There is now a verdict in the well-known case, where Uwe Schwenker and Zvonimir Serdarusic, former THW Kiel manager and coach, respectively, were accused of bribery, embezzlement and fraud. The accusation dates back to a Champions League final in 2007 between Kiel and Flensburg, where they supposedly would have used club funds for payments to the referees in the game, in an attempt to influence the outcome. The prosecutor had requested prison terms to the tune of 17-18 months, in addition to rather substantial fines.

The process lasted four months in the local court in Kiel, and 17 witnesses were called in. From a handball standpoint, it is important to note that, from the outset, there has been general agreement that the game actually was played, and refereed, in an absolutely correct way, without any indications of manipulation. This, of course, has always been an important conclusion as far as the referees, Baum and Goralczyk from Poland, are concerned. However, this in itself would obviously not constitute evidence against the possibility of an attempt to influence.

The court announced, on January 26, the verdict that Schwenker and Serdarusic had been acquitted. However, in doing so, the presiding judge specifically indicated that the reason for the decision was a lack of binding evidence. “The court is not convinced about the guilt of the accused; however, it is not convinced about their innocence either”, was the rather pointed statement. This seems to suggest that the evidence presented by the prosecutor had been found to be merely circumstantial.

The relief for Schwenker and Serdarusic did not last very long, however, as a few days later it was announced that the prosecutor had appealed the verdict. The lawyer of Serdarusic commented that “this should merely be seen as a routine procedure”. There is now initially a period during which the prosecutor must justify the appeal and the initial verdict must be further clarified by the judge. Thereafter, assuming that the appeal is not withdrawn, the federal court in Leipzig will decide whether it is inclined to hear the appeal. As some commentators have noted: ”the game may be going into overtime”…

Zarko Sesum, victim of his own 'fans', recovering in hospital instead of playing in the final

Often the problems among a group of fanatic sports spectators reflect more general trends in the society as a whole. When the notion of ‘hooligans’ began in English football, it could easily be traced to the desperation and unrest among the participants also in their lives away from football. In many instances, politics and religion enter into the picture. Rivalries between specific clubs often take violent forms. And not surprisingly, a history of previous wars and civil strife will then often live on in the area of sports. So it is not strange if the Balkans becomes a notorious region, although it may require some explanation as to why specifically the Serbs have done so much to deserve the worst reputation.

Without getting too far off track, one can remember the violence from Serbian fans that caused a European qualification game in football between Italy and Serbia to be abandoned in 2010. And there was even an incident in the Australian Open in tennis in 2009, in connection with a match between Novak Djokovic from Serbia and a Bosnian-born player representing the U.S. It is also hard to remember any football game between bitter Belgrade rivals Partizan and Crvena Zvezda (Red Star) that has not deteriorated into a serious battle in and around the stadium. But the worst situations tend to arise in connection with Serbian-Croatian encounters.

I have seen, and even supervised, many of those battles over the years in international handball, for instance in strange locations such as Ismailia, Egypt, where not many team supporters had found their way. So there the atmosphere was as peaceful in the stands as on the court. In last year’s World Championship in Sweden, the authorities had to put on special security measures to keep the Serbian and the Croatian supporters separated. But the frustrating aspect is that the crowds are not able to observe and follow the example of the players, who typically go out of the way to maintain respect for each other on the court, also in a physical and intense match where a lot is at stake.

Already prior to the semifinal game in EURO 2012, there had been serious events involving Serbian hooligans smashing cars and beating up Croatians who were traveling peacefully from a match in Novi Sad towards the Croatian border. And severe beatings in the streets of Belgrade were also reported, although in some instances it was suggested that Croatian provocations played a role. So the Serbian police clearly knew what they were doing, when they already prior to EURO 2012 announced strict security measures for the spectators. Not just were fireworks, trumpets, whistles, flags and banners on posts prohibited; the same held true for perfume and deodorant containers, cigarette lighters, plastic bottles and coins. This caused surprised reactions from ignorant visitors.

