Category Archives: Christer Ahl commentary

post

Handball vs. football: part 1 – which Barcelona was more exciting?

Posted on by

Double Champions

The coincidence last weekend of the Champions League final in football/soccer and the Final Four in handball offered the opportunity for some interesting comparisons.  So does the nasty action surrounding the FIFA Congress earlier this week, following soon after the IHF Congress which also had its controversies.  For me personally, it is natural to make these comparisons, because there is 25 years of football refereeing in my background, and I keep following at least a couple of games per week on TV during the European season.   I will start today with the more pleasant side, the games.

John Ryan and I commented a bit on the Final Four in a podcast some days ago.  The match-ups were intriguing, given the strong German-Spanish rivalry in recent years.   Both semi-finals were very tense and tough battles, and the rivalry is likely to have had something to do with that.  Even if both matches were more or less decided some time before the final whistle, they were really hard-fought.  But they also offered a lot of spectacular technical and tactical moves.   There were some great goals scored, but the performances of the goalkeepers were perhaps even more special. 

Then perhaps the fact that the final was played in Germany between two Spanish teams, who know each other so well and are the two totally outstanding teams in their league, made for an atmosphere that contained less drama.   But going back to the two semi-finals, what really stands out are the pace and the constant action.  There was really never a dull moment, and there were plenty of exciting one-on-one situations.   But the nature of handball also contributes:  fast and furious attacking on one side and then, without time to catch one’s breathe, something equally dramatic on the other side.  Handball really is, literally speaking, goal-oriented.

Clearly there were also many reasons to admire the skills displayed, especially by the Barcelona team, in the football final.  Media headlines spoke of ‘the best final ever’ or ‘the best team ever’ and the losing coach stated that his team had never before been so outclassed.  But then it should be emphasized that the style that made Barcelona so dominant was one of ball control.  When the score was 0-0 and 1-1 early in the game, it was noted that Barcelona had had the ball more than 70% of the time and that they had delivered more than twice as many successful passes as the opponents.  Impressive, yes, but exciting or dramatic, no!  What made the game exciting were instead some of the goals scored, as they showed touches of absolute brilliance.   But those are still brief moments in a 90-minute game.

Of course I will now be accused of speaking too much like an American, who supposedly cannot see anything exciting in aspects other than the goals scored (although I would argue that there exists a slow and boring super-American game that is popular despite its infrequent scoring;  no, I will not mention its name…).  And yes, someone has labeled football ‘the chess of the green field’, which suggests that there are a lot of moves that deserve to be watched and admired without having anything to do with goal-scoring.  Nevertheless, not even a Barcelona team can keep your attention as constantly and intensively in football, as they or one of their rivals can easily do in handball.

So what is then the point I am trying to make?  Well, I know that I can never expect to convert a true football fan into thinking that handball is more exciting, just as the opposite also holds true.  But from an American standpoint, where I am pleasantly surprised to see how huge football is at the youth level and how nicely the Major League Soccer is thriving, it should really carry a message.  If Americans can become so interested in football, how is it then that a sport that seems so much more suited for American tastes and preferences is finding it so difficult to penetrate and become established?  And what can we do to make sure that handball, with its intensity, constant action and goal-scoring, becomes the real ‘eye-opener’ that it deserves to be??

post

Is ’50-50′ refereeing not what we want??

Posted on by

I have touched on this topic in some other context in the past, but the Gislason embarrassment (which I wrote about last week) causes me to bring it up again.  After a game where Kiel played unbelievably poorly and also were let down by their normally great goalkeeper Omeyer, coach Gislason had the nerve to wonder in public if the EHF had ordered the referees to keep Kiel out of the Final Four.  Amazingly, three weeks later there has been no EHF announcement of action taken in response to Gislason’s accusation of fraudulent behavior on the part of the EHF, with the complicity of the referees.

But it appears that a major cause for the anger was that the referees had the audacity to be neutral!  They did not follow the example of most referees in ‘home and away’ competition under the jurisdiction of the EHF, i.e., favoring the home team in a ’60-40′ fashion or something in that direction.  This past season I have watched around 75 games in the Champions League or in the other EHF Club competitions, live or on a delay basis, using the EHF-TV web casts.  So when I say that 60-40 is common and that the home team can count on at least 55-45, then I do have a basis for this statement. 

Having spent a long career in the IHF, where most events take place in one country and are decided through individual matches, I have always pondered the contrast with the many EHF events that are based on the ‘home and away’ system.   Most of the top EHF games are handled by referees who are also used in IHF events.  Yet, there is this blatant difference between refereeing that is reasonably close to 50-50 in neutral locations and refereeing that consistently tends to be 55-45 or 60-40 in favor of the home team in ‘home and away’ games.  This difference was clear when I attended the Men’s World Championship in Sweden and also saw many games from the Women’s European Championship on the internet. 

Over the years I have had many opportunities to discuss this issue with experts, including coaches, former top referees and psychologists.  We know that there are other advantages that come from being a home team:  no need for tiring travel, playing in a familiar and comfortable setting, and having the support of a sometimes fanatic home crowd.  But is it really unavoidable that a ‘refereeing bonus’ should come on top of these other, legitimate advantages?

