In the 4th and final installment of our interview, we discuss how USA Team Handball is now organized and its current financial status.

[b]Federation Organization/Financial Status[/b]

John Ryan: One of the bigger changes between the old Federation and the newest incarnation is the radically different staffing philosophies. For many years 3 or 4 staff members oversaw operations from a national office. The current staff is much larger. Exactly how many full time and part time employees are there?

Steve Pastorino:

Full Time ADMINISTRATION:
1. Steve Pastorino/General Manager (UT);
2. Dan Bush/Membership & National Teams (UT);
3. Alex Leopold (IL) / PR, Website/Development

Full Time HANDBALL DEVELOPMENT:
4. Mariusz Wartalowicz/Technical Director (IL)
5. Brian Finley/West Region (CA)
6. Dominique Dumont/East (FL)
7. Marko Brezic/Regional Coach (UT)

PART TIME/INTERNS:
8. Greg Myers/Marketing & Chicago Youth Development (IL);
9. Aida Kulasic, Intern Chicago (IL)
10. Brandon Gustafson, Intern SLC (UT)
11. Tim Fifield, Intern Fresno (CA)
12. Jaclyn Rymer, Intern LA (CA)
13. Timo Krueger, Intern Chicago (IL) (from Germany)
14. Ditte Rasmussen, Intern (UT) (from Denmark)

JR: Why the change in staffing philosophy? What are the benefits?

SP:
1. I believe we should be a national federation, with presence in multiple regions. There is not one central hub of handball in America where all of the resources/people/development should be centered (not Atlanta, not NY, not LA).
2. I think we need to be significant enough (in size, dollars, manpower) to run this sport with the attention, breadth and aspiration it deserves. Therefore, my staffing plan is bigger and more aggressive than in the past.
3. Mariusz, Brian, Dominique and Marko give USA Team Handball a face and on-the-ground presence in four important and different regions. We are trying to be far more ambitious in scope than our predecessors, and our staff is far more useful in four different time zones than all in one place.

JR: Such a staff takes a bigger slice of a limited budget. Are you concerned that this will preclude other expenditures like international travel, funds for club development, etc?

SP: Everything requires money. We have made a case to USOC that handball deserves substantially greater funding, and our message has been well-received when we pitch our long-term plans to them. I want to grow USATH into a $1M-$5M/year organization, with proper grassroots programs, proper National Team expenditures, substantial staff/club/player/referee/coach development.

JR: I understand that USATH wants the budget to grow, but in the meantime you’re dealing with a limited budget. Some tough decisions are being made that impact a lot of people. If the U.S. was spending a little less on salaries we wouldn’t have athletes digging into their own pockets to represent our country in international competition. Conversely, someone could even make the argument that if we cancelled a few more trips we could hire another regional director. Everything does require money, but how are those tough decisions being made?

SP: My staff provides budgets based upon their geographical location and/or projects where they are assigned; I compile these and then I present proposed budgets to our board; and they assist me in the prioritization process.

JR: What are the current year projected overall revenues and expenses?

SP: Approx. $800,000 (up from $500k in 2008-09 fiscal year.)

JR: Do you see overall revenues increasing from year to year? Can you give me a rough idea of where will be in 2012,2016,2020?

SP: I’d like to be a $5M/year organization by 2016.

JR: How much has Board Chairman, Dieter Esch, personally contributed since being certified by the USOC?

SP: More than $500,000.

JR: Wow. Even for a wealthy man that’s a significant chunk of change. Where would USATH be right now without that level of contribution?

SP: There would be no USATH. Perhaps there would be another group running a federation; or perhaps the USOC would still be administering the sport.

JR: Have all other independent board members contributed the $50,000 required by the Federation by laws?

SP: Several are spreading the payments over multiple years. All are on track to make at least $50,000 in donations.

JR: How much funding has the USOC provided? What percentage of total revenue is it? Do you see that percentage becoming smaller?

SP: In 2009, it was approximately $140,000. In 2010, approximately $260,000. It has been less than 30% of operating revenues. We anticipate that USOC will continue to increase their contributions, and the percentage of overall revenues will be in line with other NGB’s of our size and scope.

