In recent time I have followed with interest the initiative of USA Team Handball to have the issue of splitting up the PanAmerican Team Handball Federation (PATHF) put on the table. For many reasons, I think this is a good initiative, so my comments below are not intended to provide arguments against it, or even to make me the ‘devil’s advocate’ on this issue. Rather, I am more inclined to point out the complexities of the issue and how difficult it is likely to be to achieve success.

First I should emphasize that there is no such thing as a standardized definition of the concept of a continent in the world of sports. For instance, the International Olympic Committee does not insist that all sports use the same definition. It is really up to each international federation to decide what suits its circumstances. Just as an example, Kazakhstan is in Asia as far as handball is concerned, while it is part of Europe in soccer. Another example is Australia, which in most sports is the ‘superpower’ of the otherwise modest Oceania continent but in soccer has been allowed to join Asia. In fact, they have recently qualified as an Asian representative for the 2010 World Cup in soccer.

So while one might try to point to soccer and the CONCACAF vs. CONMEBOL configuration as an argument, as this ‘splits off’ 10 South American countries from the rest of the Panamerican continent, it does not really show that this approach is more ‘correct’ than the PATHF concept that covers the whole continent in one entity. It merely shows that such a model seems viable, even if the parallels are not so strong. First, CONCACAF came about not as a breakaway from the rest of the continent but as an amalgamation of a previously existing North American federation and a Central American/Caribbean federation almost 50 years ago. Moreover, CONCACAF has 35 member countries, not counting some French and Dutch territories. So it is really a strong grouping with long traditions.

What would then be the practical advantages of a change? It is then necessary to look a bit at the history and the politics of handball in our continent. Briefly put, the early influence came from Europe and was primarily affecting countries such as the U.S, Canada, Mexico and Argentina. Much of the early influence was German. Spain did not become a handball power until relatively recently, so there was no Spanish impetus, as is otherwise often the case in Latin America. Brazil and Cuba gradually became continental powers, but were not part of the picture in the early going. So the influence of the U.S. on continental matters was quite strong, both politically and on the court, with perennially good chances to qualify for World Championships and the Olympics.

Gradually, however, the Northern dominance came to an end, as USA and Canada were unable to build much on their early advantages, while at the same time the major sports countries Argentina and Brazil made rapid progress. Suddenly the power base has shifted, and the new leaders do not hesitate to reap the benefits. While they are ‘politically correct’ in expressing the hope that the U.S. will regain its former status, they do not exactly mind that the competition for the World Championship slots is weaker. Moreover, both the resource distribution and the allocation of events are now de facto in the hands of people who mainly look after their own interests and do not care to give the Northern countries a break. Costly travel is only one of the many disadvantages in this scenario. Unfortunately, there is no reason to believe that the traditional ‘North-South tensions’ will give way to a new situation where the re-emergence of U.S. handball is strongly supported within the continent.

But how would then the rest of the handball world and the IHF react to the idea of a split? Right now the IHF has a ‘neat’ and easy situation with three continents (Africa, Asia and Panamerica) having basically equal status and equal rights as regards slots in the World Championship qualifications and the representation in the IHF Council. A split would complicate matters considerably, and none of the other continents (incl. Europe) would accept that Panamerica got a better deal through a split than it currently has. So it is unclear what each of the two parts of a split continent could count on. Moreover, serious talks about a split in Panamerica might raise similar issues in the Asian continent, where East and West do not live very happily together. (This is a mild understatement if one remembers the perennial scandals in the Asian qualifying for IHF events). This is not the kind of chain reaction and resulting complications that the IHF would relish.

The reactions within PanAmerica are also uncertain. Argentina and Brazil may be less affected, at least as long as Canada and the U.S. are not so competitive, but while that is the case, there may still be some prestige involved in leading a continent where one can beat up on the Northern rivals. The rest of South America would clearly feel very threatened. They are now part of the race for a third Panamerican slot, but would there even be a chance for them after a split? Being beaten by Argentina and Brazil in fruitless efforts every time would not be a thrill. Where the interests and loyalties might lie among the Central Americans and the Caribbeans is less clear. With the exception of some of the Caribbean islands, they are all Latin American, of course. But the practical implications may be more important. A good competition structure, with less expensive travel, within a North/Central/Caribbean setting may seem enticing as it could help the progress of all the countries. In the end, much may depend on the IHF reactions and the potential status and opportunities for a new grouping.

To go back to where I started, while it may turn out that the obstacles are insurmountable, there is really not much to lose by trying. Some Panamerican countries could possibly be offended by it, but let’s face it: they are never going to love us that much in any case… Moreover, it may actually be helpful if U.S. handball shows in this way that it does mean business! And the potential gains, in the case of success, are real enough that the effort clearly is worthwhile. So let’s get the ball rolling!