Is the pressure so enormous in these games?  Are the referees genuinely striving very hard to offer 50-50 but fall victims to a subconscious, unintended bias that comes from the crowd pressure etc?   Is it related to the fact that the group of EHF referees that has the experience, competence and confidence to resist pressures and handle very difficult assignments is in fact quite small, smaller than what the EHF really would need for its vast competition activities?  Partly this may help explain the problem, but also the recognized top referees have problems of this kind.

Recently I wrote about the suspicion that referees knowingly try to ‘take the easy way out‘ in some game situations where they feel they can get away with this approach because chances are slim that they will be caught.  This concerned giving incorrect 7-meters when a defender is in fact standing outside the 6-meter line, not inside, when being run into by an attacker.  It also involved the temptation of allowing a goal scored after a foul that caused a player to touch the floor in the goal area before releasing the ball.  Here the correct solution would be a 7-meter, but too often a goal is given. 

Could it be that the same tendency, in a broader sense, exists in the handling of home/away games??  Is there a view that 55-45 or 60-40 is not just good ‘self-protection’ but also fully acceptable, because in the two games it comes out even?  I hope I am wrong in implying that referees may be so calculating, but I am beginning to fear that I am far too often justified in this belief.

The problem becomes acute when there are referees who are determined and able to stick to 50-50 also in ‘home and away’ games.  I know that clubs and national teams in Europe know exactly which referees they love to have when they play a difficult away game.  And by the same token, these are the referees whom they might prefer not to have at home.  My understanding is that the EHF, to some extent, try to assign referees in such a way that, for a given match-up, both matches are handled by ’50-50 couples’ or both matches are handled by referees who might be technically competent but are known to have a 55-45 or 60-40 tendency. 

Unfortunately, if the reader innocently wonders why we do not then insist that all referees stick to 50-50 so that we get consistency, I fear the answer is that this would not be realistic.  As I noted above, the number of EHF games is so huge and requires so many referees that there is little hope to get to a situation where one could rely exclusively on referees who are strong enough to live up to such an expectation.   But at least it might be a step in the right direction if the demands on the referees and, perhaps above all, the evaluation and follow-up of the referees were to be strengthened in this respect.

In the meantime, while the upcoming ‘Final Four’ may not offer an entirely neutral setting for German-Spanish match-ups, it is at least not a ‘home-away’ format.  So let us hope that the referees come with a determination to keep all the games under control and with a ’50-50′ objective.  In this regard, I am really pleased to see that Gjeding/Hansen, the solid Danish referees who were affected by the Gislason outrage, were promptly given a nomination for a game in the Final Four.   Good luck to all the couples!

post

Contrasting approaches

Posted on by

By coincidence, rather different ways of viewing similar problems have come up in the last couple of days.  One of the issues involved is the dilemma of ‘focus on national teams vs. supremacy of the club handball’.

This was highlighted when Heiner Brand gave a press conference in Germany apropos his switch from many years as the coach of the men’s national team to a multi-faceted position in the German Federation.  Here he will focus on the education of younger talents, coordination with regional federations, education for coaches, and coordination with research institutions among other things.  But in his statement, a noticeably frustrated Brand could not refrain from lashing out against many of the stakeholders in German handball, especially on the club side.

Brand described top clubs as business entities located in Germany but with little interest in the development of German handball (players).  He talked about Bundesliga representatives as naïve or ignorant, and he characterized the association of top European clubs as dangerous.  He repeated his insistence on a quota approach, i.e., a requirement for a certain number of German players on each Bundesliga club.  While he will need to bring people together and try to pull in the same direction when in his new job, his statements clearly seemed more polarizing than aimed at reconciling views.

On the same day in Sweden, the federation president, Hans Vestberg (known also as the top man at global giant Ericsson), proudly introduced a new approach with a very different mindset.  The Swedish Federation talked about making the men’s and women’s handball teams the most popular national teams in Sweden.  To that end, they have set up a new structure, with a business company, parallel to (but coordinated with) the Federation structure, which will coordinate the team development but also focus very strongly on the business, PR and marketing aspects. 

Not just have the 2+2 coaches of the national teams been made full-time employees, freed up from club duties, but a ‘managing director’ has been hired to oversee both the sports and the business side.  He is none other than Stefan Lovgren, one of the globally best known and respected ex-players of recent decades.  And there is most definitely no tension between the national team focus and the interest of the top clubs in the Swedish league.  If anything, the top clubs expect to benefit greatly from this strengthened focus on the national teams.

As I wrote in a recent article, the top clubs hope to become more competitive at the European level, both as a league and in terms of success for the individual clubs.  They hope to be stronger in their aspirations by following the same business-oriented approach now introduced in the spirit of Hans Vestberg and Stefan Lovgren.  And the team coaches, Ola Lindgren and Staffan Olsson, do not find reason to complain that the Swedish League, with a standard currently far from comparable to Bundesliga, is constituting an inadequate development basis for the new generation of young Swedish talents.

