The EHF Champions League has decided to dramatically alter its format next season by replacing home and away aggregate matches for the semifinals/final with a final four tournament. So which format it better? I’ll go over the pros and cons and try to answer that question. And just because I’m an American, I’ll propose another and better alternative.

[b]The Formats[/b]

[u]Home and Away Aggregate (H and A): [/u]This traditional format has the two teams playing two matches, one on each club’s home floor. The matches are typically a week apart and the winner advances based on the aggregate score for the two matches.

[u]Final Four (FF):[/u] Borrowed from the massively successful American NCAA tournament http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_four and later adopted by the basketball Euroleague this format is a simple knock out tournament played over one weekend at a neutral site. The semifinals will be played on Saturday with the winners squaring off in the finals on Sunday.

[u]Best of Seven playoff (B of 7):[/u] Over a span of two weeks two clubs play matches every 2 or 3 days until one team wins 4 matches. Teams alternate hosting matches with either a 2-2-1-1-1 or 2-3-2 split. This is, of course, my American alternative and the format that the NBA, NHL and MLB have used for years. I also realize that there are a whole host of reasons why this format can’t be implemented for the European Champions League. More to say on that later, but keep in mind this is a theoretical piece.

[b]Pros and Cons[/b]

1) Which of these formats is best for the local home town fans?

For this question I think it’s a pretty good assumption that this question boils down to which format is going to give me more games to see at my local arena?
[u]H and A:[/u] Local fans would get to see either 1 game (semifinalists) or 2 games (finalists) in their local arena.
[u]FF:[/u] Unless they happen to live near the host city they’re going to have to travel to the final four. And for some fans this will be too expensive. For other fans, they might not be able to get a ticket with a good seat.
[u]B of 7:[/u] Local fans would get to see at least 2 games and possibly 4 (semifinalists) in their local arena. Finalists would get at least 4 games and possibly 8 games.
[u]Assessment: [/u] Using the strictly numbers theory, B of 7 is clearly the best format followed by H and A. For local fans an FF is a disaster.

2) Which of these formats is best for the fans watching on TV?

For the hard core fan, this question again boils down to simply determining which format provides more matches. For those fans it’s a no brainer to want to see the top 4 teams playing each other as many times as possible. For less casual fans the answer to this question is a little more nuanced as the concept of seeing too much of a good thing may start to apply.
[u]H and A:[/u] Using this format for both the semifinals and finals would result in a total of 6 matches for the TV viewer. This traditional format will serve up compelling handball, but in my opinion is hampered somewhat by the 1 week layoff between each match.
[u]FF:[/u] As this is a knockout tournament it will simply involve 3 total matches for the TV viewer. Each of these 3 matches will be must see for hard core and casual fans. The only shame is that it will be all over so quickly.
[u]B of 7:[/u] If the semifinals and finals were to use this format there would be 3 best of 7 series for a minimum of 12 to a maximum of 21 games for the TV viewer. This format is a feast for hard core fans, but is it too much of a good thing for the casual fan? To answer this I will draw upon my own personal experience in following the NBA for 30+ years. In my younger years I was clearly a hard core fan who watched virtually every playoff game from beginning to end. As I’ve become a fan of other sports and family commitments have eaten away at my personal leisure time I’ve become much more casual in my NBA devotion. The NBA now uses the best of 7 format for all 16 teams that make the playoffs and there’s absolutely no way that anyone can watch so many matches. In the early rounds, I will definitely pick and choose what games I watch and even then I find myself fast forwarding to the 4th quarter fairly often. But as the teams are eliminated my interest picks up and I watch more and more. This year, the semifinals (Lakers-Nuggets and Magic-Cavaliers) were genuinely compelling. And the sequence of the matches with the two series playing on alternate nights for 12 straight nights creates a rhythm that is pretty hard to beat for the TV viewer. There’s certainly, no need to wait very long to see how a team will respond to a tough loss.
[u]Assessment:[/u] As is probably fairly obvious by my lengthy diatribe on the merits of watch a B of 7 on TV, I think it’s the best format for fans watching on TV. For hardcore fans there should be no debate whatsoever. And while there may be an overload concern for less casual fans, I think they would still be engaged with the B of 7 format for the last four teams. If it was done also for the round of 16 and quarterfinals, though, a strong case could be made that too many fans would lose interest.

3) Which of these formats is best for fans with the time and funds to travel to matches?