But prohibition is one thing and enforcement is another. The presence of 5.000 police among 20.000 spectators did not help. During the Serbia-Croatia semifinal an object was thrown, with the apparent target of either the Croatian coach or the star player Ivano Balic. It still remains disputed what the precise object was, but perhaps it was ‘simply’ a coin. Nevertheless, instead of hitting a Croatian, it happened to hit one of Serbia’s own key players, Zarko Sesum, in the eye. He started bleeding profusely and had to be taken to hospital on an emergency basis. Initial reports even suggested that he might risk losing his sight on that eye. And his participation in the final was of course ruled out. It is ironic that Sesum’s club team is Rhein-Neckar Loewen in Germany, i.e., precisely the club of Karol Bielecki, who did lose his eye-sight in a game, although through a pure accident and not as the result of fan violence.

After the final, which Serbia lost against Denmark, the Serblan player Vuckovic expressed his frustration: “The stupidity of the person who threw the object may have been what cost us the gold medals, as it kept Sesum out of the game”. I am sure it would be too naïve and optimistic to think that this kind of result may have much of an impact in making the hooligans think and put a stop to the dangerous behavior. As I said at the beginning, it is too deeply rooted in what goes on in the society at large. One only wonders why the Serbian population tolerates this kind of situation, where inevitably all of them get to be perceived and judged as being afflicted by the same mentality as the hooligans!?

In EURO 2012, not all players and teams ended up in the position they had hoped for...

Of course, the Danes will have a very simply answer: to show that we are the best! And the Serbs and Macedonians who secured places in the Olympic qualifying will be pleased (although one perhaps did not need precisely this kind of event for that purpose). The local spectators, mostly Serbs and Macedonians, certainly enjoyed the event, as did lots of TV and web case viewers. At least if their main focus was on close and thrilling games and not so much on enjoying top class handball.

But I would insist that the main group for whose sake one would arrange a EURO is the players, their teams and their federations. They want to display their skills, they want to beat their rivals and get medals or a good ranking, and they want to make good PR for the handball in their respective countries. But how often and at what points in time is it necessary and positive to organize this kind of Championship, and indeed the whole set of World and Continental Championships in a four-year period that also includes the all-important Olympic Games?

Clearly there is a balance between (1) having enough opportunities for the players to be in the spotlight and for the federations to create PR and revenue, and (2) the burden it places on the players, their employers (the clubs) and also the federations who must make every effort to present their teams in the best possible light. The participation in a EURO or a World Championship does not come without a sacrifice, in terms of ‘wear and tear’, new injuries or worsening of existing ones, empty periods for clubs and leagues, extended periods away from families etc etc.

It was clearer than on other occasions that this time there really were players who had to think hard: Should I deal with my nagging injury or should I risk playing? Should I make myself available (perhaps towards the end of a long career) even though I really would benefit from the time off? And what about those family obligations that I must give up on if I go away for a few weeks, considering how stressful my handball life is for my family also during the rest of the year?

It also seems that even if the players do make themselves available, even if they are not (or do not become) injured, the overall burden on them does show up in the sense that many of them actually are not in top form, or they are not totally motivated. Put differently, if these events come too frequently or at an awkward time, the teams and the players cannot do themselves justice and keep showing top skills, new moves, new tactics, and full effort in every game.

And in another way the national teams also have a more difficult time than the club teams who have their players available almost around the year. In their situation it is less difficult to lose old star players, to integrate newcomers, to modify tactics or to introduce a new style of playing. But for the national team coach, there are very limited opportunities to bring the players together and make them function as a team.

And it is especially bad when a national team, as inevitable happens, faces a ‘generation change’ or at least needs to integrate several new young talents into the collective. Not to mention when a new coach takes over a national team and needs to get his or her style and ideas reflected in the way a mix of veterans and newcomers should play. This kind of adjustment may be realistic over a 2- or 4-year period, but constantly from one year to the next, with a big Championship every year, plus then the Olympics!?