Finally, apropos contrasting approaches, I want to congratulate Zamalek (Egypt), Pinheiros (Brazil) and Southern Stars (Australia) for representing their countries and continents so honorably in the IHF Super Globe event that just finished.  They were third, fourth and fifth behind Kiel and Ciudad Real in the fair and serious part of the competition.  If this does not match the ranking that you have seen, this is because I count Valladolid, Veszprem and Yugoslavia All Stars separately, in their thinly disguised attempt to masquerade as representatives of Asian clubs.

post

Did the EHF order the referees to keep Kiel out of the Final Four??

Posted on by

Natural to react during the game, but not to bring accusations afterwards

Well, of course not!  In a certain other continent, this would not have been so surprising, if one thinks back to the scandal involving the qualifications for the 2008 Olympics, but surely not in Europe.   So when Kiel’s coach Alfred Gislason openly expressed this accusation to the media following the Kiel-Barcelona quarterfinal on May 1, the issue is not really whether his accusation had merit but why on earth is the EHF dealing with it in such a slow and bureaucratic manner!?

I know from experience that international and continental sports federations tend to be very formal and meticulous in dealing with disciplinary matters, and their regulations and procedures are often not set up to deal with urgent matters very swiftly.  And generally speaking, I have full respect for the concept of ‘due process’.  But here we are dealing with a matter that is both absolutely clear-cut and extremely serious.  There can be no doubt or dispute about what Gislason said.  And there can be no disagreement about how potentially damaging and completely unacceptable his action was.

Coaches are entitled to be frustrated after a key defeat and to have whatever opinions they want.  Up to a point, one can even tolerate some criticism of referees in public.  But there must be no tolerance for public statements that amount to asserting a complete lack of integrity on the part of the EHF, a pair of referees who deservedly enjoy a high reputation, and our sport as a whole!  For such extreme cases, special procedures must exist under which swift and serious punishment can be meted out.  Such a case just cannot be allowed to drag on!  

It is simply not good enough that the EHF after about ten days announced that “it has filed a claim with its Arbitration Tribunal”, and that after one more week there is no result and punishment.  In the meantime, Gislason is coaching Kiel in an IHF event, where he and his team are official representatives of Europe and the EHF!!  By comparison, in the context of NBA, NHL or the NFL, a decision and a suspension with immediate effect would have been in place within 24 hours.  The EHF, with its extensive competition activities and frequent matches, must ensure that an ’emergency procedure’ exists.  (And by the way, this kind of case illustrates why it is a bit awkward that the lowest level disciplinary body is labeled ‘Arbitration Tribunal’…).

I could stop there, because this is really the essence of the matter.  But it does cause me to comment on a couple of other aspects.

First, it has been rather interesting to read some of the comments in the German media.  Here one can find unbiased reports which recognize that Kiel played an unusually weak game against Barcelona, also when taking into account injury issues and other shortcomings of the line-up.  And it was also very clear that Omeyer had an extremely poor game, not just by his high standards but by any comparison.  Writers commented that Gislason, apparently like on several other occasions, had shown too much deference to his star goalie, not having the courage to take him out much earlier.  So it seems that it requires much less courage to blame it all on the referees and the EHF…

Second, there is one aspect of Gislason’s statement that may not have been given enough attention in media.  It may have its specific advantages to have a German-Spanish rivalry in the EHF club events, but it is rather doubtful that this is healthy and stimulating for the longer-term development.  Surely, the currently utopian idea of having eight countries from different parts of Europe represented in the quarter-finals would create even more widespread enthusiasm.  Football has a bit of an advantage in this respect, although admittedly precisely this year’s Europa League final causes similar grumbling.  Of course, the existing situation reflects a reality that nobody could quickly or easily change.  So one can only hope that economic circumstances will permit other leagues, or at least individual clubs, to increase their efforts to become more fully competitive.

post

After the IHF Congress: time to plan ahead, not to celebrate

Posted on by

Is IHF President Moustafa really polishing diamonds?

It might feel like the moment to celebrate, when the IHF President failed to gain approval for his attempt to legalize the autocracy he is so desperately seeking.  But I hope there will be reason to celebrate after the election Congress in 2013.  In the meantime, I simply want to thank those Congress delegates who realized how dangerous and inappropriate most of the By Law proposals were, and then had the good judgment and courage to vote against them.

The President, who undoubtedly had expected to be able to celebrate at this point, instead mumbled about “IHF still being in the middle of the road and having a long way to go”, a rather amazing statement from someone so supremely confident in his own views and methods”.  The IHF web site had previously reported his comments at the opening of the Congress: “handball is like a diamond, we only need to polish it to turn it into a brilliant”.  Well, he is in fact right in comparing our sport with a diamond, but regrettably he understands as little about doing the right things with handball as he appears to know about diamonds!

Turning a diamond into a brilliant is a long and difficult process that requires a true expert.  The process of blocking and faceting the stone can be compared with the need for setting goals and strategies for developing and managing world handball, something that the President has sadly failed to understand.  Instead we are running the risk that with his lack of skills he will be chopping the diamond into small pieces while taking his own cut.  And the marketing and selling of the jewel is also something best left for a real and honest expert.  After all, we are not dealing with cheap jewelry in a bazaar.