It is almost too tempting to become ironic and lighthearted about an issue that may be quite important, if one realizes that one has absolutely no influence on the matter and that, even worse, there can be no expectation that it will be decided in a fair, rational, and transparent manner. So, even if right now, less than 3 weeks before the day of reckoning, there are many who nervously ponder the chances of Chicago to land the 2016 Olympics, I hope I am forgiven if I am slightly cynical about the whole process.

My reaction is triggered by the many ‘interesting’ comments in the media about the (final?) decision by President Obama to send the First Lady to the IOC Congress instead of going himself. The comments are interesting in two ways: first in the sense that they involve an amusing speculation as to which member of this couple would have the best chances of having a positive impact, and second because they reveal some rather naïve or ignorant ideas about the decision-making by the IOC members.

It seems that some people believe that the decision-making process is entirely rational (sort of: ‘may be the best city win’, whatever ‘best’ happens to mean), while others hint at an awareness that other ‘arguments’ may be more important. I don’t want to get into a lot of examples here from the very nasty history of IOC’s host city selections. Instead I would recommend that you read at least one of the very articulate and revealing books by Andrew Jennings about such matters. But it is quite clear that the greed and vanity of some IOC members has always played an important role over the years.

So it is quite conceivable that the presence or absence or President Obama could be a factor, not because he would be able to use his eloquence or because it would somehow show that the weight of the entire U.S. government is behind the Chicago bid, but because it just might be taken as a snub by some voters that the President sent his wife, in the full knowledge that the King of Spain, the Crown Prince of Japan, and the President of Brazil will be present. Yes, those IOC members are used to being treated as the equals of kings and presidents, so they are not easy to please.

But international politics may matter more after all. At the beginning of the year, it may have been seen as a foregone conclusion that it would be a big plus for Chicago to have Obama as the new U.S. President. Where it now stands may be less clear. But the status of the U.S. in the minds of those who vote has many more dimensions. Money is a key factor in many ways, and the yield from the Olympics, including sponsor contracts and television deals is high on the list. Traditional political and cultural ties are also vital. For, instance, it seems like a certainty that Madrid and Rio will pool their resources and their votes as soon as it is clear that one of them is out of the running.

Of course, questions have also continued to be raised: is it really such a good thing if Chicago wins!? The tax payers of Chicago and Illinois may be less than sure about that. But if you look at it selfishly as a sports fan, and particularly a fanatic in a small sport such as handball, it seems you must argue that ‘there is everything to gain, nothing to lose’. I guess it would (quite hypothetically) be even better to have a handball World Championship on U.S soil as a PR weapon, as an Olympic handball tournament is more likely to ‘disappear’ within the overall event. But certainly it could provide a boost for handball (and other sports that are similarly situated on the U.S. sports scene) that one would hope might be better utilized than what seems to have been the case after 1984 in Los Angeles and 1996 in Atlanta.

I will finish on that note for the moment, in the expectation that John Ryan will write something less ‘ironic and light-hearted’ on the topic, either before or after October 2. But, just for the sake of ‘full disclosure’, I feel obliged to reveal my biases: unbeknownst to most of my handball friends in the U.S. and around the world, I have roots in Chicago!!! Yes, I am a native of Sweden, but it so happens that my mother’s father was born in Chicago in the late 1890s, before his parents moved back with him to Sweden. So would it not be great to have the 2016 handball tournament take place in Andersonville… (although that is not quite what the Chicago proposal suggests).

During its ‘ordinary’ Congress 2 months ago, the IHF decided that an ‘extraordinary’ Congress should be held, for the purpose of considering changes in the By-Laws. Some handball friends have approached me with questions and ideas about the type of changes that should be considered when there will now be a special opportunity. Of course, from my own long experience, I have plenty of ideas for important and necessary changes in the By-Laws. The roles of the Executive Committee, the Council and the Commissions need be completely overhauled, and so do the By-Laws regarding the composition of these bodies. The decision-making processes and the meeting procedures require major improvements and, based on negative experience, areas such as budgeting/auditing, communications, and legal review regrettably need to be clearly regulated in the By-Laws. The same goes for the question of the overall supervision of the continental qualifying events. There are many more examples…

But despite these obvious needs for change, my main concern is that it would be [b]totally wrong to rush ahead now and implement some selected changes[/b], along the lines of the motions that had been forwarded for the recent Congress. [b]There are three main reasons why a different approach is needed:[/b]

[b]First[/b], the tendency during many, many years has been to make [u]selected changes on very specific points[/u], typically to suit some political or personal agendas regarding the way in which IHF functions. Yes, there have been intentions on several occasions to undertake a more systematic review, where all the resulting changes fit together and have a common objective. But every time these efforts have failed, partly because of a lack of a genuine determination to achieve such change, and partly due to the lack of the leadership and stamina needed for such an effort. The former Chairman of the IHF Arbitration Tribunal, Ulrich Strombach, expressed his serious frustration on precisely this point to the recent IHF Congress. Indeed, yet another set of selected, disjointed changes would be worse than having no changes at all, so the time must be taken for [u]a truly complete review[/u].

