(Yes, this is long, but it is so important that you do need to read it!)

We have criticized the European Handball Federation (EHF) in recent time for refusing to stand up to the IHF President when he has brought the IHF and world handball in disrepute through scandalous actions. My colleague, John Ryan, even asked Tor Lian and Jean Brihault some time ago to “quit hiding and speak out.” https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.969 I will not rehash now all these issues, but here are the links to reports about ‘IHF Payments to President and Council members,’ https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.964 https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.968 Moustafa’s attack on the Court of Arbitration in Sports (CAS), https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.947 revelations about the conflict of interest caused by the President’s personal contract with the IHF TV rights holder, https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.930 https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.933 https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.948 https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.935 and the mysterious and secretive hiring of an Egyptian crony and her subsequent elevation to the position of Managing Director. https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.920 https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.932 And this just in past few months…!

So now surely it must have gone far too far, when the EHF leaders send protest letters to the IHF and to all European member federations, https://teamhandballnews.com/request66.html warning about outrageous changes in IHF Statutes proposed by the President https://teamhandballnews.com/request65.html and the disastrous consequences such changes would have![/u] Indeed, any intelligent person can see what the President is up to, when the proposed changes would give him the full legal authority to do the many things that he has previously done without authority and/or without the necessary consultations. The problem is that not enough persons, not even among the delegates at the upcoming Extraordinary IHF Congress, may have sufficient awareness and background information to see the implications!

I will not try to cover here the entire spectrum of problems with the proposals; it would simply be a far too extensive text. Instead I will focus on three aspects:

1. major examples of the expansion of his personal power that Moustafa is trying to achieve;

2. indications of the one-sided and heavy-handed shift of power to the IHF from all levels and members of the international handball family;

3. the amazing arrogance and incompetence demonstrated when somebody puts forward a proposal for Statutes, the most fundamental and essential document in any organization, that is so poorly written, in part incomprehensible and in part totally ambiguous; it amounts to a sick joke that an IHF Congress would actually have to try to comprehend the details of the text and be asked to vote on it!

1.a. The proposals keep emphasizing that as the President is now a ‘professional, available full-time at IHF Headquarters and thus with full insight in the operations’, he is now the best person to take all urgent decisions personally, and he is supposed to have full authority do so ‘between meetings of the Executive Committee’, meetings that will only take place three times per year. This means that, de facto, there is always an excuse for the president to take unilaterally any decision he wants. The statements about the type of decisions that normally would be taken by the Council are so vague that they can be interpreted as the president wants. And despite the easy access to quick and convenient consultations or decision-making through electronic communications, the entire document contains no provisions for any such efforts. But as insiders know, the president ‘knows that he knows best’, so why should he not decide alone!?

b. It is proposed that the position of an elected Secretary General should be abolished. The explanation is that it is, suddenly, made redundant by the powers vested in an employee, the Managing Director. But the only thing that has changed in that position is, of course, that it is now awkwardly filled by the president’s long-time, fully loyal confidant. The position of Treasurer has been spared. But it is emphasized that the Treasurer is mainly responsible for ‘establishing and controlling the budget.’ The Council has no role in establishing the budget (which of course is a way of determining priorities); the only scope for Council decisions is ‘within budget constraints.’ By contrast, the responsibility for ‘controlling financial transactions’ will rest with the President. Moreover, the IHF President is also automatically president of the separate entityIHF Marketing Inc. As a further ‘exclusivity’ for the President, it is also proposed that he, separate from the rest of the Executive Committee, be given the right to present motions to the Congress.

c. It is repeated over and over in the document that the president ‘is’ or ‘must’ be a ‘professional’, meaning essentially that he must be given a huge salary. The vague explanation is that this is due to the rapid development of world handball. Why this requires a ‘professional’ president, as opposed to full-time duties for other elected officials or true professionalism on the part of Managing Director and staff, is not explained. While, as a practical matter, an already elected president could be converted into a paid employee, this combination is completely awkward and inappropriate as a requirement in the Statutes. It is clearly necessary to have the position of President filled on the basis of an election. Then it creates totally undesirable limitations and inequities for future elections, if there is a requirement that only full-time incumbents who are prepared to become ‘de facto’ employees can be considered.

2.a. There is a strong theme throughout the proposal that the IHF is in charge of a pyramid of ‘stakeholders’, which include groupings such as continental and national federations and clubs, as well as individuals such as trainers, referees, officials, players, and medical staff. The document is full of provisions to the effect that these other stakeholders must be respectful and cooperative, above all fully complying with IHF Statutes, regulations and decisions. There are clear indications of punishments for non-adherence. The entire focus is on requirements and duties, not on rights and privileges. Unmistakably, it is a top-down approach, where IHF tells all other stakeholders what is right or wrong, not a more logical situation where those who are the active stakeholders in our sport can count on a bottom-up approach with federations and especially the IHF functioning as an ‘umbrella,’ serving the active stakeholders and with their best interests in mind!

b. There are also complications and confusion arising from the inclusion of both organizations and individuals among the ‘stakeholders’. The discussion in the proposals is a traditional one, with relevance to continental and national federations, where the issues, and the rights and duties, do not really fit individuals. The relationship between the IHF and the individual categories of stakeholders is less clear and convincing. Except in a negative sense, there does not seem to be much of a concrete role for the IHF. And in a way that totally undermines a genuine opportunity for these stakeholders to be heard, it is demonstratively stated that no groups will be recognized by the IHF, such as associations of players, referees, clubs etc. How does one realistically expect a dialog and a level playing field for all these individual stakeholders without such channels?

c. The treatment of continental and national federations in the proposed Statutes is totally paternalistic. It goes from absurd and capricious formalities to the most fundamental issues of sharing of rights and responsibilities. Somehow the IHF wishes to refer to the continental federations as ‘confederations,’ but surely that should not require all the well-established continental entities to change their specific names… More important is that after the Statutes have simply defined continental confederations as ‘groups of federations that belong to the same continent or geographic regions,’ they go on to specify which particular entities will be recognized by the IHF. Clearly, the Statutes must allow for the possibility that such ‘groups’ may change over time, as long as they meet the definitions. Moreover, capricious changes are being introduced as regards the minimum number of countries required for a ‘continent’ to exist and for such a continent to have one or two members of the IHF Council. Again, no sensible rationale is being offered.

d. But given the history of the matter, the most conspicuous attempt for the IHF to grab power involves the assertion that the IHF will now become the owner of all rights emanating from IHF competitions. A recent legal battle involved the qualifying events for World Championships and Olympic Games. Whether intended or not, the wording of the existing IHF By-Laws was deemed to give such rights to the respective continents. The only remaining issue was that the IHF needed to assert and retain the right to supervise such events, to ensure full compliance with existing IHF regulations and the absence of corruption and manipulations. It appeared that this was a settled matter, but the IHF now unilaterally completely removes all rights from the continents, except of course the work involved in physically organizing the events. This is really outrageous!

e. The international competition calendar, as it relates to excessive demands on the top players, has been a matter of intensive dialog lately, with both IHF and EHF attempting to bring the relevant parties together in a search for solutions. Now, however, the proposed Statutes suggest a ‘top-down’ approach also on this issue, as it is specified that the IHF will initiate an 8-year calendar, leaving it to continents and nations to adapt and plan accordingly. There is also a blunt statement to the effect that ‘all stakeholders shall not boycott official IHF competitions’. A benevolent interpretation would be that non-participation as a form of political demonstration or as a form of discrimination is not tolerated. But apparently that is not it, because in a different place one finds the completely astounding statement that members ‘have the obligation to take part in competitions organized by the IHF’. On what basis could the IHF ever force a federation to send a team if it does not have the quality or the resources to do so???

f. The proposal contains a provision that any kind of [u]corruption, bribery or undue influence is forbidden and punishable. This is in itself fine, but again there is a lack of symmetry or responsibility on the part of the IHF. There is [u]no indication of the responsibilities that the IHF will assume for clear policies, protection of referees, effective monitoring etc. Moreover, in the light of recent events, corruption is not limited to other stakeholders and to game-related situations. What will the IHF do to ensure a corruption-free internal environment, including at the top? There is a mention of an Ethics Commission, but this appears to be a mere after-thought, without any real substance. It is more disturbing than reassuring that such an idea can be just thrown in, without any prior focus on role, procedures and composition. Given the heavy emphasis on duties and demands on various stakeholders, and a dictatorial IHF decision-making, procedures for recourse and appeal become critical. However, the scope of tasks for the Arbitration Commission and the type of issues anticipated for referral to the Court of Arbitration for Sports seem as intentionally restrictive as before.

