As I hear from other sources, and (for you German-speakers) as indicated in recent 'Handball-World' postings http://www.handball-world.com/o.red.c/news.php?auswahl=22660&GID=1 http://www.handball-world.com/o.red.c/news.php?auswahl=22670 controversy is erupting as the planned return of the referee couple Lemme/Ullrich is drawing closer. The German federation (DHB) has strongly supported the referees after they were given a 5-year suspension by the European federation (EHF). https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.802 For instance, DHB has lent them money to pay the fee that goes with an appeal to the EHF, and they have promised them a return to the Bundesliga in mid-December. (The EHF suspension does not necessarily apply at the national level). Now it appears that several Bundesliga representatives are not so enthusiastic about their return.

While the controversy to some extent may be related to more general strains between the DHB and the Bundesliga, it also appears that there is a bit of prestige and personal emotion involved. Irritation and ‘high volume’ is coming through. The Bundesliga and some club representatives seem to be concerned about image, and comments have also been made to the effect that unwanted speculation could arise if the referees returned and, just by chance, as can always happen, were to become involved in a controversial decision or a disputed game. By contrast, the DHB seems determined to prove the point that they continue to fully trust Lemme/Ullrich, while at the same time perhaps ‘thumbing their noses’ at the EHF. At the same time, however, the DHB seems to imply that they would not take an absolutely final decision until the appeal has been heard by the EHF.

It would not be prudent to speculate about the outcome of the appeal. However, it is relevant to remember that part of the EHF’s frustrations emanated from the refusal of the referees to name the person(s) responsible for putting pressure on them before a game in Russia. At least it is interesting to speculate about what would, hypothetically, happen if the referees suddenly did provide names and what position EHF would be in as a result; see my earlier article: https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.803

At this time, however, I would prefer just to comment briefly on the determination on the part of the referees and the DHB to get them back in action in the Bundesliga. They know that their very distinguished international career is over. So people have wondered, what makes them so adamant about continuing in the Bundesliga? I am sure they might simply be eager to continue an activity that they have always enjoyed very much, and the Bundesliga is now the most interesting arena available to them. They might also feel that a period of good performances in the Bundesliga would in a sense prove that they are still the strong and trusted referees that they used to be. They care about their reputation.

Of course it would be improper for me, in this very delicate situation, to try to interfere and offer them some good advice, least of all in public. But for their sake, having known them as top-level referees and good friends over many years, I only hope that they take a decision that will lead to a worthy end of their career. Presumably they would want to be remembered the way they were at their peak (which may have been a couple of years ago), and not for the controversy that is surrounding them now. While they might see advantages and opportunities in a return, I am sure they will also understand that there are risks. As experienced referees, they should know how to make a decision based on sound judgment and not one that is based on emotions, prestige, or the views of others.

As noted by my colleague John Ryan in his earlier posting, and as many of you are likely to have found in the media, the reactions of disgust after Prokop’s actions are so strong and so widespread, that I probably would not need to add my own opinion. Moreover, to retain credibility as a columnist it is sometimes necessary to show some restraint and not give in completely to one’s feelings. In this particular case, however, I see no need and no possibility to hold back. [u]Prokop’s actions are simply the most despicable ones I have experienced or heard of in my more than 50 years in handball.[/u]

Therefore, it is no surprise that reactions from handball people around the world are so strong. They can feel what the impact is for our sport when something like this happens, they can put themselves in the position of the opponents in the match, and they clearly recognize the complete lack of ethics and propriety. So I fully understand, for instance, the reactions of Ulrik Wilbek, the Danish national team coach, a person well-known for his decency both during matches and in between, when he argues that Prokop should be banned for life. I also particularly appreciate the reactions of Austrian federation president Gerhard Hofbauer, another person whom I know as very correct and proper in his views and behavior. He publicly deplores the actions and does not rule out independent disciplinary measures by his federation.

However, it is also very telling that nobody seems to be entirely surprised by Prokop’s actions. Indeed, if these actions were described to a large group of handball insiders, and they were asked who they thought were the person responsible, I suspect almost everyone would get it right! In every large group of whatever kind, there is always someone who is so frequently behaving in an outrageous manner that, instead of being shunned or severely criticized, they are instead ignored or laughed at, because it is assumed that they are what they are and will never change. Through this misguided tolerance, we tend to create ‘Frankenstein’s monsters’ and in some sense we share the blame.

I think this is also why so many are so extremely upset. Finally they sense that ‘enough is enough.’ If the same actions had been taken at the spur of the moment by someone with a long and impeccable record, one would be more ready to except it as a temporary mental lapse. But when the guilty party is so notorious, is seen receiving his ‘red card’ with a big grin of satisfaction, and then cynically expresses a pride in ‘having done his duty’ as a tactical and experienced coach, then it has gone too far. No subsequent retractions or apologies would change that.

One aspect of ‘misguided tolerance’ that perhaps not so many know about, and that certainly would have caused the reactions of outrage to be even greater, is that Prokop, presumably on account of his many years in women’s handball, holds senior and important positions in the EHF hierarchy: he is the Chair of the Committee for Women’s Clubs and he is a Member of the EHF Competitions Commission. Clearly, one would hope that such positions of honor would be filled on the basis of factors other than pure longevity…

Turning then to the important issue of punishment that now needs to be meted out, I can have some understanding for those who focus on rules and refereeing. They ask if the referees did the right thing when they did not award a 7-meter throw, as such a decision might have negated Prokop’s actions and intentions, and they wonder if one might need to change the rules in some way. Here I first want to support the referees: they could possibly have been justified in ‘stretching’ the definition of ‘clear scoring chance’ and thus in giving a 7-meter, but clearly their decision was not a mistake. And my basic point is that this whole situation goes beyond rules and refereeing. Rules cannot, and should not endeavor to, become so geared towards ‘once in a lifetime’ situations and such deviant behavior. They must focus on being clear and simple for normal persons and normal situations. [u]Instead the real deterrent must come in the form of individual punishments that are so severe that they serve to keep such persons out of our sport![/u]

From this web site we have occasionally been critical of EHF disciplinary actions as being too soft, typically in cases of attempted referee bribery and similar forms of corruption. Clearly, an organization needs to apply consistent guidelines and procedures, and existing regulations may set limits for actions. In this regard, I was encouraged by comments from the EHF Secretary General, who stressed the ‘unique’ nature of this case, thus seemingly suggesting that it would also be ‘off the charts’ as regards the scope for punishment. Here the discussion cannot be about the number of games but the [u]number of years[/u]! Similarly, Prokop’s club (and, as insiders know, it is really literally ‘Prokop’s club’) must be made to know that their participation in EHF competitions is not accepted as long as it relies on such ‘leadership’.