So, is it realistic, is it desirable to have five big events in a four-year period? I think a lot of the people affected will say NO. They will say that at least we do not want more than one event per year. Perhaps we should even go down to three events in four years (including the Olympics) as is the situation in football, where furthermore they do not even take the Olympics very seriously. Is anyone really complaining that we do not have a Continental or a World Championship every year in football?

Of course, I know that there is ‘another side of the coin’. While in Europe it might be easier to get acceptance for a reduction, given the high level and the importance attached to the continental championship, the ‘EURO’, the situation is not viewed the same way in the other continents. Argentina and Brazil cannot be blamed for getting tired of the routines and the predictability of their continental top event. And the current and very recent Championships in Asia and Africa do not generate enormous publicity and excitement throughout the continent. Moreover, for the top countries in each continent the ‘big deal’ is to have a chance to measure themselves against the Europeans.

If only one could come up with a model with a supplementary opportunity for these countries to have that exchange more regularly without ‘needing’ a World Championship or the Olympic Games three times in four years. And with the recognition that from Europe there are typically about 12 participants in any World Championship, could one then not cut back on the frequency of the EUROs? In any case, quite frankly, while 16 teams get to participate in the EURO, the reality is that one would be hard pressed to find more than 10-12 top rate teams on each occasion. Perhaps, it would be beneficial, instead, to have more exchange between the top dozen and the next dozen, instead of these one-time home and away qualifying games (like for the 2013 World Championship) that will soon come up.

Having attended the 2011 World Championship for men, and having now watched a lot of EURO 2012 games on the internet, I am getting more and more convinced that the current competition cycle contributes to a dilution of quality, as an important negative factor in addition to those mentioned above. I do not have a great proposal to offer, and I am not prepared to put myself in the middle of an agitated fight between legitimate European and non-European viewpoints, but something needs to be done!

IHF president congratulates Qatar as host for 2015

A little bit I had in mind the habit of teams from the Middle East to make a mockery of the ‘Super Globe’, the event touted by the IHF as ‘the World Championship for clubs’, where they borrow prominent players from other clubs on short-term contracts in order to become suddenly competitive. But I was also aware that the IHF eligibility regulations allow a player to change from one national team to another, after a change in citizenship and three years of ‘quarantaine’., i.e. not playing for the former country in an official competition.

This has worked to the advantage of, for instance, Germany and Spain in recent years, when key players from Eastern Europe were naturalized. Germany and Spain do not exactly have a shortage of young, talented players who could work their way into their national teams, but there was no outcry when these actions took place. And going further back, the systematic approach of the Austrian women’s team to acquire a team full of stars from the Balkans and the former Soviet Union barely tended to cause some mild irritation or indignation, when the Austrian team became a bit ‘too strong’ through this method.

But these developments never caused an outcry from handball countries, demanding that the IHF change its regulations and prohibit such changes in eligibility, more along the lines of the strict rules of FIFA. However, now suddenly, when the issue involves Qatar, the protests can be heard. Is the situation somehow different because it involves a non-European country, moreover a country with seemingly unlimited resources to build up an image as a prominent country in the world of sports, especially through the organization of major events, including the football world championship in 2022!?

I fully appreciate that one can have different views on this special way of building a national team. But I think there needs to be some consistency. Why have there never been any complaints about this IHF regulation before, until now suddenly Qatar openly states its intention to take advantage of it in a systematic and large-scale fashion? Why were the traditional handball powers asleep or silent until now? Being European-born, I fully appreciate the strong excitement caused by the victories and defeats of the respective national teams. Even if most of the star players from around Europe play for club teams outside their ‘home’ countries almost the entire year, it is a big deal when they come and play for their country of citizenship, with flags and anthems reflecting the feelings of nationalism. But please be consistent!