3. The document with the proposed Statutes is essentially full of problems with ambiguities, contradictions, poor wording and even incomprehensible statements. In a 38-page document one could easily find several hundred (!) examples, but it would obviously overburden this article to try to capture too much of that. Instead of focusing on the many laughable language problems, I will mention only a few particularly important topics where the problems in the text make it useless or dangerous in a substantive way:

– The basic statement of the ‘Purpose and Objectives’ of the IHF is so unclear as to what the IHF actually intends to accomplish and how it will go about it, so that the statement is rendered meaningless;

– Together with the Executive Committee, Council and Commissions, the IHF Anti-Doping Unit is a key entity in the entire organizational structure and obviously needs to be regulated in the Statutes. However, except for an indirect reference when the Medical Commission is discussed, there is no mention whatsoever about the status, role, procedures and composition of the ADU;

– There is a statement that through Council decision, “the IHF may open branches and subsidiaries in Switzerland and abroad”, “to deal with certain matters;” this broad, puzzling, and ominous authority is totally lacking in justification, and one begins to wonder about a second headquarter in Cairo or a secret bank account in the Cayman Islands…

– It is declared that is the Congress that makes the decisions about accepting new member federations; but this is contradicted by another statement that gives the Council the power to decline or accept new members;

– The proposal contains a list of ‘Rights and Duties’ for the continental federations; apart from the earlier indicated bias in favor of moving power to the IHF, it is of course inconceivable in a governance document that one combines rights and duties in this way, so that the result is a total confusion for each item, what is a right and what is a duty;

– The Council is said to ‘have the right to suspend stakeholder that violates its obligations’; stakeholders, by the definition in the documents include clubs, individual players, referees, trainers and so on; most of these operate exclusively at the national level and not in IHF events; from a practical and a legal standpoint, what could conceivably give the IHF the right to take action against these stakeholders who are clearly under the jurisdiction of their national federations;

– It appears that, after the Congress has used its prerogative to award World Championships to specific member nations, the Council can simply set aside such decisions, ‘if there are discrepancies’; this is a totally nonsensical clause, seemingly intended to create a power to override the Congress without any justification at all;

– Under the heading ‘Executive Committee’, there is a totally cryptic and dangerous clause providing that ‘any additional powers of the President shall be included in the internal organization regulations of the IHF’; what unspecified powers are intended, and what is meant by the unknown concept of ‘internal organization regulations’??

In a normal organization, it would not be tolerated that a proposal for changes in Statutes would be developed and presented in this way; the proposal would simply be dismissed, and it would likely cause a widespread demand for the resignation of those responsible. In the IHF, by contrast, the President moves ahead with this kind of initiative in the full expectation that he can convince the membership or that they will be blind to what he is trying to achieve. For the sake of the image and future development of world handball, one can only hope that this time there will be enough people who understand what is happening and who will show the determination to put a stop to it!

Just in case it might occur to you to say that it is too easy to criticize, let me remind you that a number of months ago I presented, in three parts, a careful analysis, and constructive specific ideas of what are the type of changes that are really needed and desirable. Here are the links: https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.857 https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.868 https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.877

Jaume Fort had a long and distinguished career as a national team goalkeeper in Spain, partly during a period, when Spain had not yet become a ‘world power’. Unlike most players of that caliber, he stayed in handball in a role where he could put his experience to good use for the next generation of players around the world. His peers elected him as ‘Athlete representative’ to the IHF, and he has gone on to become the Head of the European Handball Players’ Union. Jaume agreed to share with our readers some background information about handball in Spain, and later on, in Part 2 of this interview about issues related to his role as a player representative.

[i]CA: Jaume, I remember meeting you for the first time when you were the goalkeeper on the Spanish team in the Goodwill Games in 1990 and I was one of the referees; but could you summarize how you first got involved in handball, and how your career as a goalkeeper progressed![/i]

JF: I started playing in my hometown Cardedeu at the age of 6. My two brothers played handball and so did most of my friends, so that the chances of me getting involved in handball were pretty high. At first I kept playing both handball and baseball simultaneously, but at the age of 14 I made up my mind for handball. One year later I changed to Granollers, where I grew up as a handball player. The peak of my career was in 1996 with the silver medal in the European Championship in Sevilla and the bronze medal in Olympic Games. These were the first medals ever in such competitions for the Spanish handball. I am also very proud of having participated on the Spanish team in all major international competitions during twelve years, from 1988 to 2000.

When I started playing I never thought about becoming a professional sportsman and now I feel very fortunate because for almost 20 years I could play professional handball in the strongest leagues of the world. I spent the last 5 years of my active career in Germany; playing in the Bundesliga was a great experience both personally and professionally. I would encourage Spanish players to take the opportunity and do the same (traditionally, there are very few Spanish players who decide to play in Germany…)

[i]CA: Both the men’s and the women’s national teams from Spain have become well established at the elite level; but it was not always like that; could you explain how and when handball really took off in Spain! [/i]

JF: If we look at the final standings of the major official competitions, we’ll see that for many years the men’s national team could not break the barrier of a 5th place, but we were always very close to the top teams. In 1996, three months before the Atlanta Olympic Games, Spain was not even qualified for the Olympics. but the silver medals in the European Championship gave us the last ticket for Atlanta, where we in the end won the bronze medal. From that moment on, the national team played with more self-confidence and all rivals have considered Spain to be among the favorites in every competition. Definitely, the gold medal at the 2005 WC in Tunisia was the icing on the cake.

In the recent competitions, Spanish women have proven that they also belong to the best teams in the world. Our women’s team won the silver medal at the 2008 EC. However, women’s handball is not so popular as in northern European countries like Denmark or Norway.

It is interesting to note that in 1997 one of the most successful handball players in Spain, Iñaki Urdangarín, married the youngest daughter of King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofia of Spain, and became the Duke of Palma de Mallorca. Never before had handball in Spain obtained such a great media interest, but more than a decade later, it is clear that we did not take advantage and thus missed a unique chance to make our sport become more popular.

[i]CA: The top league in Spain, ASOBAL, really shows strength in European competition and attracts star players from all over the world; but how do you see the strength and depth of the league, how is the financial stability, the spectator and media interests?[/i]

JF: Together with the Bundesliga, ASOBAL is the strongest league in the world. The European competitions have been Spain’s reign in modern handball, especially in the nineties, where different Spanish teams were able to win all different European competitions. Nowadays, there are just two Spanish clubs that can keep up with the powerful German teams: FC Barcelona and BM Ciudad Real. The solid financial and structural situation of the German teams makes it more and more difficult for Spanish teams to reach the final rounds. Most teams in ASOBAL have cut down their budgets in the last two years. As a result of this, the international handball stars feel more attracted by the Bundesliga, where the difference between the strongest and the weakest teams is not so big. This season Ciudad Real has won all their 21 matches in the ASOBAL league up to this point; something similar is very unlikely to happen in the Bundesliga. Spectator and media interest is also much bigger in Germany, where Handball is clearly sport Nr 2 behind soccer. The average spectators’ attendance in the Bundesliga doubles that of the ASOBAL league.

From the organizational and spectators point of view, the 2007 WC held in Germany is, beyond any doubt, the best major handball competition ever organized (outside the Olympic Games). This can only happen in a country like Germany, where one finds a great economic potential together with a high spectator and media interest. Another important difference is that Spanish clubs have a much bigger dependence on the money they get from local governments than German clubs do. To put it in a graphic way, many Spanish clubs are financially in the Intensive Care Unit whereas German clubs are going through a small cold.