Finally, I commented earlier on Prokop’s positions of honor in the EHF hierarchy. I do not know what the rules are for filling these positions and for firing incumbents, but in the current circumstances that should be irrelevant. Let me put it is this way: every day from now on that he is allowed to remain in his positions amounts to a day of flagrantly insulting the international handball community!

Some time ago I commented on the importance of having IHF establish clear goals and strategies, before it rushes ahead and focuses on detailed changes in its By-Laws. Nevertheless, as the IHF has now set a date for an ‘extraordinary’ Congress and has established a working group for considering changes in the By-Laws (a group that many observers find to have a ‘strange’ composition), several handball friends, both inside the IHF and elsewhere, have asked me to go ahead and present my views on desirable changes. I will divide up my comments and suggestions into 3 installments, with today’s efforts involving primarily the Executive Committee and the Council, soon to be followed by articles dealing with the Congress, the Commissions and some other specific issues.

First one needs to remember that the effectiveness of any rules and regulations depend on the good intentions of the people who are set to implement them, so even the most perfect By-Laws do not guarantee good governance. However, it also holds true that By-Laws, on the basis of actual experience, may need to be made more comprehensive and specific, precisely because one cannot just rely on adherence to sound principles in the absence of binding rules and regulations.

It is clear to many observers that, for some time now, the IHF Executive Committee has become inappropriately autonomous and powerful, with far too little respect for the role of the Council and far too little accountability. This may partly be the result of excessive complacency on the part of Council members and others, but it is also a direct result of a lop-sided work distribution in the By-Laws. The fundamental flaw is that the Executive Committee is viewed as a much too independent body, instead of having the six Council members who are supposed to constitute the Executive Committee serve as [u]the Council’s [/u]executive body, with a full accountability to the Council as a whole. This must change!

Moreover, Article 16 in the By-Laws generally has a wording that is clearly too open-ended or all-encompassing in describing the tasks assigned to the Executive Committee. The powers to interfere in the work of other IHF entities are much too broad, and a large part of the suggested monitoring role would be far more appropriate for the Council to assume. In addition, some of the provisions in Article 16 are in direct conflict with roles and tasks already given to the Council in Article 15. This applies, for instance, with potentially disastrous effects, in the area of decision-making in financial matters.

However, this is not to suggest that the Council has a perfectly clear and appropriate mandate. One [u]could[/u] interpret the role of the Council to be very strong if some parts of Article 15 are taken literally. On the other hand, the By-Laws are totally, and quite inappropriately, silent on the key role that the Council undoubtedly must have in not just the ongoing policy-making but also in the underlying establishment of goals and strategies. But when one argues for a strengthened role for the Council, it is necessary to keep in mind that such a change is very much related to the composition of the Council and the basic responsibility that its members tend to feel, which in turn depends a lot on how they are elected.

Clearly it makes sense to try to achieve synergy by having two different dimensions represented, namely the technical and operational activities through the Commission Presidents and the broad knowledge of people being familiar with the grassroots work and the special circumstances in the different member countries. However, it has become very obvious that there is a problem involved in having about half of the Council consist of members who are specifically nominated by their respective continents and primarily tend to see themselves as persons expected to look after the interests of the continent that nominated them. This means that a large chunk of the Council may not really see itself as managers and policy-makers of the [u]IHF[/u] but as political representatives of one geographic segment of the IHF. (I cannot resist the temptation of making the comparison with the U.S. Congress and the unattractive ‘ear-marking’ traditions…).

While an effort needs to be made, there is no simple solution to this dilemma. Perhaps only [u]one[/u] member should be nominated by each continent for ‘rubberstamping’ in the Congress. Then the remaining slots could be filled on the basis of open elections in the Congress from among candidates from continents. Alternatively, perhaps the remainder of the Council should select the second person from each continent, on the basis of their previous collaboration with these individuals. Moreover, it could be mandated that the second person from each continent must be someone who does not have a role in the Continental federation and therefore can be have a more independent position. I am confident that other ideas could be identified on this important issue.

It must not be forgotten that one of the well-known weaknesses in the role of the Council comes from a lack of sufficiently firm and detailed By-Law requirements regarding the meeting procedures in the Council. Again, the ability to run meetings may depend largely on the individuals, but it is clear that the Council meetings have become too informal, inconsistent and ineffective in terms of the procedures followed. As has been noted on some controversial issues, this can become very dangerous. So, regrettably, it seems necessary to use the formality of the By-Laws to bring about change, including the need for more structured and formal meetings, with legal expertise available.

Finally, an issue that comes to mind when recent worries about decision-making based on sound legal principles is recalled: it is not an acceptable situation to have positions on the Arbitration Commission and the Arbitration Tribunal filled by persons who do not have the necessary education and experience as a jurist. The current By-Law requirements are not strict enough on this point.

IHF Bylaws: http://www.ihf.info/upload/Manual/IHF_STATUTS_CHAP_01_GB.pdf

Part 2, focusing on the Commissions, will follow in the next couple of weeks.