[u]Assessment: [/u] This category is a no-brainer victory for the FF format as it is the only format which will allow a fan willing to travel to make trip plans months in advance. This includes fans of the clubs involved, as well as, a handball fan who doesn’t even care if his club is in the tournament. In fact, if done right, the final four could become a destination event for a certain coterie of fans who simply make plans to attend it every year. I for one, could envision planning a trip to Europe to coincide with the final four, especially if it’s in a destination city. London’s O2 arena perhaps?

4) Which of these formats would provide the best arena atmosphere?

The FF format is again the clear winner here. It’s really hard to beat the party atmosphere that is created when 4 clubs and their followers descend on one venue for the semifinals.

5) How fair are these formats to the teams?

But who cares about the fans. Which format is the fairest in terms of not giving one side a clear advantage over the other.
[u]H and A:[/u] Perfectly symmetrical; this is the ultimate in fairness
[u]FF: [/u]At a final four, fairness will clearly depend on the teams and location. Clearly.
[u]B of 7:[/u] The club with home court advantage has the advantage, but over 7 games this advantage can be overcome by the better team.
[u]Assessment:[/u] This category clearly favors the H and A, with the only marginal advantage given to either side being the opportunity to host the 2nd game. B of 7 is also a pretty fair format with the most significant advantage being the opportunity to host a 7th and deciding game. A huge advantage, but one that is mitigated by playing 7 games. In a two game series one bad game can spell doom for a team, but over 7 games the better team more often than not is going to come out on top. A FF is only fair if the court is truly neutral. Unfortunately, this is often not the case and the German sides will have a clear advantage next year in Cologne. Additionally, it’s tough to bounce back from a bad game in a two game series, but in a knock out tournament it’s impossible to.

6) Which of these formats is the most profitable?

Well, the answer to this question depends somewhat on who’s asking the question and how the money is split up. Clearly individual clubs stand to make money by hosting matches at their arenas. The EHF also gets a slice of that money as well as TV rights fees. How all that money is split is not clear, but I will speculate on how they compare financially.
[u]H and A: [/u] This format would feature 6 games at to be determined arenas, some of which might be of modest size. I’m guessing that the host clubs keep the attendance receipts mostly for themselves as well.
[u]FF:[/u] While only 3 games will be played these matches can be staged at a large arena and probably for significantly inflated ticket prices. I’m also guessing the EHF folks ran the numbers and determined that more money could be made for the EHF otherwise they wouldn’t be doing it. I would guess that TV revenue will also increase for these must see games. It’s less clear, however, how profitable this format will be for the individual teams. Surely, they will get their slice, but I expect they will make less money overall.
[u]B of 7:[/u] If fully implemented this format would also be a cash cow for European Handball. Profits, of course, would depend on the arenas, but a major TV contract for these playoffs would likely eclipse the other two formats.
[u]Assessment: [/u]There are a lot of variables that factor into this answer. Those variables include arena size, ability to fill that arena and TV contracts

7) Which of these formats would provide the most drama?

This is a tough one to answer because I’ve seen pretty high drama with all 3 formats. Here’s the pros and cons:
[u]H and A:[/u] On the plus side the aggregate factor eliminates the possibility of a boring match in the first leg as both teams will play to the end with the knowledge that every goal counts. On the negative side, the 2nd match could be essentially over midway through the first half if one side has a big aggregate lead. Still it’s hard to beat the drama of a match going down to the wire in this format.
[u]FF:[/u] Win or go home always has the potential for drama. Additionally, the knockout format makes it more feasible for a weaker side to rise up get that 1 upset victory.
[u]B of 7:[/u] With a B of 7 format the drama question often depends on the matchup. If one team is overwhelmingly better few will sit through 4 blowout matches. But, if the teams are competitive than it’s pretty tough to beat the drama that can ensue. Each game builds upon the next. If one team is blown out or suffers an overtime loss everyone wants to see how they will respond the next game. Add a scuffle or two or some incendiary post game commentary by one of the coaches or players and the drama builds even more. Ciudad Real – Kiel played two great matches; instead of being tied 1-1 and moving on to game 3 it’s over just as it should be getting started.

[b]Overall[/b]
As a hard core fan, I’m going to vote in order of which format gives me the most games, so B of 7 is my clear winner, followed by H and A and FF. From a current marketing standpoint, though, I’m going to give the edge to the new Final Four format. It’s probably the right move at the right time for the EHF and it will undoubtedly give the sport a grand weekend and great exposure.

[b]A final conceptual argument: Could a B of 7 be done for Handball?[/b]

To start off let’s reverse this theoretically exercise (i.e., Ask the question for the NBA: Which format is best?) I think it would be virtually impossible to find anyone who would recommend an NBA Final Four or Home and Away aggregate. The concept of the NBA changing to either format is laughable. So if this format works for this very successful basketball league, can it work for European Handball?

