There are many who want to describe the football World Cup as the main sports event in the world. Perhaps this is because it involves the one sport that virtually every country in the world takes an interest in. By contrast, the Olympic Games include a lot of events that are rather unknown in many parts of the world. Of course, many patriotic observers in the U.S. will keep insisting that everyone should know that the real football is the sport that is played primarily with the hands… But when an unfortunate football referee from Mali becomes a front page figure in the U.S., then it seems that football=soccer finally has gained some prominence also in this country.

Unfortunately, it seems that the enormous focus on this one event every four years has its drawbacks. It seems that this contributes to the many negative aspects that dominate the reporting and the reactions. Perhaps we are better off in handball having our World Championships more often, so that it is not a world disaster if a team fails. Perhaps it is the knowledge that the next chance does not come until four years from now, that makes coaches and players throw their sense of sportsmanship, decency and fair play overboard!!??

Yes, there have been several nice and exciting matches among the first 34 played; there have been many fantastic goals scored, and we have seen many great individual performances. But this has been almost overshadowed by the many negative incidents. To some extent it almost seems to be a matter of tradition or culture. The same teams, even when they are winning easily, are the ones guilty of provocations and unsportsmanlike action. Often it seems to be related to star status and arrogance; some players and teams somehow expect to be getting special treatment when they are up against some more ‘obscure’ opponents. This tendency is, regrettably, not totally unknown in handball.

The most irritating element has probably been the faking or ‘theater’. Referees are rightly criticized when the show the ‘red card’ for something that the TV replays confirm as being much less serious. And the criticism is also rampant when a player seems to have deserved a penalty-kick but the referee waves ‘play on’. But in reality the players are the ones who create most of the difficulties by constantly resorting to major ‘drama’, totally exaggerating the impact of minor body contact or pretending to have been fouled when nothing really happened. Such behavior should be punished more strongly, because if the players have nothing to lose by using such methods, they will never be discouraged. But being certain enough to be ready to punish is a difficult situation for the referee. I hope our top referees in handball see how damaging such methods can be and therefore feel encouraged to be alert in observing the theater and strong in punishing it.

Another disputed situation involves ‘handball’. Even the expert commentators seem confused about the rules and do not know how to distinguish between ‘intention’ and ‘advantage’. The concept of ‘natural body position’ also enters into the equation. We probably have a clearer or simpler situation in handball, but it also seems that recent rules changes have helped reduce the controversy in our case. Moreover, the punishment for ‘hands’ in football can be more drastic than what is typical in the case of ‘foot’ in handball.

Overall, the main observation concerning the refereeing involves a lack of consistency. There has not been a ‘clear and common line’ among the whole group of referees, especially as regards the personal punishments given. One would have thought that the group of 24 referees who are used in South Africa would be more synchronized, as they have been used over and over in youth World Championships and in other international events in recent years. We do not want to see ‘robots’ but, just like in handball, major differences between referees cause major problems for the teams who do not know what to expect and have a hard time adapting quickly in each game. The IHF and the continents are increasingly working continuously with selected groups of referee couples, so one would hope that the difficult aspect of consistency will gradually see improvements in handball, but as recently as in EURO 2010 it was a definite issue, so it will present the IHF with a challenge for the 2011 WCh.

Finally, I feel I need to point to one particular situation where we now for many years have been better off in handball, and where I find it absurd that our counterparts in football are too stubborn to follow our example. This involves a situation where a player is injured on the field also in the absence of a foul and a free-kick. To avoid the ‘drop ball’ restart, the players feel obliged to send the ball out over the side line, whereupon the opponents are expected to use the throw-in to get the ball back to the team that had it. This act of ‘sportsmanship’ is typically applauded by the spectators. In handball, in similar circumstances, we simply let the team keep the ball after a restart with a free-throw, and a restart with an indirect free-kick would clearly be a feasible solution in football. FIFA seems to agree, but they find it ‘too strange’ on grounds of principle to use a free-kick if there has been no infraction…

Good luck FIFA with the rest of the World Cup, and please try to set us a better example during the remainder of the event!!!

As we reported in advance of the meeting, https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.1014 the Forum of Club Handball (for men’s clubs in Europe) and the EHF met recently in connection with the EHF ‘Final Four’ and, as expected, there was mutual approval of the ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ that had been prepared for this meeting.

This means that there is mutual recognition of the roles of the two parties and their sharing of certain values and principles, and more concretely there is now agreement that work will proceed on a number of key issues: the competition calendar; the issue of compensation for clubs when players are used by their national teams; and insurance to provide compensation in the case of injuries in such situations. It is also clear that the EHF formally recognizes the FCH as representing the interests of European men’s clubs and that the FCH will be officially represented on specific EHF organs.

This is obviously a welcome indication of substantial progress; [b]but[/b], it must be kept in mind that it is limited to the area of the EHF’s jurisdiction and it is, for the moment, encompassing only the men’s clubs. Clearly, the EHF and FCH are hoping that the new ‘understanding’ will make it clear also to the IHF that no further delay is realistic as regards the establishment of a similar agreement on a global basis. And indeed, we now have it from ‘sources close to the IHF president’ that the pressure seems to have worked, as the IHF Calendar Working Group has suddenly been called in to a meeting in the next few weeks. At the same time there will apparently be a meeting between the IHF Executive Committee and its EHF counterparts. Let us hope that this creates the necessary momentum for an expansion, so that an ‘understanding’ based on the EHF/FCH model can promptly be established at the global level.

But we hope we are correct in assuming that it is just a matter of a brief period of time until the corresponding measures are also being put in place also for women’s handball. It could be argued that there is, in some very specific respects, more urgency for action on the men’s side, but surely it must be accepted that the whole spectrum of issues regarding competition calendar, release and compensation, and insurance applies also to the women. In fact, it is somewhat surprising that there have no been no pointed reassurances expressed by the EHF, which tends to be rather non-discriminatory in its approach, that the ‘understanding’ with the FCH will soon be extended to the women’s clubs. Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that the FCH has no direct counterpart for the women, and with the seeming reality that the women’s clubs have not been as vocal and cohesive in their demand for equal attention. Why is that?

When John Ryan convinced me about a year ago to help him out with some occasional columns for the THN, I did not quite figure that I would find it so enjoyable that I would get to posting number 100 in less than a year. I do not want to make too much of such a modest ‘milestone’, but at least I wanted to find a special topic for it. Listening keenly to the very interesting audio interview that John Ryan recently had with USA handball federation chairman Dieter Esch, made me conclude that I should write about my experience with the relations between U.S. handball and the IHF and the international handball community.