[i]CA: What about the ‘grassroots’ level? Is there a strong ‘pyramid’ with competitive leagues and well-organized clubs also below the top?[/i]

JF: We do have grassroots competition in every region. But if we ask the coaches at the top of the pyramid, they will claim that young players have important technical, tactical and physical deficits which should have been acquired at an early stage. As I see it, this can be partially explained because youth trainers lack technical preparation. Related to this, most top clubs invest little time and effort in grassroots handball and this will inevitably backfire in the near future. It can be said that the distance between elite and grassroots handball is getting bigger and bigger, so that the chances of young Spanish players bursting into the ASOBAL League are really small. Another bad symptom is that national youth and junior teams are doing poorly at the major events.

[i]CA: Leaving aside football, how does handball in Spain compare with other team sports, for instance basketball and volleyball?[/i]

JF: If we look at the total number of licenses issued by sport federations, handball is ranked at the eighth place with almost 3% of the licenses. Needless to say, football is by far the most popular sport in Spain (22,7%), followed by basketball (10,8 %), the leading indoor team sport. Although Spanish basketball clubs and national teams have a level of success at the major international competitions similar to that of handball, basketball enjoys a much higher media and spectator interest than handball. Considered to be the absolute basketball paradise, the NBA is the ultimate reference. Spanish basketball has succeeded in selling the idea that Spain is the alternative to the NBA dominance. To illustrate this, we can recall the huge media attention in recent matches between Spain and USA and the fact that we have several Spanish players competing in the NBA. Apart from basketball, there are other sports which are in direct competition with handball to draw the interest of media and spectators, like indoor football (five-a-side), which has become very popular in the last decade.

[i]CA: So overall, how do you assess the longer-term future of handball in Spain? [/i]

JF: In Spain we have seen how some traditional handball clubs have disappeared or are in a very delicate situation. Atlético de Madrid, Teka Santander and Bidasoa Irun (former European top clubs) are the most significant examples. The current economic crisis does not help at all since all the teams have big problems with their budgets. Competition from other sports is constantly growing. Top clubs generally invest little time and effort in grassroots sport, so that the responsibility falls on the small clubs, whose trainers do not always have the necessary training. I wish I could say I was more optimistic about the future…

CA: On this slightly worrisome note, we thank Jaume for his ‘behind the scenes’ insights about Spanish handball. In the near future, in a ‘Part 2’, Jaume will tell us about issue related to his current role as player representative.

Did you notice that there was a worldwide celebration of International Women’s Day earlier this week? And did you realize that it was the 100th anniversary of this event?

Superficially, one might think that we have gender equality in handball; after all, at the international level we have the same events for both men and women, and we now finally after years of struggle also have the same number of men’s and women’s teams playing in the Olympics. But I really do not think that this suggests we do not have any issues!

In fact, I continue to be surprised that one hears relatively little debate about gender issues in our sport. Is there not much discussion going on, or is just not loud enough? Through this article and a second part in the near future, I would want to [u]encourage more debate[/u]. Because surely there are realities that give us reason to have opinions and to discuss ways of improving. For instance:

— Why is the spectator interest in women’s handball much smaller than that for men’s handball in the large majority of countries?

— Why are most top level women’s teams coached by men, while it is almost unthinkable to see men’s teams coached by women?

— Why is there only 1 woman among 17 persons on the IHF Council (and why is the situation almost as bad in many national federations)?

— Why do the newspapers and web pages tend to write so much less about women’s handball compared with men’s handball?

— Why are the top women’s players of the world paid clearly less than the top men’s players?

— Why are there so few women referees at both the international level and in most national federations?

— Why do more sponsors seem to prefer to support men’s clubs and men’s championships instead of women’s clubs and women’s events?

— Why, in the current discussion about the international competition calendar and the excessive demands on the players, is all the focus on the men’s side?

* * *

Gender issues in sports tend to be a reflection of gender issues in society at large: the continuing impact of traditions, concerns about unequal opportunities, biases in evaluation and appreciation of performances, limited participation in governance, prejudices in public opinion and in media treatment etc.

However, one might think that gender issues in sports should be less dramatic or less serious than in other aspects of life, because in sports they do not involve matters of life and death, they do not involve violence and abuse, and they do not typically involve fundamental human rights.

But there are reasons why gender issues may, in fact, be seen as more sensitive in sports than elsewhere. To some extent this may be because there are expectations regarding sports that are not quite realistic. As an analogy, people who view corruption or unfairness as a normal, albeit regrettable, part of life in politics and business, somehow are almost unwilling to believe that sport is not free from similar attitudes and behaviors. In other words, people expect sports to be above what is the norm elsewhere.

Another consideration is that when one discusses gender issues in sports, it is natural (or almost inevitable) to think of it in an international context. After all, many decisions that impact participants in sports at the national or local level are taken at a higher, i.e., global level. And there are many aspects, e.g., culture or religion, directly affecting the gender issues, which are viewed very differently in different environments. What is a ‘hot issue’ for some may be normal and uncontroversial to another group.

Also, in business and politics the decision-makers and the key ‘players’ tend to be from the same generation. In sports, the key players, the athletes, are often one, or even two, generations removed from the top decision-makers. So how can one expect that the viewpoints of the two groups are the same!?

After these statements as background, you may believe that I am about to enter into a lengthy ‘philosophical’ discussion that will make you want to tune out quickly. But that is not the case. However, before I stop for the moment: I venture to believe that in handball we [u]should[/u] be better off than some other sports. We do not have the problems of icehockey (not enough top countries), ski jumping (too new and not enough athletes yet), or softball (inadequate global coverage). In fact, we are well ahead of football/soccer and basketball, in terms of longstanding traditions for the women’s game.

Also, we are not one of those sports that need to adapt its entire format or its basic rules to suit the women. All that differs in handball is the size of the ball. There is nothing about handball that makes it a ‘strange’ sport for women, and it is not the type of sport, like swimming or track & field (athletics), where measurable results could imply that the women’s game is inferior. A high-quality and evenly matched women’s game is just as exciting.

I will give you a few days to think about your experience and ideas regarding gender issues in handball. Then, in Part 2, you will hear from a number of women with different roles in handball (and also some men…) about their views on issues and possible solutions. And in the meantime, it would be really nice if some of you decided to volunteer [u]your[/u] input!!!

Editor's Note: Join in on the discussion at our Facebook Fanpage: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Team-Handball-News/108817968908?ref=ts

Like other similar sports, handball has rules with provisions that state that “decisions made by the referees on the basis of their observations of facts or their judgments are final”. By contrast, “appeals can be lodged only against decisions that are not in compliance with the rules”. The latter category applies to situations that, fortunately, do not occur in the great majority of matches.

Also sports (such as NBA, NHL and NFL) that for a long time have been used to a high-tech environment that goes beyond what is the case at most top level handball matches, have come to realize that the human factor must remain fundamental to the decision-making in the matches and that excessive recourse to high technology is not advantageous to the proper running of the game. In other words, these sports use “instant replay” or “video review” very [u]cautiously[/u] and only in situations (and for purposes) that are carefully specified and highly [u]regulated[/u].

Football/soccer, through its International Football Association Board (IFAB), just a few days ago took an amazing decision to remain completely conservative. IFAB decided that further experiments with goal-line cameras or balls with computer chips will not be pursued. This was not due to problems with the technology; it was simply a decision taken ‘on grounds of principle’. It was noted that the introduction of such methods would “open the door for video review, something that we absolutely do not want”. http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/federation/administration/releases/newsid=1177755.html#ifab+decides+pursue+goal+line+technology

As some IFAB members put it: “the human aspect of football is essential” and “the big moments [ed.: meaning mistakes or controversies] get the supporters talking and this is what makes the game so vibrant…” In other words, it is implied that mistakes and controversy are good for the popularity of football!!! But at the same time, IFAB left the door open for ‘other (=human) ways of helping the referees make the right decision’. This would involve an expansion of the role of the ‘4th official’ and the possible introduction of two more officials, along the lines of what is now being tested by UEFA.

One might hope that the strange preference for the ‘excitement of serious and import mistakes’ is not shared by handball. Presumably, also in handball we all want a match to run smoothly, without excessive interruptions. But handball is different from football, as there are more stoppages and as we use time-outs, even though it does not go as far as in basketball. Moreover, video review could only exist in handball at those levels where there is adequate availability of cameras and other equipment. Nevertheless, for that elite level, [u]it behooves us at least to consider whether video review is desirable on grounds of principle and, if so, feasible in a practical sense[/u]. To make such determinations, one needs to have an idea of what methods and what procedures would be involved. The text below is intended to provide some ‘food for thought,’ and not as a way of prejudging the whole matter.