The answer is no, but it has nothing to do with the sport Handball, itself. Handball is more physically demanding than basketball, but two top professional Handball clubs could play a B of 7 over 2.5 weeks. If it can be done for a contact sport like Ice Hockey, it can be done for Handball. Enough said on this topic.

The reason it can’t be done is simply that the current league structures/schedule in multiple countries won’t support the time required it would take to implement a playoff system. Or to put it more sarcastically, meaningless and all too often lop-sided regular season matches are preferred to compelling matches pitting the very best against each other. The only way such a playoff system could be implemented would be to ditch the national leagues in favor of a true European Super League. And with national interests involved it will be tough to change the current landscape any time soon. Although, I think I could make a strong case for it, I’ll save that for another commentary.

Well, the IHF election results are in and the IHF delegates have spoken with a resounding 115 – 25 vote in favor of keeping Dr. Moustafa around for another 4 years. It’s bewildering to me personally that such a mandate has been awarded to an individual with such a suspect record, but I can’t argue with the results. As Jim Rome says, “Scoreboard” [Definition: (interjection) ‘The final score negates your argument’ [used as a rebuttal to postgame complaints of bad luck, poor officiating, etc.]

I certainly have been asking myself, though, just who are these voters, anyway? Every delegate is surely unique, but I would assess that they can be grouped into 5 general categories:

• Group 1: Very uniformed as to what has taken place in the past 8 years and very amenable to direction from their continental peers who have provided their nation with assistance. (I would assess this group as fairly large and perhaps the largest bloc of nations. Seriously, does anyone think that the delegate from St Kitts and Nevis and other assorted small nations is well versed in handball affairs. It’s possible, but unlikely.)
• Group 2: Aware of Dr Moustafa’s corruption, but think that it’s minor and is outweighed by his good works (I would assess this group as fairly small because it’s a pretty big stretch for a sports federation president to actually rationale match fixing of an Olympic qualification as not a big deal. Most are also probably smart enough to realize that the heralded development of the sport is less than it should be and could have been accomplished by practically anyone.)
• Group 3: Aware of Dr Moustafa’s corruption, but willing to look the other way for personal, national and continental considerations (Perhaps the 2nd largest group in attendance. Around 40 delegates)
• Group 4: Aware of Dr Moustafa’s corruption because they are also corrupt and therefore totally on board (Hopefully, a very small grouping, but disturbingly probably larger than we would care for)
• Group 5: Aware of Dr Moustafa’s corruption and voted for change (Well, this total is pretty simple: It’s the 25 who voted for Kaiser)

So, if the election were to have been different, the votes could only have come from Group 1 or Group 3. For group 1 it’s the not so simple matter of changing the uniformed to the informed. Websites like Team Handball News can play a role in the education process and our website certainly has been getting a lot of visitors from all over the world lately. But while the USA was ready for a net roots revolution in 2008 for Barack Obama, the far flung handball outposts of the world were not ready in 2009. Additionally, one can not underestimate the impact of face to face contact in influencing voters. Such a campaign, however, takes money and incumbency, particularly with a subsidized travel budget, is tough to overcome.

Group 3 is a little more troubling. Ignorance is one thing, but knowing that something is wrong, and still choosing to do nothing about it? Let’s just say that history is full of examples of where that policy has ended up causing a lot more harm than good. Still this group is ripe for changing their minds four years from now if the right candidate steps forward. This year’s election results for the Chairmanship of the Playing Rules and Referees Commision (PRC) provides a clue as to how many voters were in this swing group. German Manfred Prause narrowly defeated Iranian Dawud Tawakoli. I’ve seen conflicting vote totals, but it was close, something like 70-65. It’s a pretty safe bet that Prause got every single one of the 25 Kaiser votes and then took swing votes from Group 3 to get a majority. Apparently Tawakoli’s involvement with the Asian Olympic Qualification controversy was clearly just a little too much for some voters to stomach as the new man responsible for referee assignments. This fact combined with Prause’s reputation resulted in a swing of about 40 votes when compared to the Presidential election.

So arguably a candidate with a strong reputation and one that is not seen as a total outsider could muster the “look the other way” crowd to his side next time around. But a lot of things could happen in four years and while Dr Moustafa might be emboldened by his election mandate he is also probably aware that he is also under more scrutiny. Certainly, it’s hard to imagine a move as shockingly corrupt as match fixing will ever be attempted again. And hey, I’m a reasonable guy, maybe I’ll be so impressed with new innovative world-wide development efforts and unprecedented openness and transparency that I’ll lead the cry for “four more years.”