JR: How much funding have our sponsors provided on a yearly basis? Do you see this increasing over time? How much has progress on this front been stymied by the recession?

SP: $100,000 – $150,000 in 2009 and 2010; I would like to see this grow substantially. The recession has made it difficult, but sponsors and grants are a key to our long-term viability.

JR: You indicated that USATH wants to grow the budget to $5,000,000. The current budget is $800,000. How does the USATH increase its budget 6-fold?

SP: We’ve tried to build a business model for the long term. We have identified new areas of income (international events i.e., Battle of Chicago) and taken advantage of new and/or less cheaper technology to connect and promote our sport (televising events both on our website and channels like ESPN3 and Comcast Sport Net, making our home page a portal for news/info relevant to handball players in America, social media such as Facebook, etc. We’re trying to make the federation less dependent on one board member or one Executive Director by bringing board and staff on board with different business acumen, geographic location and ideas about sport development. We’ve forged a close relationship and accountability with USOC and multiple federations and clubs across Europe. This business foundation allows us to do more of the sport development at youth, teen and adult levels.

JR: The current Board of Directors (BoD) construct consists of 7 members with independent credentials and 2 athlete representatives. None of these directors, with the exception of the athlete reps are elected by the membership. While, I think the independent directors have given the Board a better business orientation I’m concerned that the rank and file doesn’t have much of a voice on this current board. Do you think this is true? Should it be a concern?

SP: We are adding another athlete rep who will be elected by a broader group of individuals than the AAC Rep (which is an artificially small number per USOC Bylaws). The rules for this election will be established this week. This Board member will have an important voice. Additionally, we have had guests at several board meetings now, and we will continue to facilitate that. Any rank-and-file member who wishes to voice opinions (through board members, my staff or directly to me) is encouraged to do so – and we hear from members every single day. I think our Board representation is fair and this has not been an issue to date.

JR: Some sports have a larger body (e.g. a congress) that provides input to the board in an advisory role. Do you see USATH adding that?

SP: We’ve discussed it… but until I see / hear more feedback that it is requested by the membership, it is not a priority.

JR: You’ve covered a lot of ground in this interview and I’ve found it very informative. In some respects, though, I think it only scratches the surface in terms of USATH’s plans for the future. Does the USATH have a more detailed plan which outlines objectives and includes benchmarks to measure performance? If so, can the membership see that plan and provide input?

SP: We provide a High Performance Plan to USOC annually, but they primarily want to know about our long-term Olympic prospects, not the broader plans, business model, etc. I have read several “10-year Plans” that were written in the past at USTHF, and unfortunately, none of them came to fruition. I prefer to let our work speak for itself, but there is always room for more public input and participation.

JR: In closing, I’ll ask the same question I asked you two years ago when we first met at the USA Team Handball Summit in St Louis. You had just taken the GM job and had heard 8 solid hours of discussion in regards to the challenges of developing Team Handball in this country. I asked you then if you were starting to realize just how hard it was going to be and whether there any second thoughts about taking on this challenge. You were full of optimism then. Two years later, how do you feel?

SP: No second thoughts. This sport is rich in history and tradition, inspires great passion and has unlimited potential. Is it a challenge? Absolutely. Is it exciting to be a part of the process? Without a doubt. I’m still optimistic. Go USA.

This concludes the interview, here are links to the other 3 installments.
Interview Part 1 (National Team Planning): https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.1098
Interview Part 2 (Overseas Players and Future’s Program): https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.1101
Interview Part 3 (Part 3: College Programs and Club Issues): https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.1104

In part 3 of our interview, we discuss college programs and club issues in the U.S.

[b]College Programs[/b]

JR: What’s the USATH plan for college programs?

SP: We work with interested college students, club sports organizers, athletic departments, etc. On a case-by-case basis, we are trying to build programs. We try to identify an advocate everywhere we go. Success stories include: Texas A&M, Ohio State, Florida Atlantic, Oregon State, Gallaudet, Cal Lutheran – all of which participated in events last year. This coming year we are working with many schools including: Claremont Colleges, Utah, BYU, Colorado State, University of Illinois-Chicago, Western Kentucky, Penn State, Pitt, several Florida and Georgia schools. We don’t have an advocate / see a path to get it done more quickly on an intercollegiate/conference/regional basis.