My recent article on the inadequate opportunities for the players to be heard https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.839 caused a lot of feedback, including suggestions for further aspects that needed to be covered. So here we go!

One point that was made quite strongly by some readers was that it is important to understand that the clubs can [u]not[/u] be relied upon to serve as the communications channels for the concerns and the ideas of the players. While the clubs depend on players for their success, the main issues and priorities of the clubs are still different from those of the players. It is more like the traditional interplay between employer and employees. In addition, club managers and coaches sometimes incorrectly tend to believe that they know and understand the issues of the players, perhaps even better than the players themselves. This is a dilemma that is important for national and international federations to recognize.

But the players themselves cannot then just sit back and rely on the benevolence of others. The players need to think of different ways to organize themselves so that their views are heard and so that the necessary pressure can be put on clubs and federations. This may argue for full-fledged ‘unionization’, or at least some other type of formal associations. Also, players need to think about the longer term, instead of being happy with their seemingly problem-free existence here and now. Many issues can arise over an extended career. Similarly, there needs to exist a strong sense of solidarity among all the players; not everyone has the stature and the ‘bargaining power’ of a recognized star player.

Federations need to be prepared to deal [u]directly[/u] with the players and their representatives, not just through the clubs and other intermediaries. Therefore, for instance, when the EHF now talks about the implementation of a ‘European Handball Strategic Forum’ for all stakeholders, including ‘Clubs and Players’, then it is important that clubs and players are seen as two [u]separate[/u] groups! Similarly, the IHF has an Athletes Commission, but only on paper. The athletes have had no real influence through this group. This must change, and perhaps a new format is needed, with a direct integration into the normal decision-making bodies of the IHF. I will come back to this separately, when discussing appropriate By-Law changes.

The necessity of listening to the views and concerns of the players should really be self-evident. Their collective role constitutes the ‘product’ handball; what clubs and federations provide is ‘just’ the structure or vehicle needed for the players to display their skills. But taking into account the views of the players is not just an obligation for the sake of the players. They have, individually and collectively, the kind of experience and insights that enables them to contribute with ideas and proposals in many areas of the operations and the decision-making of a federation. It would be crazy, and a matter of negligence, to ignore this resource!

If you are a coach, regardless of what level, do you feel a sense of responsibility for the development of the [u]rules[/u] of the game?? My point is that you clearly should do so, but that the overwhelming majority of coaches seem to ignore this part of [u]their[/u] job. It may be much more natural to contribute to the development of the game in the sense of teaching individual player techniques and team tactics, but obviously the rules must also develop in a way that supports and matches the development of the game; and who knows better than experienced coaches if certain rules have become outdated or constitute an obstacle to interesting new techniques and tactics!

It is possible that federations, at both the international and the national level, may have contributed to the tradition that coaches do not play a major role in rules development. At one stage it was typical, and seen as normal, that rules issues were handled by small groups of people mostly from the refereeing side, often ‘behind closed doors’. I tended to find this a bit strange, because the game is not played by, or for, the referees. Over the last 10-20 years, however, it has certainly become a firm principle, at least in the IHF, to try to get the coaching side very much involved. Top coaches have been members of rules working groups, interpretations and teaching material in connection with major events have been developed and shared with the coaches well ahead of time, and the rules development as an integral part of the game development has been stressed.

Unfortunately, despite these efforts, the amount of interest and input has been terribly limited. Spontaneous ideas and suggestions have been very rare, and repeated official requests for input have largely been met with silence. Most of the reactions from the coaching side have taken the form of ‘second-guessing’ [u]after[/u] proposals had to be developed without the requested input! It is possible that not enough has been done by the respective federations to get their coaches to come forward, but I certainly hope that the many active and competent national federations will want to do more to encourage continuous debate and input.

However, with the risk of inviting rebuttals and criticism, I am also prepared to venture the opinion that many coaches generally are not very excited about encouraging changes in the rules. I can understand the notion that the fundamentals of the rules remain good and that frequent changes can be disruptive, but surely this can’t be an argument against [u]all[/u] possible ideas? So I begin to wonder, partly on the basis of conversations with coaches over the years: perhaps coaches are resisting change out of a narrow self-interest!!??

Perhaps it is a more comfortable situation to avoid the burden of first understanding the implications of a specific change and then teaching the players how to adjust to new circumstances? Perhaps a coach feels he/she loses some hard-earned advantages if rules changes create the need for new methods and techniques? Having expressed these ‘suspicions’, I challenge coaches at all levels to prove me wrong by getting into the habit of offering new ideas for possible improvements of the rules! Don’t wait for someone to ask for your opinions; take the initiative!

Some may have the impression that the only important issue on the agenda of the IOC Congress was the decision regarding the 2016 summer Olympics. However, the IOC has in fact been holding a congress with speeches and debates covering a broad range of fundamental aspects: the Athlete, the Olympic Games, the Structure of the Olympic Movement, Olympism and Youth, and the Digital Revolution. I will not attempt to comment on all of these aspects; instead I will point you to the document summarizing the recommendations of the IOC Congress. http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Conferences_Forums_and_Events/2009_Olympic_Congress/Olympic_Congress_Recommendations.pdf

Some of the conclusions that came up under the heading ‘the Athlete’ will be useful for those athletes who need support and arguments in their struggle be heard by the authorities in their respective sports, as discussed in my posting from yesterday. https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.839 I hope to come back to this topic in a near future.

My focus here will instead by on good governance and anti-corruption. The reputable organization ‘Play the Game’ had made a major effort to force the attention of the IOC on the need for strong action against corruption, through an open letter to the IOC at the Congress. This open letter, for which a vast number of signatures were obtained, http://www.playthegame.org/news/detailed/call-for-action-against-all-forms-of-corruption-in-sport-4543.html was not necessarily welcomed by all IOC members. Several of them were interviewed about the idea of an independent anti-corruption agency (somewhat similar to WADA, the anti-doping agency) and while a few diplomatically referred to the existence of an IOC Ethics Committee and a Court of Arbitration for Sport, other interviewees (such as the IHF President) suggested more firmly that issues involving corruption could best be handled internally by the organization affected. (The FIFA President indicated that he would retire, if such an agency were to be established; it prompted some observers to suggest that this sounded like the best possible argument for moving ahead…).