In the interview (which I really urge you to take the time to listen to), Dieter Esch commented that it should really be obvious that it would be good for the global success of handball if our sport could be given the support needed to develop strongly in the U.S. Clearly he had hoped to find that especially the IHF would be a strong and willing partner in such an endeavor. However, after considerable efforts during his tenure in charge of the U.S. federation, it seems that he has already come to understand that it will not be so realistic to count on much IHF support. Instead, he has concluded that support for progress in the U.S. would primarily have to be obtained through bilateral arrangements with some key federations and leagues in Europe.

On the basis of my very long experience inside the IHF (32 years), while simultaneously being immersed in the handball situation in the U.S., I am afraid I must agree with the conclusions drawn by Dieter Esch. His predecessors in U.S. handball, especially Peter Buehning, tried hard in all kinds of ways to gain some momentum inside the IHF in favor of a concrete and systematic development effort in the U.S. It was often very easy to get positive, or even enthusiastic, verbal expressions of support. Clearly, many IHF leaders intellectually appreciated the potential benefits for world handball and the IHF, if major progress could be achieved in the U.S. But from there to favorable decisions and actual action, the step always seemed too large.

One could observe several fundamental reasons: first and foremost, regrettably the focus on strategic and longer-term aspects in the decision-making was always weak. Frankly, the IHF persons of influence were much more inclined to think in a narrow and short-sighted way, when resources were to be allocated. So a more selfish emphasis on supporting the immediate needs in one’s own continents and countries tended to be prevalent, something that I have previously noted in my general comments on the IHF structure and decision-making processes. Therefore, the idea of investing in something that would (or at least could) be more for the overall good, and more for the longer term, would tend to lose out. It has just not been the IHF approach.

But then there is also the unfortunate impact of some misunderstandings. For international sports officials it just does not seem normal or reasonable to grant special resource allocations in favor of projects in what is overall the wealthiest country on earth. In many parts of the world, it is understandably difficult to grasp that specifically in handball there could be a need for treating the U.S. like a poor and weak member country. It just does not fit the image of a country that is so dominant in a large number of other sports and seems to have unlimited resources within the realm of professional sports. That all this does not do U.S handball any good, and in that in fact it might even be a handicap to be dwarfed by rich and traditional U.S sports, may be hard to appreciate.

Conversely, it may also be hard, from a U.S vantage point, to accept that the IHF resources are not exactly unlimited. Indeed, the amount of money allocated annually to genuine development aid around the world is embarrassingly modest. Whether this is an appropriate and necessary state of affairs may be a different matter. Similarly, the IHF clearly does not have its own resources in terms of personnel resources for technical work around the globe. For such efforts, IHF must rely on borrowed resources from some of the stronger member nations, and it may then in reality be more interesting for such countries to get involved on a bilateral basis.

But there is also another, quite different, side of the issue. For a possible investor, regardless of the field involved, there tends to be an insistence that the recipient of the resources must show clear signs of being able to provide a return on the investment. In the case of U.S handball, there can be little doubt that the potential is there, but it has to be admitted that the track record is discouraging. I have personally heard comments to the effect that’ helping U.S handball with money would be like putting the money into a sink hole’, or that ‘your compatriots never seem to have their act together’.

What these observers have had in mind when making such comments are notions that over the years there has been too much emphasis on national teams as a ‘locomotive’ and that the grassroots level has been neglected. Handball persons from abroad have also had the opportunity to notice, as a negative surprise, the low quality of play at the U.S Nationals or other club competitions. The sense that the U.S. federation largely failed to use the handball tournaments of the 1984 and the 1996 Olympics as strong ‘jump starts’ has also been frequently been used as an argument for being skeptical about the usefulness of supporting U.S. handball from abroad. Moreover, there are impressions in the minds of observers that U.S. federation leaders have been poorly organized, spending too much time on internal disputes instead of trying to pull in the same direction.

So while Dieter Esch and his colleagues are trying hard to give the U.S. handball federation a fresh start, both in terms of demonstrable progress and in terms of the perceptions created for the benefit of handball people in the IHF and abroad, it must be understood that there is quite a bit of old ‘baggage’ to be reckoned with. This makes it all the more important that the program and the results of the federation quickly begin to show that there is indeed a new approach that deserves global support.

Last September, the European Football Association (UEFA) made it publicly known that the number of football matches under its jurisdiction that had had to be investigated for gambling-related manipulation had sky-rocketed. This involved either qualifying or first-round matches in UEFA competitions between obscure teams from smaller football countries, or league matches in some of the same countries. Such matches take place without much media coverage and ‘strange’ things can happen without much risk for discovery. But despite the relatively modest importance of such matches, they can be of great interest to gambling firms; not necessarily European-based or legal gambling firms, but illegal ones based elsewhere.

UEFA proudly announced its collaboration with a special agency, ESSA (European Sports Security Association), which supposedly would enable UEFA to discover immediately irregularities in gambling patterns or other irregularities that would provide indications of manipulation. Similarly, the European Handball Federation announced roughly at the same time, before the start of the 2009-10 season, that drastic new measures were being taken to identify and prevent problems related to gambling and attempts to approach and influence referees. Of course, such intentions of influencing referees may not necessarily be related to gambling; they could simply be related to the desire of a team, a sponsor, or a federation to win a particular game with any means necessary.

I was commenting at the time https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.834 that it might be a bit naïve or optimistic to believe that such efforts by the UEFA and the EHF, no matter how welcome and well-intended, might necessarily be sufficient to stop the trend towards increasing corruption and game manipulation. I was also lamenting that the IHF seemed to be very slow in appreciating and reacting to the problems already haunting so many of the major sports and their top events. In particular, I was concerned about the pressures that inevitably exist as such high-exposure events as the men’s and women’s World Championships. The IHF has subsequently taken some decisions that are in the right direction, such as increased remuneration for the referees so as to reduce their vulnerability, and additional supervisory staff in the area of refereeing at the big events. It is difficult to believe, however, that this will do a whole lot to deter unscrupulous companies and individuals from attempting to use our highest-level handball events for their dirty business.