I have talked with several people who attended the Congress, and the chaos they describe actually makes it sound more like a bazaar.  The President, in his efforts to prioritize personal loyalty, is no longer surrounded by senior IHF employees and other persons who have the competence to manage a Congress, to run a Federation and, for example, to handle a complex document such as the By-Laws.  So the question is how long this state of affairs will be allowed to continue.  For how long will a well-paid and scared group of loyalists be able to resist the pressures of the decent and serious members of the handball family who are beginning to realize that it has gone too far, down the wrong road!?

It is not enough to protest and resist.  As has been seen on the political scene in a number of countries in recent months, it is important that better suited leaders are prepared to step forward, ready to take on important responsibilities and able to lead strongly in a better direction.  Two years, until the next election Congress, may seem like a long time.  But the moment to begin the planning and collaborating is now!

And it is equally important to ensure that the ways of the President are carefully scrutinized in the meantime.  The tendency to act as if the inappropriate By-Laws were already in place had clearly been noticed.  And it is difficult to believe that these tendencies will disappear unless they are checked and stopped.  But by whom!?  Well, most of the income of the IHF is generated, directly or indirectly, by a relatively limited number of countries, federations, leagues, clubs and players, who surely do not want the results of their efforts and talents squandered, instead of being put to use for global handball development in a systematic, efficient and fair manner.

P.S.  If you wonder about the choice of image above this article:  well, apart from the link to diamonds, it is all a question of percentages.   Like getting a sufficient share of the votes to defeat By-Law proposals and getting enough to win an election; but it is also a question of where does the revenue go:  to genuine development efforts, to effective promotion of handball, or into compensation for a select group of officials!?

post

The IHF Super Globe is fine as an all star event, but not as a serious competition

Posted on by

The IHF Super Globe is anything but "Super"

Once again the IHF is staging the Super Globe in Qatar this weekend.  It purports to be a club championship of the continents, but with most of the world’s best players playing in Europe it’s more of an all star event, especially with the other continents hiring additional Euros to beef up their rosters.

Christer Ahl had a commentary last year that pretty much covers it.  As not much has changed, here it is again:

http://teamhandballnews.com/2010/05/the-ihf-super-globefine-as-an-all-star-event-but-not-as-a-serious-competition/

post

IHF Congress rejected President’s attempt to legalize autocracy

Posted on by

Proposed autocratic by-laws are rejected by the IHF Congress

 

A few days ago, I attempted to provoke by asking if the Congress participants would turn out to be ‘yes men’, ready to accept the shenanigans of the President, or if there would be enough people ready to stand up and resist.  I am now pleased to report that my expectations were too pessimistic.  There were enough delegates with good judgment and courage, so the proposals for By-Law changes were essentially rejected on those points were the effect would have been to centralize more power with the IHF at the expense of all other stakeholders and/or to give the President more personal power and authority.  These anti-democratic efforts were stopped.  As I had strongly emphasized on several occasions over the past year, this was a crucial issue for the well-being and the further development of our sport, so I must confess that I feel a good deal of personal satisfaction.

I will not get into a lot of detail, now that the proposals have been defeated.  But it is worth noting that the regulations that would have removed rights and instead placed constraints or requirements on continental/national federations, clubs/players, referees/coaches/officials and other stakeholder were dismissed.  Similarly, the Congress rejected the proposal to give the President a number of specfic new prerogatives (‘having political resonsibility for the Head Office, sole responsibility for implementation decisions taken by the Congress, Council and Executive Committee, controlling all financial transactions, handling the relations between all IHF stakeholders etc etc.).

While it is a relief that there are, after all, enough representatives from among our global handball family who are beginning to realize that the President’s inclinations and methods are simply going too far, this does not mean that one can now begin to relax.  On the contrary, this must be seen as just the first step in a broader and stronger effort to get the IHF back on the right track again, in a sound and democratic spirit, for the sake of the optimal development and success of handball.  I will come back to this theme in a separate article next week.

post

IHF Congress: concerns about voting manipulation

Posted on by

Reports from the IHF Congress in Cairo suggest that the IHF President is finding it surprisingly difficult to obtain the 2/3 majority that he needs to get his By-Laws proposals approved.  And, by some strange coincidence (?), at the same time the voting machinery is ‘malfunctioning’ and causing disputes!  Two years ago, at the Election Congress in Cairo, the IHF President insisted on the utilization of electronic voting, instead of secret voting through paper ballots.  With some hesitation on the part of the Congress participants, this was agreed, and this is now supposed to be the standard procedure.

But in the middle of today’s tense voting process, it appears that the electronic voting system did not function properly.  Much to everyone’s amazement, the IHF President then asked the participants to agree to open voting.  Why the simple method of secret voting with paper ballots could not be arranged was apparently not explained.  But the Congress participants refused to accept the suggestion of non-confidential voting.  So the President had to agree to try to get the electronic voting to function again.  But now it is being reported that it was then discovered that the electronic voting was monitored in such a way, that the President could observe the voting of each participant!  Of course this caused a major uproar.