However, a glimmer of hope could be seen in the keynote speech by the IOC VP Thomas Bach, under the heading of ‘the Structure of the Olympic Movement’. http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Reference_documents_Factsheets/2009_Olympic_Congress/Speech_Thomas_Bach.pdf While (as I would put it) he ‘put the cart before the horse’ by first talking forcefully, albeit eloquently, about the need for the sports movement to enjoy a high degree of autonomy from governmental interference, he later came to the important point that, in order to deserve such autonomy, sports organizations need to demonstrate ‘responsibility’ in terms of compliance with rules of ethics and good governance. As key principles he mentioned, for example: define the vision and mission so that clear goals and strategies can be developed; clear, democratic and efficient structures, with checks and balances, and clear and transparent rules for democratic decision-making; transparent financial processes with clear rules for the distribution of revenues; and involvement of active athletes and protection of their rights. It seems that my earlier suggestions for the steps needed prior to IHF By-Law changes were receiving full endorsement… https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.812

Finally, it is also worth noting the conclusion that the IOC should immediately establish its own entity for monitoring the betting activities going on in connection with the Olympic Games. (Previously, the IOC has been ‘piggy-backing’ on an external agency, viz. the company used by FIFA, for the purpose of detecting suspicious activity). This should be seen as a strong indication that the IOC, like many other organizations, have come to realize the tremendous threat that illegal gambling constitutes to the desire for fair play and an untarnished image in sports.

There is an ongoing debate about many issues that primarily affect the players, and many different sources express opinions and negotiate solutions, but do we ever have the sense that the players themselves have much of a say? I am talking about issues such as the competition calendar and the concerns about an excessive pressure on the players, the whole set of issues regarding doping, the increasing concerns about different forms of match fixing, the transfer regulations, the general concern for the players as human beings off the court, and the broad issue of ethical and effective governance in our sport.

You might ask: don’t the clubs and federations look after the concerns of their players on all these topics? If you ask the players, you will get a resoundingly negative response to this question. And indeed, is it realistic to believe that clubs and federations who are relying on the players for success and income will be sufficiently concerned about their personal well-being? Is this not really the same situation that we have in the labor market, where the investors and the company managers know that they depend on their employees for success but nevertheless focus more directly and selfishly on their own immediate concerns. The employees are seen more as tools and not so much as human beings. Is this not why employees rely on unions and other methods to have their interests represented!?

In handball, even though they players and the leagues really are professional in a large number of countries, the existence of unions is really quite limited. For instance, only three countries, Denmark, France and Spain, have their professional players represented by the European Handball Players’ Union (EHPU). Another way would of course be to offer the players a chance to participate and influence matters through their federations, and many federations, also the IHF, have an Athletes Commission or something similar. In fact, in some countries this is mandated by law or by the highest sports authority, and the IOC certainly expects an entity such as the IHF to have an Athletes Commission.
In reality, however, the opportunities to influence are very limited. I cannot speak for individual countries, but I certainly know that the IHF Athletes Commission would be justified in arguing that its existence is mere ‘window dressing’ and that its influence is almost non-existent. This cannot possible be an appropriate and desirable situation!

A key issue is of course the competition calendar. As the physical demands on the players increase due to the speed and force of the game at the top level, the demand for their participation in games and tournaments seems to increase. One source of conflict is the clash between the schedules of the clubs and the national leagues vs. the demands caused by the involvement of the national teams in World Championships, continental championship, the Olympic Games, and all the related qualifying events. For a player on a top club, furthermore from a country that tends to qualify for all the big events, this adds up to a lot. Of course, the clubs pay the salaries of the players, so they feel they should have priority, even if, also in top leagues such as in Germany and Spain, half of the matches are nothing more than money-makers against clearly inferior opponents. But these games are needed to earn the money to pay the players, say the clubs, so they tend to feel that the many games and events for the national teams are the excessive ones. When all this is negotiated between federations and clubs, involving particularly the IHF, the EHF and club organizations such as the GCH, are the direct preferences and concerns of the players really taken much into account? The players don’t think so!

Anti-doping regulation is another area where real implications are primarily felt by the players. They have to worry about compliance, reliability of medical advisers, the effect on their health, and the consequences of non-compliance. But their influence on rules and procedures is quite limited. Corruption in the form of match fixing is another area where players can get caught in the middle. They may do their best to win a game, but if corrupt team officials and/or referees are involved, their best efforts may not matter much. The players themselves may receive pressure to manipulate games, or they may, through careless involvement in gambling or other activities, become obvious targets. Despite all this, the players are likely to have very little influence on the existence or absence of adequate prevention and enforcement on the part of the federations involved, and they typically do not receive adequate education and warnings about these issues.