Against this background, it is interesting, but also quite scary, to read the very recent statements from one of the most prominent writers and researchers on how gambling is affecting high-level sports, namely Dr. Declan Hill from Canada and the U.K. He obtained his doctorate at Oxford precisely on the topic of match fixing in professional football and he is the author of the book ‘The Fix: Soccer and Organized Crime’. He also maintains a very interesting blog: http://www.howtofixasoccergame.com/blog/?p=113

Dr. Hill has kindly made available to me the following text, which I have decided to provide below in its entirety. Its focus is on what we can expect at this year’s World Cup in football in South Africa, which will get underway in just a few days. The gist of his comments is that the methods used by UEFA (and to some extent EHF) might work well for events and matches where the volume of gambling is limited and anomalies therefore can more easily be detected. However, for events such as the World Cup, the overall amounts are so huge that amounts related to manipulation are likely to go undetected. Moreover, as Declan Hill, emphasizes, the part of the gambling market that can be more easily monitored is the legal one; by definition, the illegal gambling market operates in such a way that it does not lend itself to monitoring and detection. How much more time do we have before the world championships in handball are finding themselves in the same dangerous position? Or are we already there, without being aware of it…? Here is the text from Declan Hill:

J’accuse FIFA

Match-fixers will be at the World Cup in South Africa. They will be there approaching players, referees and team officials and trying to bribe them to fix matches. They will be there because they have been at almost every international football tournament – the Under-17 World Cup, the Under-20 World Cup, the Olympic Football tournament and the Women’s and Men’s World Cups – for the last twenty years. They will be there because there has been no effective action on the part of FIFA to clean up this problem.

Here is a list of some of the things that FIFA could have done to make sure that the tournament was corruption-free.

One, FIFA should pay the players directly. The fact is that some of the athletes competing at the world’s biggest sporting event still do not know how much money they will be paid or even if they will be paid at all. It is this dynamic that drives match-corruption. Now, FIFA pays money to the executives of the national football associations. Those executives are supposed to pay their players. However, while most of the executives are honest; some are regarded by the players as so deeply immoral that they would steal money from their own grandmothers, and the players do not trust them.

[i](You will get to the rest of the text if you hit 'read the rest'):[/i]

There are some commentators who are naïve enough to say that World Cup players should be playing only for patriotism or the love of the game. Good point, if no one was getting any money. But as those athletes run onto the field, they know the stadium is sold-out, they know they are being watched by hundreds of millions of people around the world (the 2006 final was seen by 5% of all humanity who have ever existed) and they know that corporations have paid billions of dollars in sponsorship money and television rights. So someone, somewhere is getting a lot of money, why aren’t all the players on all the teams being rewarded properly?

It is very easy to stop the problem. FIFA should pay the players directly. There should be wages and incentive bonuses for every game won, for each stage of the tournament a player helps his team reach, even for the number of goals that a player scores. This money should be directly into the players’ bank accounts by FIFA. These amounts should be publicly announced. This way all players know exactly how much they are supposed to receive and if national associations or sponsors want to add to this money – great. But each World Cup player should not only know how much they will be paid, they should know they will be paid and paid well.

Two, FIFA has implemented an ‘Early Warning System’. It is a good start and a bad joke. It purports to be able to detect signs of World Cup match-fixing by monitoring the gambling market. This is almost impossible. The amount of money bet on World Cup Final matches is so high – estimated at $40 billion for the 2006 World Cup – that observers cannot detect ‘unusual betting patterns’. They can do it for minor matches in obscure leagues; but they cannot do it for the world’s biggest sporting tournament. Moreover, the Early Warning System relies on information from legal, mostly European, bookmakers. They cannot independently verify the betting market where the fixers do most of their work – the illegal Asian gambling market.

Don’t believe this statement? Then take the word of one of the men who runs the Early Warning System – Wolfgang Feldner. Mr. Feldner is hard-working and deeply ethical. He has openly stated the problems of detecting fixes at the World Cup. In November 2009, Mr. Feldner said, “As good as the early warning systems are, they will hardly be able to check the black market. You can’t get information from betting companies that officially do not exist.”

The problems of the Early Warning System don’t stop there. Many bookmakers still do not share information about who is betting. So the EWS officials may be able to tell there is a lot of money on a game, but they cannot tell who placed it. This is a problem. A hypothetical example, there may be $100 million bet on England to beat the United States in the opening rounds. The EWS can see that money, but they cannot see if it is merely 20 million enthusiastic England supporters all betting $5 each, or the wife of one of the American players betting $100 million that her husband’s team will lose.

Finally, there is a still list of unasked and unanswered questions dating back to September 2008 publication of The Fix, about the relationship between the fixers, their runners and some players (The list is available on www.howtofixasoccergame.com). The questions have not been asked because there is no investigating body specifically tasked to deal with it. FIFA has not established what is standard practice in every North American sport, and increasingly other international sports like ATP tennis and cricket, an integrity unit staffed with ex-policemen and gambling experts. In September 2008, after the publication of The Fix, Michel Platini the president of UEFA, established such an integrity unit for European football. It was instrumental in uncovering a wide network of fixers working in 9 different European countries. Why hasn’t FIFA implemented a similar team?

Until these very basic steps are implemented, the fixers will be back, they will be approaching players and referees and they may, unfortunately, find a few who are willing to listen to them and there will be more fixed matches at a World Cup tournament.

These days, when border security and migration are hot political topics in the U.S., and pros and cons of the trade agreements with Canada and Mexico remain a matter of debate, it is reassuring to observe that in the world of handball there is still room for a friendly and undisputed interchange across our northern and southern borders!

As John noted in his posting from the U.S. Nationals yesterday, a team from Houston was totally dominant on the women’s side, but the remarkable discovery was that they were really a team consisting of Mexicans; no, not ‘guest workers’ in the traditions of Texas, but very temporary guests from Monterrey and other areas close to the border. Monterrey has been one of the prime locations for handball in Mexico in recent years, and it has been a natural thing for them to collaborate with the handball folks in Houston who are also a bit isolated from the nearest handball ‘hot spots’ within the U.S. And this time they took the step of providing an entire team to fly the colors of the Houston Firehawks, fully in accordance with the regulations for the U.S. Nationals. (And, yes, they do have visas for the U.S…. this is what made the entire endeavor feasible!)

Some observers noted that Mexico had qualified as a substitute team for the ‘under-21’ World Championship later this year, so there was some speculation about a connection with the team representing Houston, especially as the team seemed to be very well prepared and cohesive. However, there is no such connection, and the team has to cover its own expenses, as there is no specific support from the Mexican Federation; of course, this does not mean that the Federation is not proud to have one of its teams do so well north of the border. It also appears that the star of the team, who was voted MVP at the U.S. Nationals, is currently playing for a Spanish club.