JR: This year’s tournaments didn’t have a lot of college teams participating. What steps are being taken to expand the number of college clubs? Long term, how many clubs do you think the U.S. will have?

SP: I think we can get to 24 schools by 2012, with roughly half west of the Rockies. One key is to develop them in clusters, so they have nearby competition. I think the idea of College Nationals is ahead of its time; and we’d be better served with College West and College East championships, but for now, it’s worthwhile to protect and continue the tradition of one collegiate champion. I loved having Nationals outdoors in Myrtle Beach – it attracted a lot of attention and was a fun Spring Break type destination for our athletes, but it’s an expensive place to get to by air. We’re looking at similar environments near hub airports in the future.

JR: There was a short snippet in one of the Board’s Meeting minutes highlighting Cal Lutheran in Southern California as becoming a training site. What exactly is planned for that program?

SP: Cal Lutheran is one of USA Water Polo’s training centers so there’s precedent for their relationship with an NGB. They have lined two gyms with permanent handball lines and purchased equipment. They have supported the formation of a student club. They are making dorm space and gym space available to us on an annual basis for tryouts, clinics and/or camps. We will likely hold residential camps in the summer there as soon as 2011. We’re talking to University of Utah to do the same; and to schools in Central and Eastern time zones as well.

JR: Funds are limited and choices have to be made. Are college clubs seen as a cornerstone for USA development or a “nice to have”? In other words where does it fall in terms of priorities?

SP: They are a cornerstone. But we felt that we needed to establish a base of high schoolers playing first so we could begin to direct them to college programs starting in 2012 or so. We’ve spent more time on HS programs (futures and other grassroots) but always had our eye on colleges that would complement our other programs.

JR: Are there any plans to get Team Handball back on the NCAA Emerging Sports list? Could we even envision it as a fully sanctioned NCAA sport?

SP: It could be sanctioned NCAA sport sooner on the women’s side – which is why the Futures program was launched for girls one year before boys. But there’s a lot of work to do. We need dozens of established clubs before we can even think about Varsity status. When we have 10-20 solid clubs on men’s or women’s side, then we’ll revisit the idea of being an Emerging Sport again.

JR: Some sports federations, (USA Rugby for example) have a full time college director. Is that a possibility for USATH?

SP: Some day.

[b]Club Issues[/b]

JR: A lot of our discussion has focused on the end goal of a competitive National Team. But, this is not necessarily a priority for many members of the rank and file that just want to play the sport. How do you balance developing national teams while serving the needs of the membership base? Which has a greater priority and what’s a rough percentage as to how the USATH splits its efforts between those needs?

SP: I ask our regional directors (currently Brian and Dominique) to focus on clubs, members, grassroots – and as little as possible on National Teams. Mariusz and Dan spend time split between National Teams and Clubs. In Mariusz’ case, he oversees Coaching, Referees, Domestic competition, National Team organization, etc., so he’s pulled in many directions. Dan spends a significant chunk of time managing our Membership, but also helps communicate with the National Team pools and spending a few weeks a year with National Teams (where he doubles as our trainer).

Our members and their heritage as handball’s core supporters in America are still a huge priority. But we ask them to demonstrate that they are building a bridge to the next generation – incorporating young players into their clubs; coaching/mentoring kids; helping us with clinics/tryouts or other developmental activities. I think we’ve found a good balance between sustaining traditional competition, managing developmental programs and establishing a structure for National Teams.

JR: With a few exceptions, the current demographics for U.S. clubs tend to be older and international. How big a concern is this and what can be done to get to change those demographics to more and younger Americans playing?

SP: The overwhelming majority of participants in all of our new programs (Futures, urban programs in NYC/ATL/CHI, recently established clubs, grassroots programs) are individuals with US citizenship. We need to get the sport into the psyche of young American people and let them grow into our future. I know the demographics are changing, but you can’t tell yet by the rosters at Nationals. We are discussing an Olympic Sports Festival style event in 2011 that is for Youth & Junior National team candidates only.