[b]Second[/b], the [u]timing[/u] of a major set of changes in the By-Laws is really the least optimal at this point, simply because we are now right at the beginning of a 4-year period for which a new set of officials were just elected. It would be totally naïve to think that a new structure and new processes under revised By-Laws would suddenly lead to major improvements when the very same people remain in place. The ideal timing would instead be some time [u]prior[/u] to an election Congress, where a new set of officials would be elected in conformity with a new structure and in the spirit of new processes. However, as the decision was already taken to set up an ‘extraordinary’ Congress, it would seem unrealistic to delay it for so long, and some of the necessary changes may after all be to urgent to delay so much. Nevertheless, a [u]fully participatory process[/u] is complex and time-consuming, even if the necessary priority is given, so the timing of the Congress must take this into account.

[b]Third[/b], there is obviously no such thing as an ideal structure and a general set of processes and procedures that fit every organization in every kind of circumstances. Any person with experience from managerial and organizational responsibilities knows that [u][u]the starting point for establishing structures and processes is the existence (or development) of overall strategies that are tailored to the goals and objectives of the organization[/u][/u]. In the case of the IHF, the overall strategies and goals clearly need to be updated, articulated and implemented. This should really be the more immediate focus of the IHF and its officials, in close collaboration with its experienced and dominating national federations globally, and with reliance also on external expertise. [u]So time must be allowed for this critical initial step, before one gets ready to focus on By-Law changes[/u].

As I noted in a recent article on August 18, https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.810 I seriously doubt that the IHF has focused enough on establishing explicit goals and strategies that serve to make the sport of handball able to attract more players, more leaders, more spectators, more TV contracts, more media coverage and more sponsors globally in an increasingly competitive marketplace. With a steadily increasing number of new sports, many specifically geared towards younger generations, and with a more difficult environment for sports to compete with other leisure interests, [u]has handball really positioned itself to maintain or improve its traditional position[/u]??

It is too easy to be satisfied with our glorious past, and to point out that we are presently working very hard. But working hard in the absence of well-defined strategies may not be enough! It is too easy to be optimistic and complacent, arguing that handball is such an attractive product that we will always survive. But watch out, the competition is tough! So, I urge all handball federations and handball officials with the necessary experience and competence to insist on getting the opportunity to work with the IHF and its officials to ensure that [b]modern goals and strategies [/b]are in place for the future work of the IHF. The goals and the strategies determine the need for new structures and processes. [u]After[/u] that has been done, the time will be right for a focus on By-Law changes, and at that point I will be prepared to come back with detailed suggestions!

It is always of special interest to pay attention to what happens in these championships, as they give a sense for what the future of our sport may have to offer in different respects. It seems that both these events offered a number of very exciting matches, and that many talented players had an opportunity to display their great skills. There were also some surprising results in several individual matches, especially in the Junior Championship. It creates a sense of ‘globalization’ when one notes that in the early stages Argentina beat both Germany and Iceland, Brazil beat both France and Norway, and Iran beat Spain! In the end, Argentina finished 6th; the home team Egypt qualified for the bronze medal game, where they will try to surpass neighbors and rivals Tunisia, who used the advantage of being the host country by placing 4th in the Youth Championship.

But did this really constitute a break-through of some sort? Was there really a genuine indication that the group of countries that can compete at the absolute top has become truly broad and fully global? The answer is unfortunately that this was [u]not[/u] the case! Congratulations to Argentina, Brazil, Egypt and Tunisia to well-deserved successes, but the results in fact confirmed that there continues to be just a [u]very[/u] small group of countries, about 5 or 6 if at least Korea is added, that can compete reasonably well with the Europeans year after years, at the both the senior and the junior level.

This has not changed for a long time, and there are no obvious indications that it will change anytime soon. (Well, Iran, I wish you good luck to prove me wrong!) Clearly this is not a good situation for our sport. We can boast about new member countries showing up and voting at our Congresses, but this is not what will impress the rest of the world. They look for a much more [u]broad and diversified group at the absolute top[/u], as an indication that handball is really developing and achieving a truly global reach.