Then we move to the Canadian side of the border. This year, the Canadian and the U.S. Nationals took place during the same weekend. The Canadian event was held in Edmonton, Alberta. Although the Canadian Championship is based on a competition among teams representing the respective provinces, the Canadians still see it as an ‘open’ event, where teams from the U.S. are welcome to participate. Such cross-border participation might not have seemed natural this year, precisely as the two Nationals coincided, but one of the traditionally strongest U.S. club teams, Condors, was in Edmonton nevertheless.

The Condors had committed to the Canadian event long before the U.S. Nationals were moved from its tentative date in July to this past weekend. Moreover, it seems that the Condors had some scheduling conflict for the tournament where they would have needed to qualify for the ‘Elite’ division. In any case, the Condors became a very popular participant in Canada, especially due to the spectacular play of up-and-coming star Gary Hines and the veteran star Darrick Heath, still showing some of his patented moves. In the end, however, the Condors ran out of steam a bit, drawing on only one goalkeeper and seven court players. They qualified for the bronze medal game but lost. The medal winners on the men’s side were: Alberta, Quebec, and Manitoba.

During the Championship weekend, the Canadians also held their election congress. After about eight years as President, Ward Hrabi was ousted. (My interview with Ward from a few months ago can be found here: https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.911 ) It seems likely that inter-province politics played a role. Ward has always been a ‘straight shooter’, standing up for sound principles and strong beliefs. This was often particularly obvious when he was ready to take on the Pan American federation establishment, on occasions when the South Americans were all too ready to run roughshod over the legitimate interests of the North Americans. He has always been a strong proponent of U.S.-Canadian collaboration and interchange. So also in USA Handball there are reasons to be grateful to Ward for his efforts over many years. I bet he will not quit as referee, so perhaps we will he see him in that capacity at the 2011 U.S. Nationals!? We wish him well, and the same goes for his successor, Rick Ryll from Alberta.

I do not need much encouragement to make some propaganda for the refereeing and to get handball people interested in this job. It is of course a function that is absolutely necessary for the quality and development of our sport. We need to be able to keep recruiting new referees. But it is an aspect of handball that, contrary to what one might conclude from the ease with which players, coaches and spectators seem to be able to justify criticism against referees, really has a number of very positive sides.

Those who have spent a number of years in refereeing will typically mention the challenges, the pressures involved in doing a high-level game, and the satisfaction derived from handling such a difficult job. But almost everyone will also highlight the camaraderie and team spirit among the referees as one of the main sources of enjoyment. The referees may be competitors for the opportunities to move on to higher levels, and it is often tempting to sit in the stands and have a different opinion on a situation. But generally speaking, there is a good deal of loyalty, mutual respect and friendship, partly because the referees feel that their colleagues are the only ones who really understand and appreciate their situation.

So it is not surprising that ex-referees who were colleagues for many years often find it a bit special to have a chance to gather in a relaxed atmosphere, perhaps over a few beers now that there is no longer a need to worry about the next fitness test. There are always a lot of ‘war stories’ to share and laugh at, both situations that are proudly remembered and others where one can now afford to admit that an observation or a decision was totally wrong. Often photos from games or from the social side of an event or a trip will help jog the memory and contribute to the ‘smart remarks’ and the volume of the laughter. I had the pleasure of being part of such a gathering a couple of weeks ago. We had no qualms about referring to it as a ‘dinosaur weekend’…

In U.S. handball we have only had a grand total of about 15 former IHF referees plus our current couple (Gosia Golus-Szubelak and Monika Nowak). To get the blood-pressure rising among some of our ‘ancient’ coaches, and to get some of our old-time players to bring out their ‘voodoo dolls’ all over again, I will remind about some of the names. It started in the late 1970s, when six of us became licensed in a course supervised by the then IHF PRC President Carl Wang. The others were Henri Schaff (who passed away prematurely), the Soviet emigrants Efim Faybusovich and Mike Furman, and the (then) younger ‘all-American’ Peter Buehning Jr. and Bernie Iwasczyszyn. Peter Jr and Bernie went on to referee in the 1984 Olympics and the 1986 Men’s World Championships. For the rest of us the emphasis was on PanAmerican competitions in addition to the events here at home. The latter included the Goodwill Games and a large number of invitation tournaments where some of the top national teams from Europe came over.

Then we had a new wave, where Thomas Bojsen was our Olympic and World Championship referee, first together with Bruce Boehne and later with Buco Anusic. During this period we also had IHF referees such as Bruce Mosberg and Thomas Kekes-Szabo in the Junior WChs. For this group, there were also frequent opportunities to handle the Latin American rivalries involving Argentina, Brazil and Cuba. But all along, we naturally also had the U.S. Championships, our U.S. Olympic Sports Festivals etc. So even in the absence of a national league, the opportunity for stimulating events was always there. But it clearly was, and remains, an extra challenge to recruit and retain referees in a setting where there is no ‘league pyramid’ with frequent matches of top quality and intensity.

The same difficulty exists in the majority of countries outside Europe, and also in some ‘smaller’ handball countries within Europe. The working conditions may not be ideal, the federation resources may be limited, and the teaching and mentoring of new referees leaves something to be desired. Moreover, the modest level of play may allow some of the enthusiasts to keep playing up to a relatively ‘advanced’ age. BUT, I really encourage all of you out there, both younger and older handball enthusiasts: refereeing is a great way to be part of the sport you enjoy, it might the best way in which you can contribute in your country, AND it really is likely to be a lot of fun — even if you now and then will get a reminder that you are not perfect… And while there are no retirement benefits in a financial form, you will have a lot of great memories to share with others!

There is nothing wrong about events that use the best players in the world to make good propaganda for our sport. Indeed, I hope that the IHF could work out arrangements with leagues and clubs that make ‘all-star’ matches in different forms and suitable locations a good and uncontroversial way of creating good PR.

But it is something totally different, if one wants to arrange something that purports to be some kind of World Championship for club teams. Such an event can be well justified, although perhaps not necessarily every year. The non-Europeans club teams follow the EHF Champions League with envy, and clearly relish the opportunity to play against such opponents.