At the moment when this is being written, it is not yet clear how the problems will be resolved and if/how the voting will continue.  There is now a suspicion on the part of some Congress participants, that the IHF regime may quickly try to fly in some additional participants who have not yet been present at the Congress, all with the intention to obtain some crucial additional votes.  Some people are also thinking back to the 2009 Congress in Cairo.  In retrospect, is there now reason to wonder if the voting took place in a proper fashion at this time?   And more generally, it boosts the suspicions as to why the President wants to organize criticial Congresses in locations where he might be in a position to ‘control the environment’ (short of preventing last week’s bombing in Marrakech)!   IHF:  such a wonderful ‘democracy’…!

post

Are they all ‘yes men’ or do some IHF/EHF members have a bit of courage?

Posted on by

There are different ways of showing courage or a lack thereof.  There is nothing funny about terrorist actions that leave more than a dozen people dead, as happened just a few days ago in Marrakech, the site of the IHF Congress that is about to open.  The attack was aimed at foreign visitors.  Clearly this raises questions about the wisdom of going ahead with such a high-visibility event as an international congress, attended by several hundred people from around the world.  No wonder that the IHF President quickly seemed eager to downplay the risks in public statements, instead emphasizing the determination of the Moroccan government, from the King down, to keep this a safe event.

That some member nations nevertheless announced their attention to cancel their participation is not what I suggest to be a lack of courage.  This may indeed be a very prudent decision, in the face of the IHF insistence to go ahead and ignore the risks.  It may have come too late, but the formal motion from Germany to adjourn the Congress and move it to the IHF Headquarters location of Basel at a slightly later date is absolutely reasonable.  So it might be more an indication of a lack of courage that not a sizeable number of Congress participants joined forces with the Germans and demanded that safety must be the top priority.

But, as I have noted in the context of seemingly quiet acceptance of inappropriate proposals and actions by the IHF in recent years, courage in terms of standing up for important principles and common sense is hard to find in global handball circles.  One conspicuous example, as I noted just a few days ago, is the EHF’s tactical decision to go along with the IHF regime’s proposed changes in the By-Laws.  These changes were deemed totally unacceptable to the EHF just one year ago, but suddenly there is absolutely no fighting spirit left.  The EHF points to one genuinely relevant concession that the IHF has made, namely regarding the rights to qualification events for World Championships and Olympic Games. 

But beyond that, the EHF is really not credible in trying to point to additional reasons.  The fact that the ‘EHF’ will not be obliged to change to ‘EHC’ when the IHF now insists on taking about continental CONFederations in the future is really impressive…  Bravo!  Congratulations, EHF to that great accomplishment!!  But even worse is the nonsense that it no longer should be so dangerous to allow the President to take a lot of vital decisions on his own between Executive meetings and between Council meetings…   How naïve can one be!?   It now says that the Executive or the Council must ratify such decisions retroactively.   But when we know that Council members are (almost literally) eating out of the hands of the President and that the Executive is so nicely loyal, what exactly does ‘ratify’ mean?  I think ‘rubberstamp’ would be the better word.  And who, other than the President, will even know about the decisions that should be submitted for rubberstamping?

So at least I see some courage, or at least a hint of ‘doing one’s duty’, when I see that 13 European federations have written to the EHF demanding a better explanation.  Perhaps I find it too politely worded and not forceful enough in its tone.  But at least it picks up on the right issues and it does amount to an attempt to ensure that a debate will be forthcoming.  I am not optimistic about the effect, even though I hope others will join in, but at least it shows that there are some supporters of global handball who are willing to follow through on their convictions.  Thank you for that!

post

Uprisings and protests ‘everywhere’ else, but not in the IHF

Posted on by

Following my article a few days ago about the serious problems in the proposed IHF By-Laws, which are being placed in front of the IHF Congress delegates this coming week, I have received several questions along the lines:  but how can it be that such terrible proposals seem likely to be accepted by the Congress?  And similarly, how can it be that there is an increasingly lack of patience and acceptance for the Mubaraks of this world, and yet someone acting in the same autocratic and outdated manner continues to be tolerated as a head of an international federation?

There are several explanations, mostly variations on the same theme:  it is possible for an organization to be democratic on paper but autocratic in reality.  Especially, if a large proportion of those who are entitled to vote are far removed from the inner circles and systematically kept uninformed about how the organization is managed and what it is NOT achieving.  Those voters can then be made to think that there is no need for change!

It has to be recognized that, outside Europe, handball is largely a new and rather unknown sport, being developed locally by people who have limited understanding for the history and the potential of handball, and also generally have a modest understanding of sports politics and international affairs.  Only about a dozen of the more than 110 non-European member federations could be seen as strong and well-developed by global standards.  Their representatives do not know more about the IHF rulers than they see in very limited media reports or by attending IHF congresses.  Moreover, as they have their travel to the Congress paid or subsidized by the IHF, this also encourages a sense of loyalty or obligation.

It would not have to be like this.  The IHF has continental federations, which are potentially in a position to have a very positive influence on their respective member countries.  But instead of educating and integrating their voting members, ensuring an unbiased understanding  of the issues that are being voted on, these continental entities and their elected bosses tend to act just as autocratically as the IHF regime, controlling and further isolating the individual members.  They have enough clout to be able to direct the votes of huge blocks of votes from their continents, on the basis of the false assumption that they act in everyone’s best interest.