Football has been setting a really wonderful example in this regard, with a large number of ‘new’ countries showing that they are competitive at the highest level. This creates a totally different image for a [u]World[/u] Championship. In handball it is regrettably understandable, if people in some of the traditional European handball countries are less than impressed with the extra dimension that a World Championship supposedly should be adding in comparison with a European Championship. This is not the kind of argument that the non-European handball continents need in any upcoming discussions about the international competition calendar!

And the non-European Continental Federations must themselves assume a large part of the responsibility. For instance, it clearly does not help the situation of Argentina and Brazil if Greenland is the ‘number three’ country. That really says something about the lack of sustained progress in the rest of the continent. If 5 nations represent Africa in the Junior Championship and all of them are from North Africa, what does that say about the rest of the continent, especially when 4 out of 5 finish at the very bottom of the ranking!?

But the main responsibility for achieving a change lies with the IHF. This is where the know-how exists and this is where an allocation of special resources and efforts could have some results in a not too distant future. Recruiting and nurturing the newest and weakest member countries is of course important, and special efforts through training courses, seminars and the Challenge Cup serve a good purpose. But a concerted effort to help some of the more established countries in each continent (those next in line behind ARG/BRA/EGY/TUN/KOR) develop in a sustained way, so that they can [u]reach the top faster[/u], is a separate objective. Clearly we want a situation where all participants in a senior World Championship are competitive.

And this brings me to the crucial and more general question: in carrying out a lot of work, is the IHF just moving ahead in a traditional way, or is it really making a major effort to [u]adapt to modern realities[/u], specifically by [u]developing revised goals and objectives[/u] that are explicit enough so that they can be matched by [u]well-articulated strategies and plans[/u]?? In my own experience, I am concerned that the [u]IHF is lagging behind[/u] in this respect. For instance, many other international sports federations are making very systematic efforts in revamping goals and strategies, often with the help of external expertise, but also with the help of its own global ‘family’ of athletes, leaders, media, sponsors and spectators. We cannot afford to let handball fall behind in this tough competition! (I will come back in a separate article on the issue of goals and strategies!)

The German Handball Federation (DHB) wants to give the appearance of being offended and mistreated, through the EHF verdict against the referees Lemme/Ullrich. In recent time, there have been several statements from DHB to the effect that “German handball is clean” and “the Bundesliga is clean”. Therefore, it is of course ‘highly inconvenient’ when a punishment against their ‘poster boys’, Lemme/Ullrich, is now pronounced. This is the only explanation I can find, when usually sensible DHB officials now get so upset.

Because I sincerely hope that it is not a general attitude they demonstrate, when their focus is on the assertion that the punishment is too harsh and should be appealed. For federations who supposedly want to participate in a serious way in the fight against corruption, it is clearly the wrong instinct to put their energy into defending anyone who has been found guilty of some kind of wrongdoing.

As handball is years behind in taking action, the situation is now that the EHF is trying to establish, for the first time, some kind of standard in determining punishments in relation to the different types of wrongdoing. Clearly it will take some time to establish a ‘catalog’ of punishments with very specific guidelines for each type of action. Indeed, for obvious reasons, one hopes that such a ‘catalog’ will never become very complete or comprehensive. Therefore, it is just not realistic and appropriate to get into arguing that is ‘unfair’ that someone gets the punishment of X+1 for infringement A, when someone else got ‘only’ X for infringement B.

As you may recall, I was disappointed that the first round of EHF verdicts seemed clearly too lenient, so I am more worried about a trend in that dangerous direction!

Of course, it is awkward that the first punishment against a referee couple involves precisely Lemme/Ullrich. And as I can personally verify, they have for many years been one of the most solid couples in the world. They fully deserved the top nominations they received from the IHF, including an Olympic final. Perhaps one could note that in this year’s World Championship in Croatia, they were no longer as strong as before, showing problems in resisting the pressures of the home team and the home crowd.

Regrettably, there is this tendency that referees do not always go out ‘on top’. Perhaps they stay on after some of the motivation is gone. Lemme/Ullrich had already notified the IHF that this would be their last IHF event, and it seems that EHF had been told the same thing regarding the Euro Championship next January. So one could note that the protest against a 5-year suspension must be more about image and prestige, because the international career of Lemme/Ullrich was about to come to an end anyway. Moreover, they would reach the mandatory age limit 3 years from now.

So back to the heading: I am prepared to believe that what really upset the EHF was the decision of Lemme/Ullrich [b]not[/b] to reveal the specific name(s) involved in the affair in Russia. This leaves the EHF with the more anticlimactic action of punishing the club for ‘not preventing’ the action of certain individuals. But perhaps, if the name(s) were to be revealed, it might turn out to be more than the EHF has bargained for…