Of course, if one is used to the caprices of the trading of players in U.S. professional sports, one may not find that the transfer situation of professional handball players is so horrible. Moreover, transfers are often the result of efforts by players, who want to go where ‘the grass is greener’. But often they may not have much of a say in a transfer matter, and clearly they do not have much of a say in the implementation of transfer regulations. To some extent, this is only one aspect of the tendency to treat the players more as ‘commodities’ than as human beings. This often becomes evident when players, who are highly talented and rise to a level of prominence and great exposure at a very young age, do not get much help in ‘growing up’ outside the handball court and in handling the many difficult aspects of fame and media pressures. Basic education is also often neglected

Finally, the sound governance of our sport at the international level is obviously a very important issue for a professional player, who must rely on handball politicians and bureaucrats to provide the framework within which he or she wants to earn a living and make a long, successful career. The continued competitiveness of handball in a tough marketplace and the image of our sport are just two of many important dimensions in this respect. Conversely, talented and dedicated players are obviously the key asset in the struggle of handball to retain or improve its ‘place in the sun’ (and for its politicians and bureaucrats to earn their places). [u]Surely this suggests that the players, whether through unions or Athletes Commissions, [b]deserve a much greater role [/b]in the management of our sport. As far as the IHF goes, let this begin with the upcoming [b]process[/b] of revising the By-Laws (appropriately preceded by a serious effort to revise goals, plans and strategies) and then also in those [b]provisions[/b] of the By-Laws where the participation of the athletes is prescribed![/u]

During the last several years, there have been several indications about the increasing prevalence of match fixing in European soccer, and UEFA has made statements about its efforts to be on top of the situation. In the Asian continent, several countries have had to close down their soccer leagues and clean up the mess created by the effects of illegal gambling. With increasing frequency, we hear about suspicions and investigations of tennis matches in ATP tournaments. Again, gambling is the root cause.

A couple of days ago, UEFA indicated openly to the media that the number of matches under investigation had skyrocketed, and that there is now an aggregate of more than 40 matches being scrutinized. UEFA collaborates with the European Sports Security Association (ESSA), an organization founded by major betting companies that maintains an ‘early warning system’ to detect game manipulation, and UEFA is now also working with Interpol and the police in several individual countries. It appears that a number of countries in Eastern Europe are particularly affected. But the impression is that the operators of the illegal gambling entities remain one step ahead!

In UEFA competitions, the focus has been especially on the qualifying rounds of the Champions League and the Europa League. Here several participating teams are quite well aware that they are really without any hope of advancing very far in the competition. So as they are going to lose anyway, they can as well make a lot of money off it. This is where gambling on one’s own matches and then manipulating the results fit in. There are many ways of making money, some of which are relatively obscure and do not draw so much attention. In addition to the final results, one can bet on half-time results, the number of goals scored and several other aspects. Moreover, the shenanigans are helped by the fact that the matches involved are in the early rounds and between teams that are not so much in the public eye.

Clearly, the EHF has in its numerous competitions the direct equivalent of this kind of matches. Many of them are played in locations and circumstances where the supervision is poor and the attention of the media is limited, and it is also clear that betting on handball is becoming increasingly common in Europe. The EHF has made some visible efforts to draw more attention and offer more training regarding match fixing, bribery and corruption in general. A recent pre-season symposium for all the top referees was an important step in this regard, and external expertise has also been contracted. However, these indications of taking the issue seriously are, until now, greatly undermined by the very feeble handling of those cases of manipulation that have already been discovered. As has been noted by John Ryan and myself, the reluctance to take serious action against the individuals involved, and the absurdly soft treatment of the clubs and federations involved, create an impression that the temptations to manipulate are worth the risk.

The IHF is more fortunate, in the sense that it does not directly arrange the type of matches just described, and IHF events are taking place more in the spotlight. However, we all know what can happen in continental events which are under the overall responsibility of the IHF and, moreover, the IOC is not exactly prepared to agree with a notion that IHF does not have any responsibility and culpability if things go wrong in EHF competitions. On the contrary, IHF is being held overall responsible for all such events and for those problems that damage the image of handball and sports in general. So the question is, do IHF and EHF take the issue seriously enough and do they dedicate enough resources to the prevention and eradication of this critical problem!?

Some of you will be surprised to see this heading, but I believe in giving credit where credit is due. I have heard the good news from three totally different sources now so I assume it must be true: following the most recent experimentation at a junior world championship, the IHF President has come to realize that further pursuits of the idea of ‘mixed couples’ in the IHF level refereeing should be stopped. This of course requires an explanation and some background for those who are not ‘insiders’ and experts on this topic.

In the late 1960s, IHF and other handball authorities had come to realize that our sport had developed to the point that, at least at the top level, it was no longer adequate to try to make do with [u]one[/u] referee in a game, even if supplemented by ‘goal judges’ (and, for the international games, also ‘line judges’!). The game had become too fast-moving and too complex, so the observation and decision-making demands had become too much for one lonely referee to handle.

When moving to referee ‘couples’, the IHF and the national federations concluded from the outset that the best approach would be to use ‘fixed’ couples as much as possible, at least at the higher levels. The notion was, and has remained, that the internal consistency and the teamwork would be enhanced if the two referees knew each other quite well, had the opportunity to refine their collaboration on the basis of accumulated experience, and furthermore at the personal level felt like a couple with a sense of mutual support on and off the court. The preparations from one game to the next would of course also be facilitated.

In basketball, things have developed differently. Here, from the lower levels to the top, the focus has been on recruiting and training individual referees, who are then put together in constantly changing couples (and these days, especially at the professional level, in trios). The notion is that the referees should achieve such consistency that they can quickly adjust to different partners every time. Another argument has been that it is easier to avoid ‘getting into a rut,’ if one constantly faces the challenge of working with a new partner.

In handball, at the international level, there have been arguments that ‘fixed’ couples may lead to a situation where some couples tend to consist of one stronger and one weaker member, so that less talented referees can move to the top undeservedly ‘on the coattails’ of a strong partner, while other more talented referees never get their chance. At the IHF level, however, this should not be an issue, as couples with a distinctly weaker member can be detected and either changed or dropped. Conversely, the IHF recruiting policies clearly state that a strong talent from a country where one finds only 1 (or 3 or 5) talented referees, will still be given a chance, so that a talent is not lost just because they cannot conveniently be fit into even pairs from the same country. In other words, individual referees can be nominated and approved, and the IHF will then make the effort to find a suitable partner from another country if need be.