Finally, in light of these results, do I still believe in the “Yes, we can” mantra? Well, keep in mind I never said that we could win the election, only that we could influence. I’d like to think that some portion of the 25 Kaiser voters were at least influenced by this site and/or some of the readers of this site who decided to take action on a national level. I’m also guessing that some portion of the 115 feel a little bit dirty and are annoyed that they could not make a compromised choice without criticism. But, I’ll have to acknowledge that this may just be wishful thinking on my part.

Anyway, I’ll be glad to moving on to other topics for a change. Coming up will be a commentary on the new final four Champions League format and a new national team strategy for the U.S. As always, stay tuned.

• Yes We Can!; Oui, Nous Pouvons!; Si, Se Puede! (Influence the outcome of the IHF Election) (Part 1): Link
• Yes We Can: Part 2: Link

As Jean Kaiser points out in his recent memo, the Handball disparity between Europe and the rest of the world is striking. Outside of the Korean women’s team and occasional flashes from the Korean, Tunisian and Egyptian men, this sport is undeniably European. Kaiser is certainly correct in his assessment that whatever is being done now in terms of development outside of Europe it’s clearly not working as well as it should.

But there’s not much that the rest of the world can do about it, Right? Well there actually is because once every four years the Handball minnows of the world, become regular size fish as the IHF Congress as each country gets one vote in the IHF election. It’s the one time in the Handball world that Ghana, El Salvador, and the Cook Islands stand on equal footing with Germany, France and Spain. The question of the day is whether these nations will seize that opportunity in Cairo, before they revert back to their minnow status after the vote.

Press accounts seem to indicate that these nations are oblivious to this opportunity and have assessed that Dr Moustafa has the three A’s (Asia, Africa, the America’s) solidly on his side. If this is indeed a solid block of nations then he will win the election. But perhaps there are cracks in this alliance?

The Asian Olympic Qualification scandal clearly exposed the split between Eastern and Western Asia and notably Bahrain even voiced displeasure with their Kuwaiti neighbors https://teamhandballnews.com/comment-n448.html which are closely aligned with Moustafa. In Africa, rifts between Arab and sub-Saharan nations have always been below the surface as Arab nations have dominated the Men’s competitions. In the America’s, the northern nations, USA, Canada and Greenland have frequently been slighted by the Latin south and those nation’s voters have plenty of reasons to cast their vote for a new administration. Less clear is what the nations in Central America and the Caribbean will decide as their programs are sometimes caught in the middle between North and South.

Another bloc of nations to consider is the Commonwealth Handball Association (CHA). This group of former UK colonies has been underserved for many years by the IHF and if the English speaking nations ever decided to vote as a bloc they could probably sway the election in either direction. http://teamhandball.blogspot.com/2005/07/time-for-anglophone-alliance.html

Finally, the dynamics of an election with only 159 total votes means that it only takes a relatively small number of voters switching sides to change the outcome. As an example, a current Moustafa lead of 90 to 69 would only require 11 voters jumping ship to give Kaiser an 80-79 victory. As hard as it may seem to believe in this wired age of the 21st century, a good portion of the voters in Cairo are likely oblivious to many of the current administration’s transgressions. And what they may have heard could be one sided and not tell the full story. Jean Kaiser will be on the ground and campaigning for votes. If he has an opportunity to speak with delegates prior to the election he has a chance to swing votes or at the very least get some delegates asking questions. And perhaps other like minded delegates will join in the campaigning as well especially when a colleague asks, “What exactly happened with Asian Olympic Qualification?” Rest assured the more debate and discussion that takes place in the margins of the hotel in Cairo before the vote, the more likely it is that votes will be swayed. Will it be enough? Stay tuned.

Well, I ran a contest https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.754 in hopes of getting someone (anyone) to speak out for Dr Moustafa. As you might expect there were no takers. I’m guessing that $20 was not enough enticement for anyone to step forward for Dr Moustafa, either out of conviction or for the quick $20. Well, if I can’t get somebody to concoct some reasons I guess I’ll have to do it myself. Of course, I’ll need to point – counterpoint this debate appropriately.

[b]POINT: Dr Moustafa should be re-elected as IHF President[/b]

First off, a non-European is clearly needed to counterbalance the strong European influence handball has in International circles. Putting a European in charge of the IHF could lead to an EHF/IHF alliance that overly promotes European interests. It’s no secret that a majority of the top handball nations in the world are European and that the EHF and IHF have been frequently at odds due to competing interests. This could abruptly change very quickly with a European in charge of the IHF now doing the bidding of the Europeans. Here’s a few things that could very well happen.