This kind of events could take many forms, in terms of the number of participants, the format for the event, the scheduling in the annual calendar etc. But to deserve any respect and have any meaning, such an event must then really be an event between genuine club teams.

It is not enough to say that is in accordance with existing transfer regulations that a Qatari or Lebanese club participating in Super Globe can use its vast financial resources to borrow some of the best players in the world for two weeks in order to be competitive in the Super Globe! Why then did not the IHF subsidize the Australian club so that they could borrow some top players from Montpellier, Veszprem or Hamburg…?

Who in the world of handball could really take the results from such an event seriously? Who would find it relevant if a Qatari club with the help of Balic, Lazarov, Alilovic, Jorgensen et al. manages to beat a Lebanese team with similar reinforcements, a Brazilian team without such reinforcements or even a Ciudad Real that is getting ready for what really matters to them, namely the EHF Final Four?

Again, use as many ‘all-star’ events as the players can handle in order to make propaganda. And please do create a serious world championship for club teams. But do not mix and confuse the two concepts in the form we now see in Super Globe! Whoever wins the all-star event in Qatar have no legitimacy as ‘World Champions!’

Link to IHF’s initial announcement: http://www.ihf.info/front_content.php?idcat=57&idart=2636

Link to IHF’s pompous presentation and special web site today: http://www.ihf.info/front_content.php?idcat=345

My very first posting in 2010 was an interview with 'Abbe', 'Mr. Partille Cup'. https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.913 In that interview we covered several aspects: the way the build-up of a fantastic youth program was paralleled by the annual organizing of the globally best-known youth tournament (Partille Cup), and the fact that the strong focus on youth handball and international outreach is combined with the ability to field top mens' and women's teams at the elite level.

Yesterday, IK Savehof, the club from the small suburb of Goteborg, became the first club in the history of Swedish handball to win the [u]championship for both men and women in the same year[/u]. Savehof won the men's championship for the third time, while it was the sixth set of gold medals for the women's team since 1993.

There are a few other clubs both in Sweden and Denmark that have top teams on both the men's and the women's side. But looking around Europe it is really an exception that the same club is at the very top of both categories. In the EHF competitions for 2009-10 there were virtually no 'dual' participants, with FCK from Denmark being the main exception with its participation in the group play in the Champions League for both men and women.

Savehof was the favorite in the men's final, after having won the league and then 8 of 9 matches in the play-offs, while Drott Halmstad, a traditional top team, had only placed 5th in the league but then came on strong in the play-offs. The game was tied 10-10 at half-time, but then Drott seemed to pull away comfortable and had a 4-goal lead close to the end. But Savehof managed to equalize (23-23) and then was the stronger team in overtime and won 30-28.

On the women's side, Skovde and Savehof had been superior in the league, with Skovde as the winner and Savehof as the runner-up. But then in semi-finals they both had to struggle, each winning 3 games against 2. In the final Skovde was probably the favorite, but it turned out to be Savehof's day, after strong performances from some of the key players. The final result was 27-23 (15-10).

Undoubtedly, the many friends of Savehof and Partille Cup worldwide join me in congratulating Savehof, 'Abbe' and all his colleagues on this special occasion! At a personal level, I want to convey my special greetings to Savehof's 'grand old man' and founder, Gunnar Qvist.

As many of our readers are likely to be aware, if counted 'per capita', Iceland has the highest number of handball players of any country in the world. Handball is almost a religion for the Icelandic people. And in their frosty – although sometimes fiery – climate, it is not strange that they still rely very heavily on an active and vivid relationship with their old Viking Gods.

The Icelandic people have a strong sense of right and wrong. They are never hesitant about speaking up and letting the rest of the world know what they think. So when they heard about the proposed changes in the IHF Statutes they realized that something drastic needed to be done. The Viking Gods, with Thor as the main responsible, needed to be called into action.

By now you are beginning to sense where this is going… Thor shrewdly figured that a small eruption of the volcano at Eyjafjallajokull would do the trick. With a good deal of accuracy it should be possible to direct the resulting cloud of ashes to a position exactly over Italy, as a way of preventing the planned IHF Congress from taking place in Rome this coming weekend. At the most, the cloud would extend from Basel in the north to Cairo in the southeast.

But apparently something went badly wrong in the calibrations. Thor is known to be a bit heavy-handed and prone to be using more power than is needed. But it may also have something to do with his temper, and his reactions after reading the proposed changes in the Statutes. In any case, most of Europe is now under a cloud, somewhat to the embarrassment of the Icelandic. What started out as totally justifiable and well-targeted took on totally unexpected proportions and created a misery for far too many.

However, when the truth about the origin of the whole situation is now becoming known to the general public, I am sure that they will be forgiving and conclude that it was well-intended and for a very worthy cause. At least the IHF Congress has been 'postponed'…

In response to what has been written both by us in THN and in other media, I have had some feedback from persons who have either had some involvement in the process or are concerned about the results of the proposals before the IHF Extraordinary Congress.

It is understandable that people who are not directly involved have a very limited understanding of the issues, because the IHF has not exactly been open and transparent about what is going on. Not many have had an opportunity to review and understand the implications of the proposals. The same goes for the process that has been followed; not many know how it has happened that we now have a set of proposals that in many respects appear very dangerous and inappropriate. So I would like to dispel some misunderstandings.

Some persons have characterized the issue as essentially being a fight between the IHF and the EHF. This is mostly misleading, as it is true only in the sense that the EHF is the only entity that has openly protested against the proposals and pointed to the dangers involved. But this has happened only very late in the process, and personally I am not impressed with the overall role that the EHF has played; they have been far too unsuspecting or low-key until very recently. They were not invited to be part of an earlier Working Group but there is no indication that they were protesting this exclusion. Similarly, there is no indication that the EHF President ‘created an upheaval’ against what was happening, at the time of the most recent IHF Council meeting. Nevertheless, I am of course pleased that the EHF is now finally attempting to coordinate some kind of resistance.

Others have unfortunately focused more on the process than on the substance. There are indications of a ‘blame game’ between members of the Working Group and members of the IHF Council. From the Working Group it is said that ‘we just put forward a proposal but all decisions were taken by the Council’. From the Council it has been heard that ‘we are not experts so we felt we had reason to trust what was proposed by the Working Group’… If all the participants want to hold someone else responsible, guess who benefits from this kind of finger-pointing: the IHF President from whom almost all of the fundamental and dangerous proposals originated. Clearly, the process was not the issue. The President knew that he would not encounter any resistance. Far too many of the persons involved have their respective personal reasons for just going along with it!