[u]Possible situations[/u]

1. As valid protests can be lodged against decisions that “are not in compliance with the rules”, it follows that it would be important to use available replays to avoid suspected non-compliance immediately when it occurs (so that if possible it could be corrected before the game is continued) or at least to determine the reality after the fact. In the latter case, it could be done in response to a protest lodged.

(For illustrative purposes, some examples of decisions “not in compliance with the rules” are: (i) giving possession of the ball to the wrong team, after the game has been interrupted due to a faulty substitution; (ii) not giving time-out in a situation where it is obligatory; (iii) allowing a suspended player to remain on the court. By contrast, subjective referee judgments regarding offensive fouls or 7-meters, or observations of facts such as ‘stepping on the line or not’, ‘goal or no goal’ or faulty substitutions etc, basically must not be subject to review).

2. While ‘goal or no goal’ was just mentioned as an example of decisions that, on grounds of principle, must not be subject to review, there is one specific situation that fully warrants an exception. This is the situation where the real issue is not whether the ball entered the goal or not, but as to whether it did so before the end of a half, or before a whistle signal (for some other reason) from the time/scorekeeping table. In such a case it is conceivable that the referees may not have a clear opinion, and it would be legitimate to resort to video review.

3. A similar exception would also be prudent, for the sake of the image of our sport, in cases where serious violations occur “behind the back” of the referees, and would go unpunished unless the relevant managers of the competition could act on the basis of video evidence. It would only involve very serious forms of fouls or misconduct, i.e., those types that according to the playing rules require reporting for further action.

[u]Procedures[/u]

It is important to note that it is not enough, from the standpoint of adequate legal safeguards and practical reliability of the video review approach, to determine exactly [u]when[/u] such review may be used. It is equally important to ensure that solid [u]procedures[/u] exist for [u]how[/u] it should be used.

This obviously involves reliable access to a video monitor, staffed by a neutral and competent person under the control of the match supervisor, and equipped to handle the retrieval and playback with the sophistication needed, for instance slow-motion and comparison of image and sound. Quickness is also a major consideration in making a review viable, particularly one that involves situations where the game cannot be restarted until a result is available.

Moreover, it has to be absolutely clear who is responsible for the decisions to use the video replay and who has the final word on the evaluation of the replay. The rule book is clear about the normal authority of the referees, but it seems that in connection with a video review all authority essentially must pass to the senior official who is supervising the match. This person would also have to decide whether the video really is conclusive.

While bureaucracy must be kept to a minimum, these issues about [u]how[/u] video review is to be used must be regulated in detail. However, there is little point in getting further into the details for such procedures until, hypothetically, it is agreed that the implementation of video review is being seriously considered.

With my review of the issue, I am just hoping to provide a basis for a further debate about the desirability and the feasibility of video review at the higher levels in handball, and perhaps it could give the IHF and other interested parties an impetus for moving ahead with a serious discussion.

Laszlo Sinka is one of the most well-known handball profiles in Europe. In addition to having been the key figure in Hungarian handball for many years, he is also a member of the EHF Executive Committee (and also the Chair of the EHF Beach Handball Commission).

[i]CA: Laszlo, could you tell our readers a bit about your handball background, before you moved into these top positions in the HHF and the EHF![/i]

LS: I played as an “all-round player” for nearly two decades at different levels in my home town, Százhalombatta. My wife was also a handball player, in the Hungarian 1st division. After my retirement, I played at charity matches, often representing the Hungarian Masters Selections. If I could, I would still like to train and play ,but due to chronic injuries I had to stop.

[i]CA: Hungary is not one of the largest countries in Europe, but it has always had great sports traditions; and for a long time, handball has been able to stay at a high level, both with the national teams and the club teams; what is the secret to this success? [/i]

LS: Yes, we are proud of our handball history (nearly 80 years old) and we try to pass on this great heritage to the upcoming generations. But we are also looking ahead and working hard to keep up with the world’s elite. The HHF is a well respected body and has working relations with domestic and foreign associations. Handball is the second most popular sport in Hungary (after soccer of course); last year a total of 83 million viewers watched matches on TV.

[i]CA: in some European countries, the men’s side dominates very strongly, but in Hungary the women’s handball has perhaps remained even more stabile and strong at the international level; what is the reason for this?[/i]

LS: Handball is the most popular team sport for women in Hungary and plays an important part in our entire education system. Based on the large quantity, we have an extensive competition system at the developmental level with different age categories. This nurtures quality players for our strong National League from which our national players are mostly selected.

[i]CA:. I would imagine that you were not entirely happy with the result of your men’s team in the EURO2010; what do you see as the main reasons for this result, and what are your expectations for the near future? [/i]

LS: I could not identify one main reason for the result. Rather, the team’s performance was greatly influenced by the coincidence of a few components: the relatively short preparation time, a lack of tournament fitness, injuries and late rehabilitation, unavailability of some key players, and perhaps mental weakness hampered us. Yes, it was a painful experience for us but at the same time the early exit from the ECh provided us with the opportunity to analyze, regroup and work out a strategy in order to qualify for the WCh, by winning tough games against Slovenia.

[i]CA: when one follows Hungarian club teams in Champions League on the webcasts, it is always apparent that there is a very enthusiastic spectator support; what is it that leads to this strong support and does it exist also for the lower levels of matches?[/i]

LS; Handball provides excellent entertainment for the majority of the population. In certain areas of Hungary, generations have grown up with handball and pass this passion onto their children. Of course, our National Men’s and Woman’s Teams are the most popular and always play in front of a full capacity crowd, at home. Many spectators are watching the 1st division matches for both genders, and our Champions League teams from Veszprém and Győri attract the most supporters. But generally speaking we have a good attendance even in the lower divisions.

[i]CA: it seems that many of the best teams come from cities and town around the country and not from Budapest; does this have a special explanation?[/i]

LS: The most successful clubs were situated in Budapest until the last two decades. After the changing of the political system at the end of the 1980’s, the big Budapest clubs lost their government supported “mother companies” and there was not enough private enterprise replace the financing. But in the smaller cities around Hungary people are more fanatic about their ‘home’ teams and there is less competition with other sports for local support. So places like Debrecen, Győr, Veszprém, Békéscsaba and Székesfehérvár became our ‘strongholds.’.

[i]CA: over the years I have observed that you have always been able to come up with new strong coaches for your teams; what programs and efforts do you have in place to be so successful in the area of coaching?[/i]

Coaching education is an important part of our organization and has a special place in the long-term strategic plan of the HHF. We have a good working cooperation with different institutes and organize coaching education courses along with them. We have a strict licensing system. It is part of our strategy that we encourage our retired yet experienced payers to continue their activity in handball, as coaches or referees.

[i]CA: yes, what about the area of refereeing? you have strong traditions in Hungary; what do you do to encourage young talents to get interested in refereeing?[/i]

LS: We think the referees’ education is just as important as that for coaches. In fact, we strongly believe that the two can and should go hand in hand. It is based on our philosophy that tries to keep everybody within the game. So we encourage retired players to do a referee course and start whistling. Talented young couples with enthusiasm and desire then can take a step forward, entering the EHF Young Referee Project. We also test other referees every year.

[i]CA: there is currently an intensive debate about the pressures on the top players, due to the competition calendar for clubs and national teams; what solutions do you see to this problem?[/i]

LS: Everybody agrees that the number of matches top players have to play are already too many and to put more matches into the schedule is almost impossible. On the other hand, the media – TV in particular – and sponsors need these high quality matches in order to maintain the momentum of the sport, and this is in our common interest. So within the field of sports administration very little can be done… One area for improvement is perhaps the application of the most up to date sport science for players rehabilitation and better impact of training sessions.