But the problem is that often these continental ‘middle men’ are acting or directing more on the basis of their personal interests than for the benefit of the individual member countries.  While part of this tendency could be ascribed to human nature, it is exacerbated by the need for these continental bosses to stay on the good side of the IHF regime.  Their positions are very well remunerated, in fact quite excessively so, and there many advantages inherent in remaining appointed to these positions, such as comfortable attendance at major events, a modest workload and quite a bit of prestige.  In short, they cannot really ‘afford’ to lose their positions, so they are under considerable pressure to bring in the votes.

It is also worth pointing out that the continent of Europe is not without blame in this discussion.  A few days ago, I mentioned about the ‘realistic’ but very cynical decision of the European Handball Federation to refrain from opposing By-Law proposals which they fully recognize are very bad for the world of handball.  Similarly, some of the stronger member nations in Europe, whose traditions and knowledge of international handball easily enable them to distinguish between right and wrong, meekly stay on the side line, or even support the IHF regime, for selfish reasons or for fear of retribution.

In summary, it should not be surprising that conspicuously bad proposals can find support, even if they require the votes of a majority among some 160 countries.

post

IHF By-Law proposals based on autocracy and ‘top down’ approach being pushed through

Posted on by

About a year ago, I wrote several articles taking issue with the overall trend and many specific provisions in the IHF By-Law proposals that had been developed for approval at a Congress that in the end had to be cancelled due to the ash cloud that the ‘Viking Gods’ spread over much of Europe.  When the IHF is now making a second attempt in Morocco next week, it is disturbing to see that neither the IHF regime, nor those who opposed the proposals a year ago, have seen fit to cause some of the most obvious improvements to be made.

Last year, there was a major battle between the IHF and EHF over both principles and details.   Representatives of many member countries chimed in.  There was some sense that perhaps the IHF would back off.  But at this time it is clear that, after one specific concession regarding the rights to qualification events for World Championships and Olympic games, the EHF has indicated a readiness to ‘swallow’ the rest without a fight.  I am prepared to conclude that this must be a tactical move, where the EHF recognizes the reality that they do not have the votes in the IHF Congress or the IHF Council and cannot do much more to influence other voters.  In those circumstances, a continued battle might have negative repercussions.

This turnaround has caused an angry mood in a number of national federations in Europe, but there is not likely to be sufficient momentum for successful action.  Moreover, the reality is that in many other federations voting at the Congress, there is very limited information about the relevant issues.  So personally, I am also inclined to be pessimistic at this stage, but I will nevertheless provide below an overview of the major concerns with the IHF proposals.  In doing so, I will focus more on principles and trends than on details.

But first I want to note the problem that the IHF has jumped into a focus on By-Laws, which is essentially a set of regulations regarding structure, decision-making processes and distribution of power, without bothering to focus on what appropriately should first be done.  During my 32 years in the IHF, I kept wishing that there would emerge a widespread realization that an organization like the IHF desperately needs to have strong and clear goals and objectives, from which flow the strategies and methods by which the IHF would then pursue its goals.  (Of course, such goals and strategies would thereafter be reviewed and updated on a regular basis). But such an exercise has never taken place.  And it is indeed inappropriate to undertake a major effort to revise structures and processes in a vacuum, without knowing clearly what goals and strategies they are supposed to support.

One illustration of this problem is that the IHF’s main group of working-level entities, the Commissions, has essentially been left untouched in the By-Law Proposals.  Here it is proposed that the ‘one size fits all’ approach will be maintained, despite the major differences in functions and tasks.  Some have minor ‘backroom’ functions, while others have major operational responsibilities and even personnel management functions which are fundamental to IHF events.  But their roles and their size/staffing have not even been considered, in part because of the missing focus on tangible objectives and strategies.

Instead, the main focus of the proposed changes is on a totally outdated and inappropriate trend of shifting power from all other stakeholders to the IHF. The IHF has always used a ‘top down’ style, but now there is a strengthening of this undemocratic approach, with a focus on the rights and privileges of the IHF and the duties and obligations of the continental and national federations.  This is supplemented by admonitions that these federations and other stakeholders, such as coaches, referees, officials, players and staff must be ‘respectful and cooperative’, above all complying with IHF regulations and decisions.  But there is essentially nothing said about what the IHF undertakes to do for the other stakeholders, except the decision-making of course…

One particular concern is the role of the Council.   Ideally this should be a key decision-making body on a continuous basis, both on general policy issues and on major financial issues.  Of course it should also have a major role in developing goals and strategies.  But the proposal is for the Council to continue to have a rather vague or obscure role, at the mercy of the President and totally overshadowed by him and the Executive Committee.  Moreover, the Executive Committee should really be the Council’s executive arm, answerable to the Council.  But instead it is becoming more and more independent from the Council, acting mainly under the President’s personal supervision.

Within the overall trend of consolidating more influence and decision-making authority inside the IHF, there is also a move towards more personal power and autonomy for the President.  Much of this has already been going on outside the By-Laws, but now it is being explicitly authorized. This would in any circumstances be undesirable and contrary to the best interests of any international organization that wants to reflect modern management principles and the increased degree of participation that is being sought around the world.  But it is particularly inappropriate and dangerous at a time when the President has recently become a full-time official, constantly involved in all activities at Headquarters, and when the manager at headquarters is a long-time subordinate of the President.  Moreover, it is being proposed that the Secretary General position be eliminated, and although the Treasurer position is retained, the control over all financial transactions is now explicitly proposed to be moved to the President personally.  In other words, all ‘checks and balances’ are being completely eliminated.