I have to admit that [b]I strongly favor the traditional approach with ‘fixed’ couples[/b], as I find the advantages of this approach to be clearly dominant, and as I see no reason to believe that it is causing us real problems. And I am certainly not ready to believe that the ‘basketball approach’ would serve us better. However, as I have always noted, [b]the debate about the pros and cons of the two systems is perfectly legitimate[/b]! But the reality is that [b]a change of systems would be major and absolutely dramatic undertaking[/b], as it would mean that all handball nations would need to gradually change its approach from bottom to top. Such a decision could not be taken lightly, but [b]only if there was clear evidence that the current system is ‘broken’ and if there were very strong reasons to believe that the opposite system is better [/b]and worth the effort of undertaking the change. No such evidence has been presented!

The IHF President and some of his supporters have insisted in recent years on an experimentation that partly might have been intended to gather such evidence. However, the method used is totally unrealistic or even absurd, as it provides no evidence at all and only runs the risk of causing disasters that are damaging and insulting to the teams affected. I believe most people will easily realize that it makes absolutely no sense, as long as the ‘fixed’ approach is maintained world-wide and the IHF invites referees to its events in the form of well-synchronized couples, when one then proceeds to split up these ‘fixed’ couples into new permutations precisely when they come to show their best at the very highest level, at a World Championship.

So I am very happy if these meaningless experiments have been stopped, and if the focus instead will be on working harder with both the existing IHF top couples and the new recruits, first to strengthen the recruitment criteria and the subsequent performance evaluations for the individuals, and second to take an increasingly tougher line in ensuring that couples do not rise to the top if they contain a distinctly weaker link. But I also keep encouraging the IHF regime, as I have in fact done during many years, to use its clout to convince at least a few major handball countries to be willing to undertake a real experiment with the ‘basketball’ approach, from bottom to top during a period of several years. Then perhaps, enough evidence would emerge for a definitive conclusion to be drawn!

In recent time I have followed with interest the initiative of USA Team Handball to have the issue of splitting up the PanAmerican Team Handball Federation (PATHF) put on the table. For many reasons, I think this is a good initiative, so my comments below are not intended to provide arguments against it, or even to make me the ‘devil’s advocate’ on this issue. Rather, I am more inclined to point out the complexities of the issue and how difficult it is likely to be to achieve success.

First I should emphasize that there is no such thing as a standardized definition of the concept of a continent in the world of sports. For instance, the International Olympic Committee does not insist that all sports use the same definition. It is really up to each international federation to decide what suits its circumstances. Just as an example, Kazakhstan is in Asia as far as handball is concerned, while it is part of Europe in soccer. Another example is Australia, which in most sports is the ‘superpower’ of the otherwise modest Oceania continent but in soccer has been allowed to join Asia. In fact, they have recently qualified as an Asian representative for the 2010 World Cup in soccer.

So while one might try to point to soccer and the CONCACAF vs. CONMEBOL configuration as an argument, as this ‘splits off’ 10 South American countries from the rest of the Panamerican continent, it does not really show that this approach is more ‘correct’ than the PATHF concept that covers the whole continent in one entity. It merely shows that such a model seems viable, even if the parallels are not so strong. First, CONCACAF came about not as a breakaway from the rest of the continent but as an amalgamation of a previously existing North American federation and a Central American/Caribbean federation almost 50 years ago. Moreover, CONCACAF has 35 member countries, not counting some French and Dutch territories. So it is really a strong grouping with long traditions.

What would then be the practical advantages of a change? It is then necessary to look a bit at the history and the politics of handball in our continent. Briefly put, the early influence came from Europe and was primarily affecting countries such as the U.S, Canada, Mexico and Argentina. Much of the early influence was German. Spain did not become a handball power until relatively recently, so there was no Spanish impetus, as is otherwise often the case in Latin America. Brazil and Cuba gradually became continental powers, but were not part of the picture in the early going. So the influence of the U.S. on continental matters was quite strong, both politically and on the court, with perennially good chances to qualify for World Championships and the Olympics.

Gradually, however, the Northern dominance came to an end, as USA and Canada were unable to build much on their early advantages, while at the same time the major sports countries Argentina and Brazil made rapid progress. Suddenly the power base has shifted, and the new leaders do not hesitate to reap the benefits. While they are ‘politically correct’ in expressing the hope that the U.S. will regain its former status, they do not exactly mind that the competition for the World Championship slots is weaker. Moreover, both the resource distribution and the allocation of events are now de facto in the hands of people who mainly look after their own interests and do not care to give the Northern countries a break. Costly travel is only one of the many disadvantages in this scenario. Unfortunately, there is no reason to believe that the traditional ‘North-South tensions’ will give way to a new situation where the re-emergence of U.S. handball is strongly supported within the continent.

But how would then the rest of the handball world and the IHF react to the idea of a split? Right now the IHF has a ‘neat’ and easy situation with three continents (Africa, Asia and Panamerica) having basically equal status and equal rights as regards slots in the World Championship qualifications and the representation in the IHF Council. A split would complicate matters considerably, and none of the other continents (incl. Europe) would accept that Panamerica got a better deal through a split than it currently has. So it is unclear what each of the two parts of a split continent could count on. Moreover, serious talks about a split in Panamerica might raise similar issues in the Asian continent, where East and West do not live very happily together. (This is a mild understatement if one remembers the perennial scandals in the Asian qualifying for IHF events). This is not the kind of chain reaction and resulting complications that the IHF would relish.

The reactions within PanAmerica are also uncertain. Argentina and Brazil may be less affected, at least as long as Canada and the U.S. are not so competitive, but while that is the case, there may still be some prestige involved in leading a continent where one can beat up on the Northern rivals. The rest of South America would clearly feel very threatened. They are now part of the race for a third Panamerican slot, but would there even be a chance for them after a split? Being beaten by Argentina and Brazil in fruitless efforts every time would not be a thrill. Where the interests and loyalties might lie among the Central Americans and the Caribbeans is less clear. With the exception of some of the Caribbean islands, they are all Latin American, of course. But the practical implications may be more important. A good competition structure, with less expensive travel, within a North/Central/Caribbean setting may seem enticing as it could help the progress of all the countries. In the end, much may depend on the IHF reactions and the potential status and opportunities for a new grouping.