[i]CA: of course, handball must compete with other sports and other activities in order to remain attractive for new young players, spectators, media and sponsors; how do you see the ability of handball to remain competitive in Hungary and more globally?[/i]

LS: A decreasing population results in less children and more new age attractions reduce the interest in sport. So the competition amongst the different sports for potential players becomes tougher and more aggressive. Our philosophy is to make handball accessible to everybody. So we start with mini – or as we named it after the ball they are playing with – “sponge” handball even at kindergarten level. We even organize competitions for the +45 age categories. Then we have the growing off-shoot of our sport, Beach Handball. It also depends on the game itself: we are lucky, because handball is a fast and spectacular team sport with lots of excitement and passion, – and this makes promotion easier.

[i]CA: from your long experience, do you have any specific suggestions for how handball could be made even more attractive?[/i]

LS: I think the existing playing rules are good, suitable for the public and fulfill the requirements of a game of the 21st century. However, there is room for improvement: the better application of the rules by the referees and the better utilization of the rules by the coaches and players. This is a natural process and it will bring the game forward until another change of the rules becomes necessary to adapt to how the game develops.

CA: On behalf of our readers, I want to thank Laszlo Sinka for making himself available for this very interesting and optimistic commentary on both the background and the future of Hungarian handball!

A few weeks ago I read with interest an article in the German handball web site handball-world.com. http://www.handball-world.com/o.red.c/news.php?auswahl=24182&GID=1 In summary, people interviewed in the article argued for the idea that retiring top players could quickly become top referees on the basis of their practical sense for the game at the top level and their personal experience with the many complex situations on the court that are difficult for the referees to evaluate. So many judgments in a game are based on the knowledge of tactics and the ability to anticipate action, to see correctly what happens and to ‘feel’ what this means. Handball refereeing [u]is[/u] a demanding job.

My reactions to the comments in the article were of course generally positive. Who could be against the idea of improving the recruitment of candidates for the elite referee level!? It was also nice to see that several well-known players, coaches and federation representatives were so supportive. In order to convince former top players to become referees, this is the attitude that is needed. But I also had to smile a little bit at some of the comments.

For instance, one could get the impression that this is a brand new idea that nobody had thought of or tried before. Clearly this is not the case, as I am aware of such efforts both from a large number of traditional handball countries and also some new handball countries that do not have a cadre of experienced referees. In fact, I have myself been involved with such efforts both internationally and at the national level during the last 30-40 years (Sweden and USA). It was suggested that candidates could easily be found and that the main obstacle would be their reluctance to start at the bottom and move their way to the top very slowly. And I also suspect that it is easy to underestimate the difficulties involved in making the transition from a top player to a top referee.

First of all, despite encouragement from federations and coaches, it would not be realistic to think that suddenly large quantities of top players would become interested in refereeing. They are likely to continue to prefer other roles, including coaching, if they want to stay involved when retiring as players. So it could never become the main source for the elite referee category. But [u]even a small increase would be helpful[/u], so there is no reason to be negative. Then the argument about being treated as all other beginners, without any chance to start higher and/or move up faster is likely to be flawed. In my experience this is not what happens. Smart national federations realize that they have to be flexible and give credit for the experience and talent they want to draw on. So they are likely to make whatever exceptions that are warranted [u]in the individual case[/u], depending on the ability demonstrated.

Although it is now beyond my influence, I dare assume that also the IHF would set aside normal age limits and happily receive ‘special’ candidates outside the normal programs and progressions. I could even imagine that the IHF/PRC would give clear signals to encourage national federations to strengthen their efforts in this respect. Indeed, instead of just waiting passively for possible candidates to come forward, such efforts should be proactive, in the sense that players with the right attitude and personality should be sought out and approached. Also, I would not limit the search to national team players; 1st and 2nd division players in major handball countries would clearly be able to bring the relevant experience. In any case, it is doubtful that the absolute star players would be the first ones to volunteer, and personally I am not so sure that their standing as stars would be an advantage.

It was also correct and useful that some of the contributors emphasized that the ‘status’ of the refereeing job would be an inhibiting factor in attracting former top players. Indeed, the same applies to [u]all[/u] recruitment for the refereeing function. And here the national federations have a heavy responsibility. I do not think that financial compensation is the main issue, although it is certainly a factor. There are many other things that are important: better educational and mentoring capacity, combined with the availability of stronger match delegates, would make a big difference; but a general increase in the priority, support, and protection given to the referee function is also needed.

Millions of people around the world put in endless hours of hard work for the purpose of enabling athletes at all levels to enjoy the pleasures and benefits of sports. For most of them it is either their hobby as a coach, manager or referee, or it is a part of the ‘job’ of being a parent. The overwhelming majority do not get any tangible compensation for their efforts; for some perhaps it is mainly a sacrifice, but for most – one hopes – it is a pleasure with its own intrinsic rewards. A minority, however, have it as their job or their career in some other sense. They earn a living from it, and some earn more than that. For yet others it is not the money, or just the money, it is the power and prestige, an ego trip in the world of sports.

But the Olympic Games, like now in Vancouver, tend to offer a healthy reminder: sport is – and should be – primarily for the athletes; and in a secondary way for all those who find it stimulating to watch. As many before me have more eloquently expressed, sport is not just enjoyable to do and to see, it teaches lessons for life and about life. I have had the great privilege to be part of the Olympics on many occasions. It was exciting but it required hard work, almost around the clock; one gets immersed, almost to the point of losing perspective. So, in a strange way, it is somehow a bit special, like for me now during the last couple of weeks, to be able to watch, if only on TV, the Olympics without being involved and just take it all in. Enjoying the fantastic performances, the struggles, the victories and the narrow defeats; and of course hearing and thinking about the personal stories and efforts that lead up to these performances.

So I am going back to those who in an unselfish and idealistic way make the performances of the athletes and the organization of such wonderful events possible: [u]they[/u] surely do not need any reminders about what sport is all about. [u]But[/u], then there are those who, directly or indirectly, earn their money, their positions, their power, their comfortable lives ‘on the backs of’ the athletes, often without much concern for fair play and good sportsmanship. Do [u]they[/u] not need some kind of reminder about what is, and what is not, expected from them? Some are found in business and politics surrounding the sport. But many are of course directly involved in the management of sport in one way or the other.

You know that in the Opening Ceremony of the Olympic Games, there is always [u]an athlete and a judge swearing oaths[/u] about ‘abiding by the rules,’ ‘impartiality,’ ‘true spirit of sportsmanship’ and ‘for the glory of sport.’ This seems entirely appropriate and may serve as a useful reminder. But what I think is [u]missing[/u] is that, in every Closing Ceremony the [u]IOC President, on behalf of the IOC and all sports federations around the world[/u], and by extension all those doing business with them, should be asked to [u]swear an oath that the same principles will be upheld, as these sports federations do their work for the athletes and sports[/u] until the next Olympic Games!

A few days ago, THN offered a translation of an internet article in the German magazine Der Spiegel. https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.964 We also offered some brief clarifications of the concepts involved. The key numbers according to Der Spiegel were that the President’s remuneration had been changed from an honorarium of 30,000 Sw.Frs. to a salary of 500,000 per year, and that, in aggregate, the remaining 16 Council members had had their honorariums increased from 174,000 Sw.Frs. per year to 825,000. This suggests an average increase from around 10,000 per year to more than 50,000 per year. (Around that average, I suspect there is a wide range, from Executive Committee members through Commission Presidents to the second-tier continental representatives).

Not surprisingly, the revelations in Der Spiegel have caused people to react. I have received feedback essentially of two types: “this is really outrageous; how can it be allowed to happen!?” and “I am not sure how to react; is this out of line or not?” I can fully understand both reactions, but perhaps the latter one is more to the point: while it is easy to react spontaneously, it is more difficult to have a clear opinion unless one has a frame of reference. In other words: to sense whether something is ‘out of line’, one must ask: “[u]in relation to what[/u]”?

The way I see it, there are really at least [u]five[/u] separate questions one could ask: 1. do other international sports federations pay such compensation and of the same magnitude? 2. how does one justify a sudden, huge increase? 3. how do the compensation figures compare with other IHF expenditure? 4. do the positions and the incumbents in the case of the IHF deserve what they get? and then 5. the [u]fundamental[/u] question: is the [u]decision-making process[/u] for these payments and arrangements transparent and appropriate?