Accordingly, all participants at the upcoming Congress are urged to vote against the proposals and to argue strongly among their colleagues for a united front against autocracy and centralization!

post

Bahrain: from celebration to tragedy; and the IOC turns a blind eye!

Posted on by

Two months ago I wrote about the coincidence that the Tunisian and Egyptian teams met each other in the preliminary round in the World Championship in Sweden, at a time when the public uprising was a reality in Tunisia, but had not yet started in Egypt.  Little did I know that the third Arab country in the group, Bahrain, would very soon be similarly affected.  And little did the Bahrainis know what would be in store for them, when they celebrated their first ever participation in the highest level handball event.  They won their games against Egypt and Australia, much to the delight of all Bahraini handball fans.

When the public demonstrations started in Bahrain in February, undoubtedly somewhat inspired by events in Tunisia and Egypt, there were no early hints of violent clashes or a brutal response from the government.  First of all, the demonstrators, in their quest for increased political freedom and economic equality, seemed to avoid serious confrontations, and the government showed restraint.

Bahrain is in many ways ‘caught in between’.  It is located off the coast of Saudi Arabia, almost as a buffer directly across from Iran, a Saudi enemy.  It has been ruled with iron fist for about 200 years by the royal family Al-Khalifa, who are Sunni Muslims, while the majority of the population at-large are Shiites, just like in Iran.

The royal family itself is clearly divided:  the old ‘strong man’, the King’s uncle, has served as Prime Minister for 40 years in a retrograde and unyielding manner.  But the Crown Prince is modern in his outlook, with an American education and a sense for the changes that are inevitable.  I spoke with him at length during the 2007 World Youth Championship in Bahrain, and I noted his pride in the Bahraini educational system and the role of sports as a uniting force in the social fabric of his country.

So it was not surprising that the Crown Prince was at the forefront when the government appeared determined to reach out and achieve an appeasement.  Reforms were promised and things seemed to calm down.  But in sharp contrast to these conciliatory tones, and an earlier restraint by the military, it was becoming apparent that regime was nevertheless losing its patience with the continued manifestations of mistrust and dissatisfaction on the part of the people.

Reports of brutal and indiscriminate shooting by police and security forces, arrests and jailing were beginning to be heard through foreign media.  The hard-liners, through the Prime Minister, were winning out, strongly pushed by the heavy-handed Saudi neighbors.  The Saudis are obviously concerned about any gains for the Shiites (and indirectly for Iran) and do not want to have a democratic, constitutional monarchy next-door, as a ‘bad’ example for their own population.

Saudi troops were ‘invited’ across the causeway into Bahrain and participated in the violent quelling of any continued demonstrations and protests.  The true intentions of the government were no longer concealed.  In a TV broadcast on April 4, Prince Nasser, a 24-year old son of the King and also President of the Bahrain Olympic Committee, gave a merciless and hateful speech, stating that “everybody who had participated in protests would be punished; we are an island and there will be no escape”.  Mass arrests were reported and groups well-known and popular to the people, such as artists and athletes appeared to be targeted.  Handball players and athletes in other major sports started observing the arrests and jailing of their teammates and colleagues.  Much larger numbers have been suspended from all sports activities and have been fired from their civilian jobs, according to Al-Jazeera.

From handball, where I have relatively more information, it is known that so far at least three of the players in the World Championship have been arrested and jailed (Ali Mirza, Mohammed Mirza and Jaafar Abdulqader).  Among those who have met the same fate are one of Bahrain’s four international referees, council members of the federation, and several others.   The message is clear: athletes and sports officials are being singled out; ‘we do not allow citizens who are athletes to express political views or to be disloyal to their government‘, was the gist of a message from one of Bahrain’s senior sports officials.  In other words, when added to the TV speech of the president of the Olympic committee, it confirms that the beatings, arrests and jailing are not the punishment for violence or other crimes but simply the way of silencing the voices.

All this happens at a time when the International Olympic Committee (IOC) is proudly, and almost as a matter of obsession, using every opportunity to preach its insistence on the autonomy of the sports movement and the absolute prohibition against government interference in the managements of national sports federations.   This of course comes in addition to the fundamental role of the IOC in protecting the rights of athletes everywhere to participate in their sports.  But we do not hear any attempts on the part of the IOC to use its clout to speak up and condemn what is happening in Bahrain.  It must be known to the IOC that athletes and sports officials are being severely punished for their ‘audacity’ as private citizens to express political beliefs, and as a minimum they are prevented from all participation in sports, not just on national teams but at the grassroots level.

The IOC (and federations such as FIFA and IHF) have been quick to step in and take punitive measures, suspending national Olympic committees and/or national sports federations, as a way of pressuring them into compliance with the fundamental principles of the IOC.  Much to everyone’s surprise, this happened in the case of Kuwait last year, although (as I wrote at the time) the Kuwaitis more or less seemed to trigger the action for their own internal purposes.  But perhaps it is otherwise more awkward for the IOC to interfere in a region from which it proudly and conspicuously ‘collects’ IOC members from the respective royal families, who are also the un-democratic regimes of their countries:  the Crown Prince of Qatar, a Prince of Saudi Arabia, and a Sheikh of Kuwait (the nephew of the Emir)??