JR: USATH has implemented a qualifying system for the Elite Championships. Are you satisfied with the current system? Do you expect it to continue to evolve?

SP: I’m sure it will evolve. For now, I think it’s what the member clubs want.

JR: There’s a real lack of legitimate Women’s clubs in the U.S. How is this being addressed?

SP: The Futures program introduced 150 young female athletes to the sport – and that number will hopefully double in 2010-11. As they get older and move on to college, they will be the core athletes that will comprise our next generation of college programs. If we form a dozen strong women’s collegiate programs, I think women’s clubs will follow. NYC THC, DC & Philadelphia are to be commended for starting women’s teams in 2009-10. Army, UNC, Furman Boston and Chicago continue to provide opportunities for women. The Futures program is primarily in the West right now, where opportunities have been especially thin.

JR: Many clubs in the U.S. put forth either no effort or only a token effort in regards to broadening their club to include youth and women teams. Is this a concern? How can these clubs be encouraged to do more?

SP: This is an old generalization, based upon “old clubs” in a club structure that is somewhat archaic. New clubs are putting more of an emphasis on broader development (Denver, Minnesota, DC, Philadelphia, Colorado Springs, Salt Lake, Chicago all come to mind). There will be a place for all of these clubs in the future… but we hope the majority of clubs become broader based.

JR: The National Championship Tournament has evolved to include a Men’s Elite and Open Division. Do you foresee this format continuing? Are you concerned that the open tournament might get too big?

SP: I hope we can continue the format… and I hope the Open tournament gets so big that it challenges us in every way. More clubs and competition is good – we all have to work collectively to make sure we can sustain and fund the growth.

JR: The Houston Firehawks Women’s team which dominated the Women’s Championship was almost entirely composed of Mexican citizens living in Mexico. Will USATH rewrite the rulebook to preclude non-American teams participating in the U.S. National Championships?

SP: Our Championships are open to teams that adhere to the Rulebook and meet the established criteria. There are no plans to overhaul the Rulebook. If we elevate the level of women’s handball in the USA, the Firehawks’ makeup won’t be the issue.

JR: U.S. sanctioned events now charge foreign clubs an extra $100 to participate. This has upset some Canadian clubs that were never charged before. What’s behind this policy? Is the extra revenue worth the ill will it may have caused?

SP: The more teams that compete in events in the USA, the higher the costs are for the organizers and USATH (referees, sanctioning, insurance, facilities, etc.) It’s a modest fee to ask (roughly $5-$10/player) when we ask our own players to pay $60 to compete. In Minnesota next month, we are waiving the fee because Canada is supplying some referees. If Canadian teams/players would rather register as USATH members, they can avoid the $100 fee. It is not intended to cause long-term strife between us and our friends in Canada.

In the 4th and final part of our interview, we discuss USATH’s organizational structure and financial status.

Links to Parts 1 and 2:
Interview Part 1 (National Team Planning): https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.1098
Interview Part 2 (Overseas Players and Future’s Program): https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.1101

In part 2 of our interview, Steve Pastorino provides an overview of USA Team Handball’s efforts to place athletes with overseas clubs and to develop more youth athletes through its Future’s Program.

[b]Overseas Players[/b]

John Ryan: Helping athletes find playing opportunities with European clubs is clearly a priority. Why has USATH made it a priority?

Steve Pastorino: Better culture, better training environment, better coaching, better competition. The gap between training environment in the USA and Europe cannot be bridged at this time – we’re too far behind the rest of the world.

JR: How many athletes are playing overseas? What are their ages and what levels are they playing at?