So I simply want to restate briefly what I indicated in my lengthy article on March 21, https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.985 namely that there are [u]two completely inappropriate tendencies[/u] in the proposed new Statutes: [u]1. indications of a one-sided and heavy-handed shift in power in favor of the IHF, at the expense of all other levels and members in the international handball family, and 2. a major expansion of the personal power of the President.[/u] These are tendencies that run completely counter to all sound and modern principles for the management and decision-making in an international sports organization or, for that matter, in any democratic institution. Handball is being sent in a fast and dangerous down-hill slide. [u]Those of you who are in a position of influence must stop it before it is too late![/u]

As noted recently in Part 1 of my interview with Jaume Fort, he was for many years a world-class handball goalkeeper, playing on the Spanish national team during the period 1988-2000. In the process, he gained a bronze medal in the Olympic Games and a silver medal in the European Championships, both in 1996.

When Jaume finished his career as a player, he did remain firmly involved in handball, but not as a coach (and not even as referee, although I suspect he could have become a good one…). Instead he sensed a responsibility vis-à-vis his young successors. It is not surprising that, on the basis of what they knew about his character, his sense of ‘right and wrong’ and his eloquence in various languages, he struck them as the right person to have on their side.

[i]CA: So, Jaume, how did this ‘second handball career’ get started?[/i]

JF: I always tried to get 100% involved in Handball and be sensitive to what happened beyond the playing court. I was involved with ABM (Spanish Players’ Association) since its creation and I took up its presidency when I was playing for Teka Santander. When I retired, both the French and the Spanish players asked me to take the position of President for the European Handball Players’ Union (EHPU). There is a lot of work to be done, but it is a volunteer position without compensation, so for professional reasons I don’t know how long I will be able to carry on with this task.

[i]CA: In your role as Head of the EHPU, and looking at the situation of the top players in Europe, how do you view the current discussion about competition calendar, financial compensation, and the physical demands on the players?[/i]

JF: We have to be realistic: it will be very difficult to find global solutions which are valid to every stakeholder. Even among the players from different countries the situation varies a lot. Whereas top European players are completely burnt out by the inhuman physical and mental strain, the majority of players cannot complain about a brutal competition calendar. In my opinion, the only way out is to reduce the number of national team competitions, with just one EC and 1 WC in every Olympic cycle… and this will not happen in the next few years because the EHF and IHF events have been already awarded.

On the positive side, I would like to point out that the overall level of the 2010 European Championship recently held in Austria was considerably higher than in Norway 2008, where the players had to play 8 matches in 10 days. Planning more rest days at the major competitions is a small step in the right direction.

[i]CA: Am I right in sensing that while one talks a lot in public about pushing the players too far, most of the discussions involving federations and clubs in fact focus more on money?[/i]

JF: Absolutely right. Taking all competitions separately; no one can be directly “accused” of pushing the players too far. The problem arises when you add up all international club and national team competitions. The clubs want the return on their investments (players) to be achieved, so it is dramatic for them to get a player injured, especially if the injury takes place while the player has been released to the national team. If the clubs got a big sum of money as injury compensation, would they still be so concerned about the players’ health? Meanwhile, we’ll keep on seeing coaches “crying” when their players fall injured, but who is really going to stand up for the players’ rights?

[i]CA: Yes, it is difficult to see that the views and concerns of the players are being considered sufficiently? It seems that often it is assumed that the clubs can speak for the players, but isn’t there a bit of a conflict of interest?[/i]

JF: The concerns of the players are definitely not taken into account. To some extent, players are also to blame here, since they have often been concerned just by the figures on their contracts. The foundation of EHPU is a sign that collective awareness is slowly growing. In many aspects the player’s interests converge with those of their employers but it comes a point where players have to make their own voice heard. I am trying to convey the message to the players that they have to gain more influence. EHPU is promoting the creation of player associations in countries where such associations do not exist. The goal is to get a strong, united voice and use this influence in a responsible way. Having a constructive attitude towards the current situation is the only way to gain credibility among the other stakeholders, who have traditionally seen players’ unions or athletes’ commissions as a problem.

[i]CA: It seems to me that the issues are very much the same for both male and female players, with the same calendar issues and the same physical demands? But most of the discussions involve the men’s teams and the male players; how come? Are the female players ‘super women’ who do not need the same protection?[/i]

JF: Women have the same problems; especially in countries like Norway and Denmark, where the women’s handball is at a high level, with strong, busy club teams and top players who are also on their national teams around the world. In our last meeting with the EHF representatives in Innsbruck, we made it clear that this issue should also be dealt with. Annelise Vido, the EHPU board member representing the Danish players is doing a great job by raising all issues which affect especially women.

[i]CA: What are the keys to improving the overall situation as you see it?[/i]

JF: Basically, players should have a voice and a vote in the decision-making bodies. Apart from the competition calendar, other issues to be dealt with are the standardization of contracts, life after the sports career, medical care and a minimum level of insurance, and providing the players with all necessary anti-doping information.

[i]CA: Apropos decision-making bodies, you have had a frustrating experience, being on paper a member of the IHF Athletes’ Commission but being given basically no opportunity to be active and participate. Recently we have observed severe problems regarding the governance of the IHF, with frequent scandals at the top level and now currently a clearly deliberate attempt to change the By-Laws in a way that would seem to create a dictatorship with no ‘checks and balance’s and no room for other opinions; how do you view this development from the standpoint of the athletes?[/i]

JF: Handball has recently caused too many negative headlines on the media, and this has damaged the image of handball. Instead of releasing clear and transparent statements and taking appropriate actions, there was a long silence before the IHF at best showed some kind of weak-willed reaction. There is a need to urgently bring more transparency to the governance of the IHF, and the new By-Laws proposal is definitely a dangerous step in the wrong direction. I hope that all those who will be casting their votes at the next IHF Congress understand what is at stake!

Already in 2005, when the IHF Athletes’ Commission (AC) was created, we expressed our willingness to contribute in many ways to the promotion of our sport. Unfortunately, the AC has been totally ignored. Meanwhile, we have seen all these negative events and witnessed important staff changes within the IHF without any clear explanation. The recent comments from IOC President Rogge on Moustafa’s contract with Sportfive should clearly be a serious warning for the IHF and its President. I appeal to common sense and hope that the well-being of handball will prevail.

