the way to be certain of being allowed to participate…

But then the confusion arose, because suddenly there was an announcement from the soon departing German federation president, Ulrich Strombach, stating that the Letter of Intent was not legitimate and should be withdrawn. Apparently, it had been submitted to the IHF by ‘someone who did not have the authority to do so’. There are elections in the German federation in September. Strombach will be leaving after 16 years as president, and Bernhard Bauer is his designated successor. It was implied that Bauer and/or Bob Hanning, the expected new vicepresident, had acted without the agreement of the current Board, with Strombach still in charge.

The problem is then that when the new president takes up his office, it would be too late for Germany to signify an intention to host in 2019, so a formal withdrawal of the Letter of Intent now would mean that the opportunity would be lost. So apparently there is now some effort underway to try to rescue the situation; and the IHF president Moustafa has endeavored to be ‘helpful’ by noting that the Letter of Intent is valid as far as the IHF is concerned, even though it was submitted without proper authority. So it would still be possible for the new Board in Germany to follow through with a formal bid later on.

This ‘helpful’ intervention by the IHF president is likely to raise concerns among the other potential bidders. Most recently, Germany hosted a Men’s World Championship in 2007, and it was then all too apparent that there was a really ‘excessive collaboration’ behind the scenes between the IHF president and Strombach on behalf of the German federation. Some of the other top contenders, France, Spain and Croatia, noted with horror how the IHF and the Germans worked ‘hand in hand’ well beyond what would be considered appropriate. I was there, as IHF Referee Chief, and I could observe what went on. So one can only wish that we will not now have a repetition of 2007, and the other bidders must hope initially that they will have a fair chance to get their bids considered on the basis of their merits.

A completely different issue also caught my attention in German media in recent days. Apparently, the Bundesliga had been floating a suggestion that the league championship should be decided in a big final between the top two teams in the league season, perhaps outdoors in front of a huge crowd. This may have seen plausible, given the enormous interest in the EHF Champions League ‘Final Four’, where the season culminates with semi-finals and a final. And from an American perspective it would certainly seem like a sensible idea, except that perhaps the final should then be played in ‘best of three (or perhaps five)’ matches.

But the reaction to the idea was totally negative. The fan clubs of the Bundesliga teams dismissed the whole idea as outrageous. They felt it would totally diminish the value of the long league season, currently 34 rounds. So yet again we see an example of how deep-rooted traditions are, and how difficult it is to get acceptance for innovative idea in the most traditional of our European handball countries. Many other countries already have both a league format and then a play-off with four or eight teams that decides the national championship; but not in Germany…

Loyal coach Dushebaev must now seek new employment

For some clubs, which are supported by their governments, and also for those who have sufficient resources of their own, this means finding reinforcements in the hope of doing even better next season. For instance, Veszprem is seen as a PR tool in handball-crazy Hungary, so it seems they will come back even stronger than during a successful 2012-13 season. Teams which hope to make it to the EHF Champions League for the first time, through the qualification groups, also seem to be stocking up.

But in Spain, the overall economic situation of the country continues to take its toll. It seem almost miraculous that one can find enough clubs to fill the slot in the top league, ASOBAL, and some are in fact trying to solidify their situation and survive by going through bankruptcy. It had been thought, on the basis of their recent success, that only two clubs, Barcelona and Atletico Madrid, would be safe. But now the increasing rumors of troubles for BalonMano Atletico Madrid have been confirmed. On the same day as the football section of Atletico Madrid has signed David Villa as a major reinforcement, Spanish media are reporting that the handball section is throwing in the towel.

It should be remembered that it was only two years ago that the then top club Ciudad Real managed to continue only by moving to Madrid and get in under the colors of Atletico. And this seemed to work out fine, at least on the court, because Atletico was the only team giving Barcelona a tough time in Spanish competition, and they also came close to causing an upset in the EHF Champions League quarter-final, precisely against Barcelona. And their list of star players is long, from veteran goalkeeper Hombrados, to Aguinagalde, Lazarov, Canellas, Balic, Davis, Kallman, Garcia, Jurkiewicz, Gojun etc. Most of them counted on a continued stay in Madrid but will now have to scramble to find teams which have not yet finalized their plans or reached the limits of their budget.