SP: They range from early teens to 30+, but the majority are 16-25 years old. Athletes who have succeeded in Varsity sports (at HS or college level) are preferred. (More info on U.S. players abroad is available here: http://usateamhandball.org/news/2010/09/08/americans-abroad-preview/38428?ngb_id=42 )

JR: I’ve seen some of these athletes play, so I’ve got my own rough opinions on their current skills and potential. Others, I’ve never seen play. Still, with this limited information, I would assess that for many of these athletes their “age” and “current level of play” is mismatched. In other words, I think it’s unlikely that they will develop into “world class” athletes on our national teams before they become “too old” and reassess what role handball plays in their lives. This, of course, is debatable. Do you think we have the right match in terms of talent and age?

SP: Not necessarily But at the same time, athletes who go to Europe to train are getting a rare and memorable experience. We will continue to encourage athletes of all levels to go. Identifying opportunities for teens to live and train is critical and this is the second consecutive school year where we’ll have at least six teens abroad. We’re also finding more and more dual-passport young Americans to incorporate into the pool.

JR: What assistance is USATH providing these athletes? Is there any financial support being provided? How much are athletes doing on their own initiative?

SP: USATH is heavily involved in coordinating the HS program; Matching athletes, families, schools, clubs, etc. College and older athletes have to do much more on their own, but we regularly contact clubs and agents to help us find appropriate places for our athletes to play. Some financial/transportation support has been given as well.

JR: Several of these athletes are active duty members of the U.S. military training under the World Class Athlete Program (WCAP). Can you briefly highlight what this program is and what its advantages are?

SP: We have five men and one woman in Army WCAP right now; There are three men in Air Force WCAP. Army and Air Force provide different levels of support for National Team members during Olympic cycles. As long as we are eligible for 2012 Olympics, these athletes are paid as Army/AF officers but given the opportunity to train full-time in their chosen sport. These individuals have had some of the best stateside training you can get in handball. They are natural leaders. They are good athletes. They are motivated and committed. It has been an important part of the puzzle for multiple NGB’s. We’d be foolish not to try to take advantage of it.

JR: Air Force and West Point have produced some great talent, but it’s never been more than 1 or 2 athletes every four years or so. Military commitments can also get in the way sometimes. Are you concerned that there might be too much focus on military athletes?

SP: If we get 1-2 great handball players out of the military every four years, it’s well worth the time and attention (there is very little cost to us). It also provides ongoing motivation to the two Academy programs. AFA hopes to restart a women’s program this year – it can only help.

JR: Several athletes with dual citizenship have been identified in Europe. Is this a stop gap measure until we develop more youth programs in the U.S.?

SP: No, I think it’s an ongoing reality. Michael Williams is SG Flensburg’s top youth player; Karoline Borg is playing in Norway’s first division; Sophie Fasold is being asked to join the German Women’s National Team program; They are all under 20 and dreaming of representing the USA in the Olympics – they can be part of the solution!

[b]Future’s Program[/b]

JR: My rough understanding of this program is that it is an attempt to get more high school kids playing handball. Can you give me a rough overview of how the program works?

SP:
– We identify volunteers to run HS age programs in various USA markets. Unlike our grassroots programs, we target recruit “elite” athletes to train in handball. We had a dozen applicants for coaches in 2009-10, and chose six coaches who we felt had the coaching & organizational skills to be successful. Kathy Rex administered the program. We selected as coaches: Dawn Lewis (Bozeman, Olympian), Kathy Rex (Colorado Springs, Olympian), Julio Sainz (LA, experience from Cuba), Robert Michalik (NJ, ref & exp from Poland), Attila Agoston (Denver, ref & exp from Hungary); Angie Webb/Marko Brezic (SLC). All six programs recruited 15-30 girls and trained them for one season, culminating in HS National Championships in Colorado in May.

– Next year, we anticipate 12 programs, and expanding to include both boys and girls. Possible markets include Chicago, Florida, Atlanta, North Carolina, Texas, Las Vegas, Fresno. We need to be more consistent with age groups and/or develop two levels of teams in each market, especially as kids grow older each year, and we continue introducing younger players annually.

– We’re also getting experience in training parents as coaches, volunteers and refs – we need all these people at a local level as well.

JR: I heard some good things about the Utah program that new board member Jeff Utz has started. Can you provide some background on what’s been accomplished so far?