On the first question, some federations provide numbers for a few key employees and elected official, while the majority are not transparent and either keep their numbers secret (also internally) or make it very hard to obtain firm and reliable figures. But the main problem is the relevance of the comparisons. Differences in organization size, financial circumstances, and management structure make it impossible or inappropriate to compare directly. Suffice it to say that most federations provide some kind of honorariums or allowances, varying from enormous amounts for a very large number of people (FIFA) to quite modest amounts in some smaller and less wealthy federations. The IHF’s [u]pre[/u]-increase figures, having gradually moved up during Moustafa’s regime from 0 to the 10,000 average for Council members mentioned above, seem to be more in line with most numbers I have heard.

In a sense, this also answers my second question: the [u]new[/u] IHF figures do seem very high by most comparisons. And there is really nothing in the IHF’s situation that suggests a basis for a brand new compensation philosophy. There is no drastic expansion of activities and duties, no newly found wealth has been announced, and no achievements worthy of major rewards can be pointed to. It is doubtful that IHF member nations would find any arguments either.

The IHF budget has tended to be rather static in terms of size, main income sources and major lines of expenditure. There have been no entirely new forms of revenue. The budget document is dutifully presented on an annual basis, but there is no real debate within the IHF or with the member federations. While some budget items are not easy to define in practice, at least it is clear that the share spent on operations as compared with administration is not impressive. And the 1.325.000 Sw.Frs. amount now reportedly being paid out to the President and the Council members is roughly of the same magnitude as the [u]entire[/u] budget line for development aid!

It is a delicate matter to evaluate jobs and performance, but IHF insiders are well aware that some of those who now will receive average annual amounts in the order of 50,000 Sw.Frs. do [u]not[/u] have the competence or inclination to accomplish very much for the IHF. As I discussed some months ago, in a commentary on necessary By-Law changes and current IHF management practices, https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.857 it is also clear that most continental representatives in the IHF focus almost exclusively on the narrow and selfish interests of [u]their own[/u] constituencies, and spend very little time as true managers of the [u]IHF[/u]. Moreover, the current regime simply does not allow the IHF Council and most of its individual members to play an important role and carry out demanding tasks, and the attention to matters involving strategies and objectives is any case lacking.

If the President is so autocratic, and the Council is largely impotent in the overall decision-making process, then this could in a sense be used as an argument for the President’s conversion from a volunteer elected official to the position of full-time employed chief executive. The arrangement is certainly not without precedent in the world of sports, and a suitable high-level executive will demand a commensurate compensation. The questions are, however, [u]whether the IHF is really best served[/u] by an arrangement where an autocratic president’s role is intensified, whether Moustafa is the best one for such a job, and whether it is money well spent from the IHF’s limited resources. We know the President’s own answers to these questions, but what does the rest of the handball world think, including the poor developing handball countries who depend on the IHF for support? As someone asked: “what are all the miracles that the President now will perform in return for his salary, that he was not able to perform in the past?”

Many would have looked differently at the whole issue and the specific factors just discussed, if the compensation decisions had gone through the careful scrutiny of the member federations in the form of a Congress, and the Congress had given its blessing, not just for the compensation increases but for the notion of a president as a highly-paid full-time employee. Yes, there are parliaments and politicians who are in a position to decide on their own remuneration (although they do it openly), but is that the example to follow for an international sports federation? In 2004, when I became President of the IHF Rules & Referees Commission for 2004-08, I innocently raised this question, when I was surprised to find that the Council was being asked to vote on what was at that time a small increase in a more modest amount. I can assure you that this intervention from a newcomer was ‘not popular’. But for me it remains a matter of concern, on grounds of principle.

Finally, to echo some comments I have received: there is another real danger involved in the new, high level of remuneration of the IHF Council members: if we already have a situation where the President wishes to be autocratic, as he feels he knows best and therefore simply wants the Council to go along with his decisions, what are then the likely implications of his insistence on paying the Council members such large amounts? The President demands loyalty, and for many it would not be easy to walk away from such money. So has it not suddenly become [u]much more difficult to expect true independence and a real debate[/u] where serious questions or objections are raised???

My recent comments about the refereeing at EURO 2010 suggested that one of the problems this time involved a distinct lack of a ‘common line’ among the referee couples, something that both the coaches and the referee supervisor clearly see as an important issue. Of course, the coaches in a sense always have a similar issue, when they want to ensure that all the players on their team are synchronized regarding the tactics to be used, both generally and in specific game situations. After all, players are likely to have a mind of their own…

So it may have some relevance to examine the experience with achieving a ‘common line’ also in a totally different field. People who know me well are aware that I am not just a ‘handball fanatic’. I have many other interests, and perhaps the main one involves classical music and opera; no, do not worry, not as performer, just as an enthusiastic listener. Therefore, it seemed like a very nice opportunity when some time ago I was able to have a chat with a well-known symphony conductor. He wants to be ‘anonymous,’ but I can reveal that he is from a handball country and he is sports-minded. Thus he was able to appreciate the significance of my questions, when I asked him about ensuring a ‘common line’ from the members of an orchestra that he is conducting.

As he noted, a ‘common line’ for an orchestra obviously does not just mean following the same music sheet but, in particular, it means following the conductor’s intentions and interpretations. And the [u]whole[/u] group has to ‘buy in’, has to be on board with the agreed approach. He wanted to mention five points, three of which are relevant to the preparations or rehearsals prior to a concert (or a game). One applies during the concert/game, and the last one is more related to the feed-back afterwards. I hope you will agree that, not surprisingly, they are very much the same kind of points that a coach or a referee supervisor need to keep in mind; nothing revolutionary, nothing that they may not know already, but still interesting.

The first point is to show that the conductor clearly knows what he/she wants to achieve. One must be prepared to listen and to accept ideas, but one cannot get respect without coming well-prepared and being able to demonstrate one’s knowledge. Being overly democratic and too ready to make compromises or to let the team decide does not work, if you want to emphasize a ‘common line’. The same goes for a group of referees.

Second, it is critical to focus on the big picture first. It is tempting to get caught up in detail after detail, but the approach to those details will not be clear, until and unless the overall goal or tactic is clear. It is especially important to avoid getting into a lot of negative feedback and criticism on minor details during a rehearsal or practice. (A referee supervisor may need to explain how he/she wants the referees to lead a game, before one gets into explaining the specific mistakes that they need to avoid).

The third pre-event point is to remember that, even as you focus on a team approach and a ‘common line’, you still need to treat the orchestra/team members as individuals. Some are more comfortable with the notion that the leader knows best, and are not so willing or capable of articulating any views of their own. Others need to have more of a dialogue, both for the purpose of understanding the message and in order to accept it fully.

During the concert/game, you need to realize that most of the opportunity for serious teaching is already over. Going too far in trying to change course or to rectify problems can easily backfire and make things worse. Certain things can be, and need to be, dealt with as the event goes on, but especially negative feedback, including body language, can often be demoralizing or confusing. (I am not so sure that all coaches will agree on this).

After the game, a team coach or a referee supervisor normally has the opportunity to offer feedback. The conductor noted, with some envy, that for him this tends to be the case only when he is conducting ‘his own’ orchestra, where he is based and where he has more ongoing and managerial responsibilities. When he is a ‘guest conductor’, there often is not an opportunity, except if one tries to do it in a rushed way directly after the event. But he warned against this; he had found that such immediate feedback, at a moment when the adrenaline is still there and when the orchestra members have not yet had time to do their own evaluation, is likely to be wasted. They are not receptive and are not likely to be able to make much use of the feedback.

I will not go back and comment (more than I did above) on how I think that each of these five points apply to a handball coach and to a referee supervisor; I will leave that to each of you, on the basis of your own experience, if you find it useful. Indeed, you may even disagree with some point. Personally, I do find it relevant and useful, and of course I can primarily comment on it from the perspective of a referee supervisor. I think there are some good analogies or comparisons, and I do believe it offers some helpful reminders. As Mozart used to say, “we are all in the same boat.”