But personally I feel particularly sorry for Talant Dushebaev, their coach during many years following a long and distinguished career as a world-class player. He certainly has had opportunities to leave ‘the sinking ship’, because there has clearly been a widespread interest in his capacity. But, as the very nice and decent person he has always been, he had decided he wanted to be loyal and stay. Now we will see who will be the beneficiary of Atletico’s miseries.

It also makes you wonder about the prospects for survival of a healthy and strong ASOBAL. What interest will there be in a league that now obviously will be totally dominated by Barcelona. Naturhouse La Rioja got a place in the Champions League, and perhaps Ademar Leon will now also get a chance there. But in the Spanish league there will now be such an imbalance that it is likely that the ‘death spiral’ for the spectator, media, and sponsor interest will simply accelerate. And we already have a situation in so many other countries where only one or two clubs completely dominate. Leaving aside Germany and Bundesliga, it seems that France is the only country that is going against the trend. And perhaps French clubs will now be among the main ones bidding for the services of the Atletico players!?

A happy bunch of U.S. players after their impressive win!

But for me personally, it is easy to single out one particular game as the absolute zenith on the women’s side, not simply because I was involved in the game as a referee (together with Bernie Iwasczyszyn) but because the result was really remarkable and created an echo in the handball world (even in those days without the help of the internet…). I am talking about the game where the U.S. team for the first (and only) time defeated the mighty Soviet women’s team. It happened at Gallaudet University in Washington D.C., in the preparatory stages for the 1988 Olympic Games. The Soviets, who in those days were normally unbeatable, were on a brief tour of the U.S., literally on their way to Seoul. They were dominated by players from the Ukraine and the club team Spartak Kiev, under the strong leadership of legendary (or infamous) coach Igor Turtjin, whose wife was also the team captain.

You might say that one should perhaps not make a big deal about a ‘friendly game’. But for the Soviets there really was never such a thing as an unimportant game. Not just was this a preparatory game for the Olympics, it was also a particularly prestigious game in front of a large group of Eastern European ambassadors and dignitaries, together with representatives of the U.S. State Department. Ordinary spectators may not have sensed it, but there was almost a ‘Cold War’ atmosphere surrounding this game, and Washington TV stations covered this ‘political’ event. (I could add that long afterwards, I met players, including Mrs. Turtjina, who confirmed that the reaction to the loss on the part of their Federation and the Sports Ministry was quite dramatic. This involved physical punishment and disciplinary action, and it seems the players never forgot it).

In any case, the Soviets were aware that their opponent would not be a pushover, so they went all out from the outset. But our U.S. team held up well to the early onslaught and established an effective game of their own. Neither team managed to pull away so it was a see-saw battle. The game was relatively physical, but above all it displayed strong technical skills and good tactics from both sides. As a referee I can remember many critical moments with small differences between success and failure, and Bernie and I also had some tough calls to make, under pressure mostly from the vociferous Turtjin, whose histrionics at the bench caught the attention of photographers and TV cameras.

Well, without going into further details, the game really came down to the wire. The home team gained an 18-17 lead close to the end, but the Soviets had a great chance to equalize which they failed to utilize. The U.S. team got the ball back, but one of the referees (yes, I confess) called an offensive foul with about 20 seconds to go, much to the irritation of the U.S. players and coaches. I guess there were many of us holding our breath, as the final Soviet shot bounced off the inside of the goal post and almost went in, as time expired. The celebrations were ecstatic on the U.S. side, while the anger and frustration was palpable at the Soviet bench. No, this was not a game that they wanted to lose. Their only small consolation later that evening came when we took them to a restaurant with the biggest steaks and the most enormous salad bar that they had ever see. When I met some of them years afterwards, this was what they preferred to talk about…

One would wish that this would be the kind of situation that a U.S. handball team with its supporters and spectators would have a chance to experience at some point in the future! And I would once again want to take the opportunity to congratulate all the players and coaches involved with this very special game 25 years ago!