SP: Salt Lake Handball Club has taught the sport to thousands of athletes in schools; and recruited 100’s who want to play on an ongoing basis. We’re developing a 4-6 team fall league with teams in Provo, SLC, Murray, West Valley, Park City and/or Ogden (see Utah map). Each team has its own coach and facility, and the best players come together at least once a week in a “all star” environment. It’s designed to be self-sufficient, with local families and sponsors providing funds for coaches, equipment, gym space, etc.

JR: If I’m not mistaken USATH has never really tried to engage younger players on such a large scale. Is it tough to convince top athletes to give up their primary sport, even if only for a couple of weeks?

SP: We have to try… and we feel like we’re making progress. It has been hard to find our “season” because of all the sports conflicts. But I think in most markets, we’re a Fall/Spring/Summer activity – but winter is tough everywhere because of competition from basketball and other sports for gym space. We have found many athletes ready/willing to devote time to handball and in most cases, we’re not asking them to give up other sports entirely. Even in Iceland/Denmark, some of our teens have/will play other sports – not just handball.

JR: Talent identification at younger ages can be tricky. One just has to look at all the college scholarship players that don’t really pan out in college. Are you concerned that a lot of resources have to be expended to find the athletes that will pan out?

SP: There is no alternative. We have to recruit younger. That’s one of the reasons we need more numbers – we have a better chance to find National Team caliber athletes if the pool is 1,000 (or 100,000) – not just 100.

JR: Does USATH plan to participate in PATHF championships/qualification matches for youth and junior World Championships? If so, when?

SP: We plan to… if we have the resources to do it right. Again, 2013 is the year we’ve targeted to re-enter international competition, but it could come sooner.

In part 3 of our interview, we discuss college programs and U.S. Clubs

Interview Part 1 (National Team Planning): https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.1098

Over the course of the past few months I’ve had a lengthy email exchange with USA Team Handball Manager, Steve Pastorino. We cover a lot of ground in the interview and it will be broken up into several parts. Herewith is the first part of the interview which addresses USA National Team Planning. In the interview Steve addresses upcoming plans for qualification, as well as long term plans heading towards 2016.

[b]National Team Planning[/b]

John Ryan: At the Town Hall Meeting it was noted that USATH would not expend funds in an attempt to qualify for the 2012 Olympics, but that the Federation would also not stand in the way of athletes self financing a qualification attempt. How exactly would a self financed trip effort work in terms of coaching and player selection?

Steve Pastorino: USATH created coach and player selection processes in compliance with USOC. The head coach, technical director and a representative chosen by the AAC rep will comprise the player selection committee. Women will make their selection after Tar Heel Invitational in October; Men will make their selection after camps in LA and Birmingham (Oct). The selection committee will have to balance reports from European players/tours, the various camps, etc. Both teams are receiving substantial grants from USA Team Handball Foundation, so “self-financed” is not exactly the right word.

JR: What competition format is envisioned for PANAM Games qualification? When would it take place?

SP: Canada at USA on Dec. 21; USA @ Canada on Dec. 23. Times/venues TBD. We’re pushing for West Point; and they will host in Montreal area. Lake Placid is on hold as our backup choice. In event of tie on points, aggregate goal differential is the first tiebreaker, followed by most away goals. If still tied, we’d go to a mini-game, then shootout.

JR: Should the U.S. lose to Canada will the U.S. Men and Women participate in the 2nd chance tournament? Would the U.S. be a potential host?

SP: We haven’t made this decision yet.

JR: The Men didn’t attempt to qualify for the 2011 WC, but the Women could still try. Will the USA send a Women’s team to the D-1 Championship in Cuba this November?

SP: This is being discussed as we speak. Most likely not.

JR: What about 2013 WC qualification for the Men’s and Women’s Programs? Will attempts to qualify for these events be self funded?

SP: We’ve set 2013 as the timetable to formally re-enter international competition. However, as you know, PATHF qualifying starts 12-18 months beforehand, which really means those funds are required next fall (Men’s D-1) and then fall 2012 (women’s D-1). If USATH cannot fund these competitions, we will encourage US TH Foundation to assist

JR: How hard a decision was it to forgo 2012 Olympic qualification?