A puzzling article suddenly appeared on the IHF web site a couple of days ago. http://www.ihf.info/front_content.php?idcat=57&idart=2553 It came ‘out of the blue’ and it would be interesting to know what the IHF (read: its president) believes it has at stake here. It is stated that the IHF met with representatives of other international federations (IFs) for team sports, and that these (or all?) IFs have joined together, in collaboration with the IOC (!!) to express its concerns with/to CAS (the Court of Arbitration in Sports) in a formal letter.

It was claimed that ‘more and more decisions of Executive Committees and Congresses of IFs are appealed to CAS,’ and it was argued in the letter to CAS that “such appeals obviously undermine the authority of the IFs”. Superficially, such concerns may seem legitimate but, if one is familiar with the background, then they may seem rather farfetched and either laughable or scary, depending on how one wants to interpret the claims.

CAS was established in 1983, at the initiative of the then IOC president Samaranch, as a specialized body to resolve disputes involving issues such as eligibility, sports governance and doping, outside the normal court system. It plays a particular in role relation to issues regarding the Olympic Games. For the most part, the issues that come before the CAS are handled in ways similar to those of normal court cases, with written submissions, hearings, and a careful review of applicable laws and regulations. Most cases heard by CAS take the form of appeals, after the normal appeals mechanisms within an IF have been exhausted, but CAS also handles mediation cases and provides advice upon request. The web site of CAS offers a wealth of information about its rules and its operations. http://www.tas-cas.org/news

As far as the IHF is concerned, the experience with CAS is limited to one case only, but an absolutely infamous one, viz., the scandalous manipulations in the Asian qualification tournaments for the 2008 Olympics in Beijing. Here the IHF Council found it necessary to set aside the results of both the men’s and the women’s events due to clear indications of an orchestration of heavily biased refereeing and other forms of fraudulent behavior. The IHF decision was appealed by the Asian Federation and the nations that had ‘won’ the events that the IHF decided to annul. The IHF president then took upon himself, in collaboration with the Asian president, to bring the matter straight to CAS for resolution, even though the internal IHF appeals mechanisms had not been used. In other words, it was the IHF specifically asking CAS to become involved, and anything else would have been impossible under the CAS statutes. Then it is a different matter that the revelations during the CAS proceedings ended up being most embarrassing for the IHF president… THN report at the time: https://teamhandballnews.com/comment-n380.html the complete text of the CAS decision: http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/sites/CaseLaw/Shared%20Documents/1483.pdf

FIFA’s experience with CAS is a bit more extensive. Perhaps the most awkward case, from FIFA’s vantage point, involves the issue of releasing players under the age of 23 for the 2008 Olympics. Some clubs, for instance FC Barcelona in the case of Messi, refused to release their player. FIFA got up on ‘high horses’, referring partly to a Committee decision and partly to ‘well-established practices’. CAS, however, did not accept the validity of the FIFA committee decision, and simply noted that the ‘well-established practices’ could not be seen as prevailing inasmuch as they directly contradicted relevant clauses in FIFA’s own regulations. This was at the time a rather embarrassing defeat for the FIFA and its president Blaetter. Moreover, it is well known that FIFA, possibly even more strongly than the IOC, constantly asserts its autonomy and lashes out against member countries with accusations and punishments regarding government interference in matters of federations and clubs. Clearly, FIFA must be just as unhappy with any notion that CAS might be inclined to question FIFA decisions and intervene in its decision-making.

But comparatively, it is absolutely astounding, if it is indeed correct, that IOC is now also expressing concerns about the role of CAS. As noted at the outset, CAS exists at the initiative of IOC, and the concerns in the early days were just the opposite of what now is being alleged. CAS was seen as too closely linked to IOC and therefore had its credibility and impartiality questioned. Decisions had to be taken, especially regarding financing and administration, which demonstrated a higher degree of independence. Even so, CAS was earlier often accused of being rather reticent in its role. So it would be a truly remarkable turnaround if the IOC now was seen as accusing CAS of being excessively active and involved.

Let me go back to the question of possible reasons for the IHF to participate in action against CAS, and in fact being the only team sport IF currently even mentioning the issue in public. It might be a sufficient reason to support initiatives that are close to the heart of the ‘role model’ FIFA/Blaetter (a very unfortunate choice, but nevertheless), and it might be ‘politically correct’ to support action that is said to be embraced by the IOC. (See also the recent IHF decision to suspend Kuwaiti handball http://www.ihf.info/front_content.php?idcat=57&idart=2424 ).

But the precise issue that saw FIFA overruled by CAS may also provide a hint. IHF has recently asserted its position (as reflected in its Transfer Regulations) that clubs worldwide must accept to release, without compensation, players for World Championships. This IHF position is already being appealed in civilian courts and the European Union. Could IHF be concerned about getting also CAS as an adversary in such matters? But this seems highly unrealistic, as CAS does not have the mandate to get involved in setting aside existing IHF regulations. Is it instead just an effort to try to eliminate one of the few existing forms of external scrutiny, in matters where the IHF does [u]not[/u] wish to follow its regulations or where it does not want it autonomy/autocracy challenged!!??

European web sites today report about interesting developments on several fronts. One of the hottest topics involves the competition calendar for the elite level and related aspects regarding the rights of players, clubs, national federations and the IHF/EHF. Clearly, both the IHF and the EHF are attempting to grab the initiative by organizing meetings with representatives of other stakeholders. Just recently, as reported by THN, https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.932 the IHF got a ‘working group’ together for a meeting in Vienna during the EURO2010. As we also reported some time ago, https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.881 the EHF will want to continue its efforts to create a forum for discussions about changes in the structure of European handball. A meeting will now take place at the end of this week.

In the IHF meeting, participants were handpicked, and Group Club Handball (GCH), the entity representing 19 top clubs in Europe was specifically excluded, not just quietly but with a slap in the face, in the form of a statement that IHF does not meet with entities that have no formal link to the IHF. Apparently, the EHF does not have similar concerns, as GCH is likely to play a key role in the upcoming EHF forum. This may be one reason why the GCH now reports, on its own web site, http://www.groupclubhandball.com/?p=636 that a formal legal complaint that was lodged almost a year ago by GCH against IHF and EHF challenging their ‘monopoly’, may now be split up into two separate complaints. The purpose of this move would be to suspend temporarily the complaint against EHF, while the complaint against IHF remains in place. Clearly, the directions that the upcoming EHF meeting will take, will be crucial for the atmosphere on the European scene.

Right at this point in time, the President of the German Handball Federation, Ulrich Strombach, who has tended to be an ally of IHF president Moustafa, went out on a limb in an interview (as also reported, inter alia, on the GCH web site) http://www.groupclubhandball.com/?p=636 with a series of ‘demands’. He wanted to see: a reduction of the number of teams in the German Bundesliga; a reduction of teams in the EHF Champions League; a re-scheduling of World and European Championships to the summer months; an abolition of the European Championship in Olympic years; and finally, a larger share of the IHF revenue for the national federations. At first sight, this list seems tilted in favor of the IHF, away from the EHF, as the critical question of reducing ‘from five to four’ big events in each four-year period is answered by removing one European Championship. However, much of the focus of federations and clubs has been on revenue-sharing and compensation for the time spent by players on their national teams, so the monetary side may weigh heavily.

One can only hope that the upcoming meeting will be a productive next step. It would also seem that, while the issues and the stakeholders by definition differ somewhat, the IHF and the EHF should have far more in common in this whole process than they have been able to demonstrate so far. Competing initiatives and actions colored by prestige are not likely to be helpful. Also, there is that lingering concern about an exclusive focus on men’s handball and a reluctance to give player representatives a seat at the table.

First of all, like John Ryan, I want to express my delight over the high-quality broadcasts from Austria. Thank you, EHF, for ensuring that. One would wish that such handball propaganda would be available worldwide more often!

For me personally, it was a special experience to sit at home, like a ‘spider in a web’, having an overview of everything that was going on. During many, many years, my typical experience from World Championships amounted to ‘being stuck’ in one group, seeing the same few teams and referee couples for a week at a time. One then becomes somewhat ‘myopic’, getting an in-depth view of one segment of the overall event, but without any opportunity to make comparisons across the whole event and to spot any important trends. Indeed, despite not being on duty this time, I felt more ‘on top of things’ than ever before.