Such membership may in itself seem to fly in the face of IOC’s strong insistence on governmental non-interference in the management of sports.  It seems that IOC should go out of its way to find its members from well outside these regimes.  But let us at least hope that the IOC uses the public knowledge of what is happening in Bahrain as a basis for stepping in and taking strong action. In the meantime, Bahraini athletes and sports officials are being subjected to brutal treatment and are disappearing into the prison system.

Relevant Links

Video of celebrations when Bahrain qualified for the World Championship: http://teamhandballnews.com/2010/02/video-sensational-finish-wins-bahrain-tickets-to-sweden-2011/

Report in the Washington Post about government action targeting athletes: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/senior-sports-official-bahrain-suspends-150-athletes-officials-for-anti-government-protests/2011/04/18/AFRqIOzD_story.html

Report from the International Sports Writers’ Association, including an indication of the contents of the speech by the Bahraini president of the Olympic committee, in the subsequent link: http://www.aipsmedia.com/index.php?page=news&cod=5738&tp=n

Speech (in Arabic) by the President of Bahrain Olympic Committee, stating the intention to seek out and punish all demonstrators as enemies of the state: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lTTgOWNf2A

Three TV videos (incl. CNN and Al Jazeera) on the recent developments in Bahrain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5EeapnlzBw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc1vr18Eoa0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZdyiK-Z5Do

List of current members of the International Olympic Committee: http://www.olympic.org/content/the-ioc/the-ioc-institution1/ioc-members-list/

post

Something is rotten in the state of (handball in) Denmark!

Posted on by

It may be a bit unusual to quote Shakespeare in a handball article, but the events in Denmark over the last couple of weeks match this heading taken from Hamlet.  Alternatively, one could find an appropriate story by Hans Christian Andersen to describe it, or one could simply refer to it as a ‘soap opera’. 

During the course of a couple of weeks, Denmark found that most of the players on its famous women’s national team were on strike, so that the coach Jan Pytlick had to nominate mainly players without national team experience for upcoming critical games.  The reason was that the Danish federation had announced cuts in compensation to the players.  Then an external mediator was called in to assist in negotiations between the Federation and the Players’ Association.  The negotiations broke down, and the federation started talking about abolishing their national team.  Then the process was restarted, and finally a resolution was reached so that all the top 35 women players are now back on board again.

In the meantime, there had been quarrels between star players who were on strike and accused former teammates of a lack of loyalty because they did not want to strike.  Gender issues due to unequal pay for the men’s and the women’s team became an issue.  The Players’ Association wanted to try to join the Danish Labor Unions, and the general public started weighing in, sometimes calling the players ‘spoiled prima donnas.’  The Director of the Danish Federation spoke out, denouncing some of the statements that had been made, but openly spoke of a strong lack of trust between federation and players that supposedly went back more than 30 years to his days on the national team. 

It may seem particularly strange to have this kind of commotion in a traditional handball power such as Denmark, with strong men’s and women’s national teams taking turns playing a dominant global role over the years.   And the Federation has given the impression of being solid and competent.  Only the occasional wild stories involving Anja Andersen have tended to create some waves on the otherwise calm seas.  In the end, it seems that there was also a realization that matters simply had to be resolved, considering the relatively short time remaining to the women’s World Championship (incl. the preceding qualification games) and the 2012 Olympics.

In one way, however, the underlying issue of reduced financial compensation should not have come as a total surprise to the Danish handball fans and to the national team players.  For quite some time now, it has been openly revealed and lamented that most of the top Danish men’s and women’s clubs are on shaky ground financially.  Only upstart AG Koebenhavn, with a wealthy boss, who is also the main owner of Rhein Neckar Loewen, is the exception.  Moreover, experts on sponsoring accused the Danish federation of acting in amateurish manner, and information also seemed to come out to the effect that the troubles of the Federation were in part related to a surprisingly mediocre TV contract.

If one looks at the principles involved, it seems that players who are paid by their clubs on a full-time basis really have no excuse for asking for a duplication of salaries when nominated for the national team.  At the most, there should be a clause for some form of performance-related bonuses when the team wins medals or qualifies for the Olympics.  In such cases there may be a legitimate claim for getting some share of the additional revenue that their successes bring to the Federation.  Of course, some of the top players may in fact be part-time employees only, and if so the situation is a bit different. 

It seems that the players need to be sensitive to the economic realities of society at large, from which the world of sports is not immune.  And there should be something to the old tradition that playing on a national team should be seen more as an honor than as an opportunity for extra income.  If not, there is a clear risk that people will indeed see the players as fitting into H.C. Andersen’s scenario of ‘princesses who are so spoilt that they can be bothered by a pea also under a layer of 20 mattresses’.  And the Federation, which in a greatly successful handball country such as Denmark is expected to be wealthy or at least very professional, must take care to avoid reminding the public of another H.C. Andersen story, the Emperor’s New Clothes, which as you know revealed an embarrassing nakedness underneath it all.