SP: The Board of Directors has been consistent as far back as summer 2008 that participation at the 2012 Olympics was not planned for, nor anticipated. That being said, if this young group of athletes qualifies, it will be a very positive reflection on our direction – as the majority of athletes are new.

It’s very hard – when we have committed athletes that want to demonstrate what they can do; but at the same time, if we don’t get a lot more players into the game at a young age, we’ll just be repeating the mistakes of the past. So we’ve focused less on immediate results and more on long-term plans.

JR: What about the argument that the U.S. could use 2012 qualification as a test run for 2016? In theory at least some of the athletes involved in the 2012 run would still be around in 2016 and they’ll be more prepared as a result.

SP: We anticipate that the majority of athletes in the 2012 Qualifying process are young enough to be candidates for 2016 as well.

JR: Yes, but I was referring more to the level of resources being expended. Qualification for and participation in the 2011 PANAM Games would be an excellent dry run for the task in 2015. We’ve funded friendly trips to Germany. Wouldn’t it make more sense to have funded qualification events first and then if there was money left over use it to fund friendly tours?

SP: We have our sights set on competing with European national teams, not just Pan Am teams. The caliber of games, facilities, training sessions, coaching, support that we receive in Europe dwarfs what we can achieve in the Pan Am region, so we made the strategic decision to attempt to compete there instead of here.

JR: Let's discuss the plans for 2016 qualification. Will there be a resident national team program in the U.S.? When?

SP: Not necessarily. That being said, we have 10-12 men living and training daily (in better conditions than we can offer stateside) within driving distance of one another in Germany. I think we can get this number to 30+ by 2015; and our numbers are catching up on the women’s side as well. The athletes are starting to get together to train on a regular basis – and we’ve had men and women conduct multiple tours in Europe since 2009. I wouldn’t rule out extended camps/residential program in Europe.

JR: When will the U.S. have full time coaches? Will they be U.S. based?

SP: When we can afford salaries that full-time coaches require. F/T coaches also need players to train, facilities to use, funding for travel, and multiple other areas of support.

JR: What age range do you envision for our 2016 rosters?

SP: Men: 22-35; Women: 18-30; Average age of women’s team in Bremen last week was 18.5!

JR: Will USATH have the necessary funding to proceed with this plan?

SP: We have built a business model in two years based on events, sponsorship, television, membership, donations, etc. We have to prove we can sustain it, but the intention is that the funding will continue to grow.

JR: Can you give me rough idea of where you expect the U.S. program will be in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016?

SP:
2013: More teams competing (youth/junior/senior) in a variety of international competitions at home and abroad; Longer camps, broadly defined player pool; More athletes in Europe at higher levels; Progress in USA developmental programs producing international-caliber young athletes for competitions, international training opportunities; First USATH-funded Pan Am and/or World Championships competitions. Women finish Top 3 in Pan Am Championships to qualify for 2013 World Championships

2014: Continuation/expansion of 2013. Ramp up activities, camps, tours towards Pan Am Games Qualification matches (if necessary) in fourth quarter. Men finish Top 3 in Pan Am Championships to qualify for 2015 World Championships

2015: Continuation/expansion of all programs; Focused team preparation with narrowly defined potential player pool for July 2015 Pan Am Games (could include residential camp[s] and/or protracted tours in USA or Europe). Vast majority of our PAG athletes playing at highest level possible in Europe. Women finish Top 3 in Pan Am Championships to qualify for 2015 World Championships.

2016: Virtually every 2016 USA Handball Olympian competing in Europe with a self-sustaining contract (salary/job, housing). Full-time camp/residency in January, May-July, most likely in Europe.

JR: That’s a lot to get done in 6 years time. Is this perhaps more realistically a plan for 2020?

SP: The program is a basis for decades to come. It’s a change in mentality, a focus on youth development, a raising of the profile of the sport in the USA; not just a 2016 plan.

This concludes Part 1 of the interview. Part 2 will discuss USATH efforts to place players with European clubs and its Futures Program