To go back to where I started, while it may turn out that the obstacles are insurmountable, there is really not much to lose by trying. Some Panamerican countries could possibly be offended by it, but let’s face it: they are never going to love us that much in any case… Moreover, it may actually be helpful if U.S. handball shows in this way that it does mean business! And the potential gains, in the case of success, are real enough that the effort clearly is worthwhile. So let’s get the ball rolling!

It is almost too tempting to become ironic and lighthearted about an issue that may be quite important, if one realizes that one has absolutely no influence on the matter and that, even worse, there can be no expectation that it will be decided in a fair, rational, and transparent manner. So, even if right now, less than 3 weeks before the day of reckoning, there are many who nervously ponder the chances of Chicago to land the 2016 Olympics, I hope I am forgiven if I am slightly cynical about the whole process.

My reaction is triggered by the many ‘interesting’ comments in the media about the (final?) decision by President Obama to send the First Lady to the IOC Congress instead of going himself. The comments are interesting in two ways: first in the sense that they involve an amusing speculation as to which member of this couple would have the best chances of having a positive impact, and second because they reveal some rather naïve or ignorant ideas about the decision-making by the IOC members.

It seems that some people believe that the decision-making process is entirely rational (sort of: ‘may be the best city win’, whatever ‘best’ happens to mean), while others hint at an awareness that other ‘arguments’ may be more important. I don’t want to get into a lot of examples here from the very nasty history of IOC’s host city selections. Instead I would recommend that you read at least one of the very articulate and revealing books by Andrew Jennings about such matters. But it is quite clear that the greed and vanity of some IOC members has always played an important role over the years.

So it is quite conceivable that the presence or absence or President Obama could be a factor, not because he would be able to use his eloquence or because it would somehow show that the weight of the entire U.S. government is behind the Chicago bid, but because it just might be taken as a snub by some voters that the President sent his wife, in the full knowledge that the King of Spain, the Crown Prince of Japan, and the President of Brazil will be present. Yes, those IOC members are used to being treated as the equals of kings and presidents, so they are not easy to please.

But international politics may matter more after all. At the beginning of the year, it may have been seen as a foregone conclusion that it would be a big plus for Chicago to have Obama as the new U.S. President. Where it now stands may be less clear. But the status of the U.S. in the minds of those who vote has many more dimensions. Money is a key factor in many ways, and the yield from the Olympics, including sponsor contracts and television deals is high on the list. Traditional political and cultural ties are also vital. For, instance, it seems like a certainty that Madrid and Rio will pool their resources and their votes as soon as it is clear that one of them is out of the running.

Of course, questions have also continued to be raised: is it really such a good thing if Chicago wins!? The tax payers of Chicago and Illinois may be less than sure about that. But if you look at it selfishly as a sports fan, and particularly a fanatic in a small sport such as handball, it seems you must argue that ‘there is everything to gain, nothing to lose’. I guess it would (quite hypothetically) be even better to have a handball World Championship on U.S soil as a PR weapon, as an Olympic handball tournament is more likely to ‘disappear’ within the overall event. But certainly it could provide a boost for handball (and other sports that are similarly situated on the U.S. sports scene) that one would hope might be better utilized than what seems to have been the case after 1984 in Los Angeles and 1996 in Atlanta.

I will finish on that note for the moment, in the expectation that John Ryan will write something less ‘ironic and light-hearted’ on the topic, either before or after October 2. But, just for the sake of ‘full disclosure’, I feel obliged to reveal my biases: unbeknownst to most of my handball friends in the U.S. and around the world, I have roots in Chicago!!! Yes, I am a native of Sweden, but it so happens that my mother’s father was born in Chicago in the late 1890s, before his parents moved back with him to Sweden. So would it not be great to have the 2016 handball tournament take place in Andersonville… (although that is not quite what the Chicago proposal suggests).

During its ‘ordinary’ Congress 2 months ago, the IHF decided that an ‘extraordinary’ Congress should be held, for the purpose of considering changes in the By-Laws. Some handball friends have approached me with questions and ideas about the type of changes that should be considered when there will now be a special opportunity. Of course, from my own long experience, I have plenty of ideas for important and necessary changes in the By-Laws. The roles of the Executive Committee, the Council and the Commissions need be completely overhauled, and so do the By-Laws regarding the composition of these bodies. The decision-making processes and the meeting procedures require major improvements and, based on negative experience, areas such as budgeting/auditing, communications, and legal review regrettably need to be clearly regulated in the By-Laws. The same goes for the question of the overall supervision of the continental qualifying events. There are many more examples…

But despite these obvious needs for change, my main concern is that it would be [b]totally wrong to rush ahead now and implement some selected changes[/b], along the lines of the motions that had been forwarded for the recent Congress. [b]There are three main reasons why a different approach is needed:[/b]

[b]First[/b], the tendency during many, many years has been to make [u]selected changes on very specific points[/u], typically to suit some political or personal agendas regarding the way in which IHF functions. Yes, there have been intentions on several occasions to undertake a more systematic review, where all the resulting changes fit together and have a common objective. But every time these efforts have failed, partly because of a lack of a genuine determination to achieve such change, and partly due to the lack of the leadership and stamina needed for such an effort. The former Chairman of the IHF Arbitration Tribunal, Ulrich Strombach, expressed his serious frustration on precisely this point to the recent IHF Congress. Indeed, yet another set of selected, disjointed changes would be worse than having no changes at all, so the time must be taken for [u]a truly complete review[/u].