Nevertheless, I will try to tread carefully, not intervening unduly with the job of my old EHF and IHF colleagues. But apropos individual referee performances, it was especially nice to see the good progress of two younger couples, Horacek/Novotny (CZE) and Nikolic/Stojkovic (SRB). By contrast, I feel that several of the more experienced couples did nothing to strengthen their status The exceptions were Olesen/Pedersen (DEN) and Lazaar/Reveret (FRA) who confirmed their standing from 2009, and I was also happy to see that Abrahamsen/Kristiansen (NOR) had such a strong showing. Some other couples were able to use their experience to keep some games under a semblance of control and to appear reasonably even-handed, but this is not enough if questionable observations or judgments then start piling up. Finding the right mix of more experienced couples and younger, motivated couples will be a key issue for 2011. Fortunately, there are also a few couples who recently showed a good level in the women’s World Championship.

But the clearest impressions involve overall problem areas. It is a bit frustrating, but rather typical, that [u]the same old issues tend to come up[/u]. For instance, it tends to get me ‘worked up’ when I see so many unwarranted 7-meter decisions given, with the ‘excuse’ that a defender was in the goal-area. In far too many cases, these observations were simply wrong; as I have asked myself over the years, why does this have to be so difficult? And then the decisions regarding ‘offensive foul’, in those situations where an attacker tries to penetrate at the 6-meter line, at the same time as one or two defenders move laterally to close the gap. In no other area did the inconsistencies seem to be as great as in this one. Of course, the continuous struggle between pivot and defender, also when the ball is not anywhere near, continues to present difficulties. Nothing new for the referees or for my old colleagues, but the hard work needs to continue.

Editor's Note: Christer elaborates in detail on 'the same old issues' in the forum: https://teamhandballnews.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?1434

This leads me to what was for me the real revelation from my position of overview. One tends to focus on the strengths and weaknesses of individual couples, and their ability or inability to stay consistent during a game. But here the striking thing was the [u]clear differences in approach from one couple to another[/u], regarding style, game control, ‘tactics’, observation skills, concentration, judgment of key situations, or essentially the whole spectrum of refereeing. Each couple may have maintained some notion of consistency, but there was no ‘common line’, not a strong consistency among couples. Clearly, this must be a source of concern and problems for the teams. It should not be necessary to become surprised and have to adjust from one match to the next in this way. Here I believe is a key target for further, urgent improvements. Easier said than done, of course, but critical for the happy co-existence between teams and referees.

As regards this co-existence, for the most part the atmosphere on the court and between referees and team officials was no worse than what is normal. The number of ‘incidents’ was relatively limited, and some of those cases that did arise clearly resulted from inconsistencies between couples, as just discussed. But, as I commented in an article a couple of months ago, https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.889 most of the awkward scenes involving referees and coaches were more related to [u]systematic, ‘tactical’ provocations[/u]. All of us can easily distinguish between the spontaneous and brief reactions that are fully normal and understandable, and the continuous 60-minute ‘drama’ along the sideline, with gestures and outcries before and after referee decisions. The latter is a behavior against which not enough action is taken. Coaches are smart enough to understand that such behavior is not likely to improve referee performances, but they are also ready to believe that they may occasionally succeed, more than the opponents, in causing referee mistakes in their favor.

Finally, what is also frustrating is the awareness that some teams are capable of having a subtle influence in other ways that I view as unethical. Some of the methods involve on-court ‘theater’, where some players, often the ‘stars,’ have mastered the skill of faking and provoking, ‘dying’ on the court several times during a game. The referees need to be supported strongly in their efforts, not just to avoid falling for the tricks but to punish them. But it is even worse if the influence takes place off the court, when political clout enables teams to have impact on referee nominations and/or to create an atmosphere such that everyone involved in the games, including the referees, feel the pressure.

On January 23, THN provided an English translation https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.930 of an article that was published in the well-known German magazine ‘Der Spiegel’. In this article, it was noted that the IHF president, Hassan Moustafa, had been under a personal contract with the Sportfive marketing agency, with a remuneration of 602,000 Euro, during a period for which Sportfive had won a contract with the IHF for the TV rights to all IHF events. ‘Der Spiegel’ had obtained a copy of the contract between Moustafa and Sportfive, and also a confirmation directly from Moustafa.

Clearly, for Mr. Moustafa to obtain a very vague, but lucrative personal contract from Sportfive while at the same time the IHF is selling its valuable TV rights to the very same company, in a competitive bid situation, smacks of [u]conflict of interest[/u], to put it mildly. That some observers will take it a step further and start talking about kick-backs is rather understandable, especially as they feel that Moustafa has shown over the years that he has no understanding of, or regard for, the concept of ‘conflict of interest’. This remarkable state of affairs was picked up by handball media around the world, for instance in the major handball web site ‘Handball-World’. http://www.handball-world.com/o.red.c/news.php?auswahl=23915&GID=1

Not surprisingly, the IHF president found it necessary to try to counter these damning reports. On January 26, the IHF issued a press bulletin regarding the Spiegel report to back up statements the president had made. This press bulletin, however, was only provided to German news outlets, https://teamhandballnews.com/request64.html and has not been posted on the IHF website. The impression is that the IHF avoids giving its own press bulletin too much publicity, in an attempt to keep the exposure of the whole matter as limited as possible. This does not tend to be the methods of someone who has nothing to hide.

But the key points of the press bulletin are worth noting: in the face of the existing evidence, the president does not attempt to deny the existence of the lucrative contract. Instead, he tries to downplay the issue with rather hilarious arguments. For instance, “he was at this time [u]primarily a businessman[/u] with a Cairo-based company, with which Sportfive had obtained a contract, and [u]his position with the IHF was in any event just an honorary one[/u].” Well, while the president may feel that this attempt to portray his relative priorities may provide some kind of excuse, it all too well reflects precisely what his critics have said about the priority he has given to personal enrichment, in contrast to his treating the development of world handball as a small matter on the side.

It is also somewhat amusing that the press bulletin closes with the comment that the “the IHF has come to the conclusion that Moustafa in all respects has acted correctly”. I think it is universally understood that an IHF Media Officer will describe an ‘IHF conclusion’ in the way that the autocratic president orders it to be described… The typical reactions of knowledgeable people to both the initial revelations and the attempt at a rebuttal are well captured in the web site of the well-known German investigating journalist Jens Weinrich, http://jensweinreich.de/?p=6273 who also criticizes sports media in handball-crazy Germany for not giving the matter quicker and more prominent coverage.

An interesting twist to the whole story is that the Director of Sportfive during the period through 2009, when Sportfive had both the IHF TV rights and the personal services contract with Moustafa, was a Robert Mueller von Vultejus, who has since abandoned Sportfive in favor of a rival entity, UFA Sports, a subsidiary of the important German media group RTL. UFA Sports, which was established as recently as in 2008, was in early 2009 ready to jump into the competition for the IHF TV rights for the new quadrennial 2010-13. Somewhat to the surprise of the sports media world, [u]UFA managed to beat out Sportfive and other competitors and gained the rights for 2010-13[/u]. http://www.handball-world.de/o.red.c/news.php?GID=1&auswahl=23203 These results were announced in connection with the IHF Congress in June 2009. At the time, it may simply have seemed that this ‘coup’ could be ascribed to the experience acquired by Mueller von Vultejus when dealing with the IHF while at Sportfive.

But after the most recent revelations, the new regime at Sportfive is perhaps beginning to wonder if there’s more to the story as they have indicated that they are now examining the events involving Sportfive’s relationship with the IHF and Moustafa. They are bound to be asking if their former Director brought his questionable practices with him to his new company and therefore whether the bidding was really won fairly by UFA, as now is being forcefully claimed by Mueller von Vultejus. Perhaps the bidding was not as ‘sealed’ and confidential as it should have been!? Persons connected with the IHF who are familiar with the process would understandably be unwilling to risk their situation by speaking openly, but it would not come as a shock if one day it came out in the public that UFA had indeed been given a chance to [u]ensure[/u] that they had the winning bid…

Finally, on a personal note, I would like to say that it is painful to have reasons to keep writing negative things about the IHF. But my loyalty is to [u]handball[/u], its image and success, and to the people who work in an honest and selfless way for handball, [u]not[/u] to the IHF and its current regime.