[i]CA: On a more positive note, if we look to the ability of handball to compete with other sports and other leisure activities, for young athletes, for spectators, media interest, and sponsors, what can we do to increase our attractiveness? (new tactics, rules changes, the ‘framework’/atmosphere for the matches etc)[/i]

JF: I’m afraid that any substantial change of the rules will collide with the traditional reluctance of coaches, players and fans to change the essence of handball. The new IHF rule book that has recently been issued contains no big changes.

The Bundesliga has made some steps in the right direction by presenting handball in a very professional way, where fans consider every match as the event of the day. The spectators gather together in the sports hall long before the match begins and they stay until all interviews are over. There are big halls where sponsors (and occasionally also fans) can have close contact with the players. Furthermore, the atmosphere during the matches is really hot.

It would be interesting to make our sport become more popular in other countries and continents. I follow the initiatives to introduce handball in the USA, and I can’t help wondering if these attempts have been properly coordinated with the national and continental federations. The celebration of the next Olympic Games in London should also be accompanied by promotional activities in Great Britain. Could the Super Globe, which is now scheduled to take place in Qatar, not have been celebrated in London for example? The IHF AC could very well serve the promotion of handball worldwide.

Some actions to be taken are, for instance:
• Creating a handball “Ambassador Tour”
• Developing handball schools in countries where handball is not so popular.
• Releasing a short “hype” video showcasing big celebrations, crazed fans, incredible plays and goalie saves with spirited music.
• Make the technical videos available to the handball community through the internet.

[i]CA: THN is happy to have been able to provide a forum for interesting observations and ideas from a player perspective. As can be seen above, the views presented are not selfish or controversial but constructive and for the common good of all parties. We thank Jaume and hope that it will be a more common occurrence to have the voice of the players as an integral part of any discussions about the development of handball.[/i]

[i]'Part 1'with background information about gender issues and some provocative examples from the world of handball can be found here[/i]: https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.979

First of all I want to thank both the contributors who kindly accepted my invitation (their names will be show up throughout the text below and also down at the bottom) and those of our readers who took the trouble to send me their ideas.

In the feedback, there was a clear demarcation between the issues related to the ‘active participants’, i.e., players, coaches and referees, and the problems involving gender issues in the management of our sport. I will first pull together the comments regarding the differences in the men’s and the women’s game.

It was stressed by several, for instance Ekke Hoffmann, that we have to accept the realities related to basic physical differences between men and women. The men can play a stronger and faster game, and there is no point in having the women compete along those dimensions. Some noted that for a large proportion of both men and women watching sports, speed and raw strength is a fascination (compare the interest in Formula 1 racing, boxing and wrestling), so this will create an edge when it comes to TV coverage, sponsors and spectator numbers.

However, as many pointed out, including Frantisek Taborsky on the basis of scientific studies, and on the basis of years of observations, there are aspects of the game where the women can gain an edge. There is no reason why they should not excel on the basis of technical skills and interesting tactics. They also have some typical advantages in terms of psychological aspects. All in all, women’s players and women’s teams can indeed offer spectacular handball, as long as they are not focusing on competing with the men in ways where they have a natural disadvantage.

It was also pointed out, for instance by Jesper Harborg from Denmark, that often what matters the most is not the nature of the game but simply the success team are having. When the Danish national team had a long period when they were dominating globally, they automatically created a strong interest, and there was no lack of spectator or media support.

Some were commenting that women players tend to have a general disadvantage from a young age, being discriminated in terms of training time, resources and attention. As Ekke was noting, a major longer-term improvement would depend on targeted efforts with higher-quality coaching for female players in the younger age groups.

It was noted that media treatment of women’s handball may continue to be discriminatory in many places, not the least because, while changes may be coming, the majority of the handball journalists are still men. The watch and compare handball from a man’s perspective, sometimes failing to recognize the special qualities of women’s handball. Or, as Jesper pointed out, also in countries with strong support for the women’s game, there may exist tendencies to sexism in the reporting, i.e., comments on the way the players look (or even lead their lives) instead of on their qualities as players.

The fact that an overwhelming proportion of the coaches at the elite level are men, also for the women’s teams, was not seen as surprising. A lot simply depends on traditions in most cultures, where it is perfectly normal for men to be the ‘bosses’ of women but not the other way around. There is no reason why this should not gradually be changing, as women who have been leaders on their teams as players and have an instinct for teaching would be excellent candidates for good coaching careers. Indeed, chances are that it would be a clear advantage for the development of women’s handball if female coaches were more to become much more common. But it is a trend that needs to be strongly and explicitly supported by federations, at both higher and lower levels, for instance through facilitated access to the necessary education.

The issues related to women referees are somewhat similar to those of women coaches. But it seems that decisions to go into refereeing often depend, for both men and women, on strong personal characteristics that make individuals ignore traditions and what is expected from them. In other words, being interested in a referee career requires a certain willingness to fight obstacles.

As Patricia Malik de Tchara noted, the women need to view their goals and interests more on an individual basis, not as members of the female gender, with an attitude that dedication and hard work will yield results for a determined individual. Tetiana Rakytina and Irina Tkachuk agreed, but noted that the drop-out rate for women starting refereeing careers may be higher due to pressures related to traditional family roles and other expectations.

But there was clear agreement that the acceptance for women referees at the elite level has been surprising good. Prejudices are noted in some parts of the world, but the teams tend to appreciate and focus on the actual performances. It has also helped that the IHF and continental federations have made a special effort to prioritize and integrate women at the top level; it has created a ‘demonstration effect’. But ‘artificial’ efforts are not a longer-term solution. A sufficient volume must be reached, from the bottom up, so that a natural progression to the higher levels can be had. Federations must simply sense their obligation to make serious efforts to increase the proportion of female referees, through recruitment, education, mentoring and strong opportunities for advancement.

[u]Leadership positions[/u]

When the discussion turned to the gender inequalities in positions of leadership in handball, especially at the IHF and continental/national levels, there was virtual unanimity and a much stronger tone. The current situation simply is not acceptable.

Carin Nilsson-Green talked about frequent embarrassment at IHF events in different parts of the world, where host countries showed a better gender balance than the very one-sided IHF picture. Desperate efforts to fit in some women delegates and referees at least at the women’s world championships have not helped much. And the nice PR photos of an IHF Council with one woman out of 17 are telling it the way it is. Dawn Allinger-Lewis commented that it is one of the saddest realities for her, after retirement as a player, to continue to see the massive male dominance in all areas of handball management internationally.