The World Championships could change from a once every two year event to a once every four year event. The EHF has indeed proposed this under the guise that there are too many games being played by the top athletes each season, especially in Olympic years. Of course, at the same time the EHF has no plans to cut the European Championship to a once every four year event and on top of that they’ve added a lengthy European Championship Qualification schedule. Less frequent World Championships would not be a blow for the Europeans, but it would be a major blow for nations outside of Europe as the World Championships and the Olympics are their only significant Handball events. A European IHF President might very well strike a deal for his European colleagues.

The President’s Cup could be discontinued from WC events. This consolation tournament for nations that do not advance to the main round at World Championship events has given the non-European teams a chance to play additional games against like competition. This event, however, loses money and does not attract crowds. A European IHF President might decide to cut this event as a way to save money.

In general, just about every decision could be made with European interests at stake. It’s hard to assess everywhere this will have an impact, but rest assured the rest of the world will get the short end of the stick.

Perhaps even more import to consider, though is the unprecedented growth of Handball under Dr Moustafa’s leadership. Handball was the most watched team sport at the Beijing Olympics. The Men’s World Championships in Croatia and Germany had sold out crowds and brought in significant income for the IHF. Visits to the IHF website are increasing by leaps and bounds. This strong momentum must be continued.

[b]COUNTER POINT[/b]

Well, let’s address the European issue first. There’s some legitimacy to the basic premise: namely, that an IHF President is going to have a tendency to favor their continent and their country. This is a probably true no matter where the President comes from. It certainly would be hard not to argue that Dr Moustafa has had a tendency to favor African and Arab countries during his administration. With a European President, however, this home continent concern is also exacerbated by the dominance of Europe in all things Handball. An IHF President in total lockstep with the EHF would undoubtedly have negative repercussions for the rest of the world.

There are a couple of arguments, however, that should mitigate those concerns.

1) Jean Kaiser is from Luxembourg. A little geography lesson may be in order. Luxembourg is a small country with a bit of an independent streak. Because of its small size they are not a Handball power and it’s unlikely that they will ever be one. Handball is popular there, but the concern one might have with a German or Spanish President doesn’t apply. In fact, a Luxembourg Handballer might be more likely to empathize with other small Handball nations in other parts of the world. As far as the independent streak goes, Luxembourg may be a small country, but they don’t like to be pushed around. In the past, their larger neighbors have from time to time tried to push them around, but generally they’ve been unsuccessful.

2) In my opinion, Europeans for many years have been way too short-sighted in understanding the need to develop the sport of Handball world-wide. Recent efforts by the EHF, German Bundesliga and French LNH, however, are proof that they’ve recognized the need to further market their sport beyond Europe. Of course, this isn’t being done for altruistic purposes, but instead for financial gain. Regardless of why it’s being done, though, non-Europeans don’t have to worry about a European trying to keep their European hegemony intact. In fact, the Europeans with financial interests won’t stand for it!

3) Perhaps most surprisingly, some European nations even want to keep Dr Moustafa around as they think they can cut deals with him in order to serve their best interests. Yes, some of the European nations actually fear a truly independent IHF president.

The second argument which touts Handball’s growth under Dr Moustafa’s leadership is farcical. In one sense, it’s like taking credit for the sun coming up every day in the East. Handball is a great sport with tremendous growth potential. It’s going to increase in popularity regardless of whose President. It also doesn’t take a financial genius to figure out that putting the Men’s World Championships in Germany and to a lesser extent, Croatia is going to result in a huge dividend. What’s troubling, though, is the question as to whether those dividends are now being used to develop the sport or to buy support for an IHF election. Furthermore, I would argue that with better leadership and vision the sports growth would have been much greater. And we should keep in mind that other sports, in particular basketball, have experienced far greater growth in recent years. My goodness, more people now play basketball than handball in Iceland of all places. https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.499 If that shouldn’t worry people about where the sport is headed I don’t know what will. And don’t even get me started about the IHF’s pathetic website. You’ve got the number one world-wide address for the sport and this is all the IHF can muster?

Finally, though, I would like to finish with some sincere words on one accomplishment directly attributable to Dr Moustafa. The President’s Cup tournament at the World Championship is a great event for the non-European nations and my understanding is that Dr Moustafa deserves the bulk of the credit for its creation and has had to fight off European interests that think it is a waste of resources that should be discontinued. So credit, where credit is due: Job well done on establishing this tournament. Of course, this one good initiative can’t make up for everything else, but at least it can now be said that even I can find something positive to say about the current President.