[b]Second[/b], the [u]timing[/u] of a major set of changes in the By-Laws is really the least optimal at this point, simply because we are now right at the beginning of a 4-year period for which a new set of officials were just elected. It would be totally naïve to think that a new structure and new processes under revised By-Laws would suddenly lead to major improvements when the very same people remain in place. The ideal timing would instead be some time [u]prior[/u] to an election Congress, where a new set of officials would be elected in conformity with a new structure and in the spirit of new processes. However, as the decision was already taken to set up an ‘extraordinary’ Congress, it would seem unrealistic to delay it for so long, and some of the necessary changes may after all be to urgent to delay so much. Nevertheless, a [u]fully participatory process[/u] is complex and time-consuming, even if the necessary priority is given, so the timing of the Congress must take this into account.

[b]Third[/b], there is obviously no such thing as an ideal structure and a general set of processes and procedures that fit every organization in every kind of circumstances. Any person with experience from managerial and organizational responsibilities knows that [u][u]the starting point for establishing structures and processes is the existence (or development) of overall strategies that are tailored to the goals and objectives of the organization[/u][/u]. In the case of the IHF, the overall strategies and goals clearly need to be updated, articulated and implemented. This should really be the more immediate focus of the IHF and its officials, in close collaboration with its experienced and dominating national federations globally, and with reliance also on external expertise. [u]So time must be allowed for this critical initial step, before one gets ready to focus on By-Law changes[/u].

As I noted in a recent article on August 18, https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.810 I seriously doubt that the IHF has focused enough on establishing explicit goals and strategies that serve to make the sport of handball able to attract more players, more leaders, more spectators, more TV contracts, more media coverage and more sponsors globally in an increasingly competitive marketplace. With a steadily increasing number of new sports, many specifically geared towards younger generations, and with a more difficult environment for sports to compete with other leisure interests, [u]has handball really positioned itself to maintain or improve its traditional position[/u]??

It is too easy to be satisfied with our glorious past, and to point out that we are presently working very hard. But working hard in the absence of well-defined strategies may not be enough! It is too easy to be optimistic and complacent, arguing that handball is such an attractive product that we will always survive. But watch out, the competition is tough! So, I urge all handball federations and handball officials with the necessary experience and competence to insist on getting the opportunity to work with the IHF and its officials to ensure that [b]modern goals and strategies [/b]are in place for the future work of the IHF. The goals and the strategies determine the need for new structures and processes. [u]After[/u] that has been done, the time will be right for a focus on By-Law changes, and at that point I will be prepared to come back with detailed suggestions!

It is always of special interest to pay attention to what happens in these championships, as they give a sense for what the future of our sport may have to offer in different respects. It seems that both these events offered a number of very exciting matches, and that many talented players had an opportunity to display their great skills. There were also some surprising results in several individual matches, especially in the Junior Championship. It creates a sense of ‘globalization’ when one notes that in the early stages Argentina beat both Germany and Iceland, Brazil beat both France and Norway, and Iran beat Spain! In the end, Argentina finished 6th; the home team Egypt qualified for the bronze medal game, where they will try to surpass neighbors and rivals Tunisia, who used the advantage of being the host country by placing 4th in the Youth Championship.

But did this really constitute a break-through of some sort? Was there really a genuine indication that the group of countries that can compete at the absolute top has become truly broad and fully global? The answer is unfortunately that this was [u]not[/u] the case! Congratulations to Argentina, Brazil, Egypt and Tunisia to well-deserved successes, but the results in fact confirmed that there continues to be just a [u]very[/u] small group of countries, about 5 or 6 if at least Korea is added, that can compete reasonably well with the Europeans year after years, at the both the senior and the junior level.

This has not changed for a long time, and there are no obvious indications that it will change anytime soon. (Well, Iran, I wish you good luck to prove me wrong!) Clearly this is not a good situation for our sport. We can boast about new member countries showing up and voting at our Congresses, but this is not what will impress the rest of the world. They look for a much more [u]broad and diversified group at the absolute top[/u], as an indication that handball is really developing and achieving a truly global reach.

Football has been setting a really wonderful example in this regard, with a large number of ‘new’ countries showing that they are competitive at the highest level. This creates a totally different image for a [u]World[/u] Championship. In handball it is regrettably understandable, if people in some of the traditional European handball countries are less than impressed with the extra dimension that a World Championship supposedly should be adding in comparison with a European Championship. This is not the kind of argument that the non-European handball continents need in any upcoming discussions about the international competition calendar!

And the non-European Continental Federations must themselves assume a large part of the responsibility. For instance, it clearly does not help the situation of Argentina and Brazil if Greenland is the ‘number three’ country. That really says something about the lack of sustained progress in the rest of the continent. If 5 nations represent Africa in the Junior Championship and all of them are from North Africa, what does that say about the rest of the continent, especially when 4 out of 5 finish at the very bottom of the ranking!?

But the main responsibility for achieving a change lies with the IHF. This is where the know-how exists and this is where an allocation of special resources and efforts could have some results in a not too distant future. Recruiting and nurturing the newest and weakest member countries is of course important, and special efforts through training courses, seminars and the Challenge Cup serve a good purpose. But a concerted effort to help some of the more established countries in each continent (those next in line behind ARG/BRA/EGY/TUN/KOR) develop in a sustained way, so that they can [u]reach the top faster[/u], is a separate objective. Clearly we want a situation where all participants in a senior World Championship are competitive.

And this brings me to the crucial and more general question: in carrying out a lot of work, is the IHF just moving ahead in a traditional way, or is it really making a major effort to [u]adapt to modern realities[/u], specifically by [u]developing revised goals and objectives[/u] that are explicit enough so that they can be matched by [u]well-articulated strategies and plans[/u]?? In my own experience, I am concerned that the [u]IHF is lagging behind[/u] in this respect. For instance, many other international sports federations are making very systematic efforts in revamping goals and strategies, often with the help of external expertise, but also with the help of its own global ‘family’ of athletes, leaders, media, sponsors and spectators. We cannot afford to let handball fall behind in this tough competition! (I will come back in a separate article on the issue of goals and strategies!)