While the clear preference was for a focus on what needs and can be done, there were several comments about why the situation is the way it is. Ward Hrabi talked about reflections of societal norms and traditions as regards the filling of positions of leadership. As I myself noted in Part 1, one must keep in mind that in sports there is a gap of 1-2 generations between the active athletes and the managers. In other words, the pool of candidates for top positions reflects more what was available and typical among athletes quite some time ago. Not only was the gender balance not quite what is was today, but former star athletes were affected by traditions and confliction priorities in a way that one hopes will now gradually be in the past.

But there was a strong consensus that is just not good enough to wait for demographics and traditions to change, so that the balancing will begin to happen by itself. Strong and active measures are needed, not the least because the current, one-sided cadre of leaders is not likely to relinquish positions and power voluntarily at an accelerated pace just to make room for a better mix.

Despite the urgency, there was a clear trend among the comments received that change will not be achieved and embraced unless it supported by quality. Any measures that would lower standards for the sake of it are likely to backfire. This has a special relevance when it comes to the perceptions and effect of any kind of quota system.

Carin talked about the norms established by the IOC, and the fact that the IHF remains woefully short of that. But it seemed to be agreed that quotas should mainly be seen as an interim measure and only as a component of a broader package of measures. Short of an immediate switch to some kind of 50-50 requirement, which may not at all reflect the recruitment realities, there are clearly ways of insisting on a certain proportion that each board or committee or formal group must have. While this may be more difficult when individual positions are filled by individual constituencies, there are many positions that are filled on a group basis and leave room for considerable flexibility. Again, it is a ‘demonstration effect’ that is sought, and a first step towards a ‘critical mass’.

Beyond mandatory measures in terms of representation, there needs to be a strong emphasis on facilitation and encouragement, including a hand-picking of talents and then the education, nurturing and support needed to launch careers successfully. It needs to start at the ‘grassroots’ level, but accelerated progress for former elite athletes and other special candidates to move faster to the top must also be part of the package.

Just like in any work environment, it must be recognized that work processes, methods and schedules need to be adjusted and kept flexible so that the combination with other responsibilities (jobs, families) seems reasonable. This is not really just a gender issue, as it is needed for both genders to ensure a general rejuvenation. Work practices geared towards the ‘old boy network’ must be a thing of the past.

With that remark I draw the line for the moment on this important topic, and again thank the contributors to Part 2 who were:

Dawn ALLINGER-LEWIS, Ex-player on U.S. national team; Member of IHF Athlete’s committee; TV commentator
Jesper HARBORG, Editor, web site Haandbold.com in Denmark
Ekke HOFFMANN, Coach of German women’s national team for many years; former Head of Sports at the IHF;
Ward HRABI, President, Canadian Team Handball Fed.; former IHF referee
Patricia MALIK de TCHARA, the first woman at the IHF elite referee level
Carin NILSSON GREEN, Former President of the IHF’s Commission for Promotion and Public relations, and the IHF Working Group for Women; veteran leader in Swedish Handball Federation
Tetiana RAKYTINI / Irina TKACHUK, IHF referees and former players, Ukraina
Frantisek TABORSKY, Member of EHF Exec Comm and Chair of Methods Commission; career as University Professor and Researcher in Sports; veteran coach

Many persons in leading positions in this world have a completely false understanding of what [u]leadership[/u] means and what is needed and wanted from that kind of position.

A traditional and out-dated (mis)understanding is to [u]confuse leadership with power[/u] and decision-making authority. A more [u]modern, constructive and helpful[/u] way of defining leadership is to think in terms such as [u]strategizing, coordination, facilitation, motivation and encouragement[/u]. Most experts emphasize that it has less to do with personal knowledge, actions and decisions, and much more to do with how one gets strong groups together and provides them with the structure, resources, independence and inspiration to achieve great things as a [u]team[/u].

The form of leadership needed also depends on the [u]context[/u]. An international sports federation consists of a spectrum of participants, from traditional powers with substantial expertise and resources, to beginners with lots of enthusiasm but with inadequate know-how and resources. In this setting, like in any society, the focus must be on organizing a [u]sharing or redistribution of resources[/u] (technical know-how, best practices and financial capacity). There is also a need for a degree of coordination and standardization (for instance, adherence to the same rule book). Of course, there is a need for a central function through which competitions are organized. In summary, we are talking of a [u]service organization[/u], which exists for the aggregate benefit of its participants, not an organization that exists for its own sake. This must be reflected in the leadership style.

With this emphasis on [u]coordination and facilitation[/u], where the needs must be matched with existing resources, it should be apparent that the key ‘players’ are [u]those who require help[/u] and best understand their own needs, and [u]those who are being asked to share their knowledge and resources[/u], as a sacrifice but for the common good in the form of the global growth and the development of the sport. It goes without saying that this latter group deserves a major say regarding the goals and their implementation. And it should also be obvious that a ‘[u]bottom-up’ approach[/u] to leadership and management is what is needed. The active stakeholders need to be listened to, for the sake of fair and efficient resource sharing. A ‘top down’ direction from someone who thinks they ‘know better’ is out of place. The key direction comes through the [u]team[/u] of experts and administrators that is handling the coordination and facilitation

In my experience, it is quite clear that the desirable form of leadership and management has for some time been pursued by the EHF. By contrast, a steadily increased emphasis on outdated forms of ‘leadership’ is being pursued by the IHF and its president. The proposed changes in By-Laws or Statutes would clearly make things worse. Therefore, it is not surprising that the EHF is protesting these changes and warning about their serious consequences. Moreover, it is necessary for the EHF not just to think globally but also to speak for the majority of those handball federations who are the [u]providers[/u] of know-how and best practices and also the main [u]providers[/u] (through the IHF elite events and related income) of the financial resources that are being shared.

Personal instincts in favor of autocracy tend to be deeply rooted and do not normally diminish over time, as has been seen apropos the IHF Statutes. The letter from the IHF to the EHF (see THN article immediately below) sadly confirms that. It becomes absurd when the autocratic IHF accuses the two EHF leaders of ‘acting out of personal interest’, it becomes almost amusing when the IHF leaders suggest that it is a sign of democracy when the IHF council votes in support for its president (after he personally insisted on 95% of the final changes in the current version of the Statutes), and it becomes truly embarrassing for the IHF when their letter essentially accuses Messrs. Lian and Brihault of racism.