We are right now at a critical moment apropos this issue. I mentioned about a three-year waiting period. This means that players taking part in the European, African or Asian Championships this month cause themselves to be ineligible to play for a another country in the early part of 2015 when the World Championship in Qatar is scheduled to take place. So when we have now seen, just as in the case of the recent Women’s World Championship, that some top players have declined participation due to sudden injuries or a lack of motivation, then the speculation is beginning. Are they perhaps instead ensuring their ability to transfer in time for 2015?? This is really creating an awkward atmosphere!

And there have even been suspicions quietly expressed to the effect that the IHF Council or Congress, both dominated by the non-Europeans, might come up with the idea to shorten the waiting period to, say, two years, thus making all the top players available for transfers even if the played in the top events this month. I will refrain from taking a view on this speculation. Instead I will say that this is one more issue where the traditional handball powers in Europe, to my taste, tend to take a very passive or naïve stance. You are entitled to protect your interests and have your views on what is fair and proper, but then you must be prepared to be proactive and handle things in a political, strategic and coordinated fashion. Indignation and uncoordinated protests is not the way to go…

Lord Coe and Minister Hunt during PR visit with school children

Lord (Sebastian) Coe, former champion runner over 800 and 1500 meters, now Chair of the London Organizing Committee, and Jeremy Hunt, Minister of Culture, Media and Sport, were constantly appearing in TV and newspaper interviews. As always in connection with the Olympic Games, there are major differences in public opinion regarding the propriety of spending so much money and creating such upheaval for a one-time event. And to put it mildly, the world economic situation and the competition for resources have changed drastically since 2005, when London was awarded the rights for 2012.

So there have been voices suggesting very strongly that London should yet again, just like in 1948 right after World War II, inevitably find it necessary host what was then dubbed the ‘austerity Olympics’. In other words, everything from arena construction, infrastructure improvements and events such as the Opening Ceremonies should be scaled back; London should not try to compete for the sought-after label ‘best ever’. But both Minister Hunt, on behalf of the government, and Lord Coe for the Organizing Committee (LOCOG) see it differently.

They understand the arguments, but they really feel that a world-class event, in the eyes not just of participants and spectators but especially as observed by the vast TV and other media audiences around the world, is just what Britain needs at this point in time. And they are not talking just about the prestige and PR involved in showing the rest of the world what Britain can do, both as an organizer in sports and also in terms of culture, history and creativity. So the aim is to “make an extraordinary statement” and there is a sense that “people in Britain would not really forgive us if we did not make the absolutely most of this moment”.

Indeed, Hunt sees the Olympics as an event that, notwithstanding the enormous investments and expenses, could have the positive economic impact of being a key factor in avoiding a double-dip recession. It is also emphasized that the LOCOC budget of around US$ 3.5 billion is essentially based on private capital being raised. The government’s share is a more ‘modest’ US$ 9 million, apart from the traditional guarantee that any losses must be covered. Of course, this does not convince and quiet all skeptics.

On the basis of a sad history from many previous Olympic cities, there is a special concern about the ‘white elephant’ phenomenon, i.e., the all too common experience that huge stadiums and a vast spectrum of other arenas will become decaying and unused monuments to wasteful one-time spending. London, learning from its predecessors, is trying to take measures to counter this trend. Similarly, there are worries that London will feel obliged to outdo Beijing and others in putting on an ‘absurdly’ lavish and expensive Opening Ceremony. After all, this is often the measuring rod for the Olympic hosts.

It is also somewhat ironic, after the heavy criticism of the Chinese government for its cynical evacuation of citizens, through bull-dozing of entire neighborhoods, to make room for facilities and roads, that similar comments can now be heard in London. There is hope that, on balance, the development in dilapidated areas of East London will have a positive long-term effect, thanks to major new construction of housing, infrastructure especially in the form of public transportation, and major shopping centers. But the reality also seems to be that those who have been evicted from the areas of low-income housing now find it difficult or impossible to acquire new affordable housing.

As always, it is easy to speculate ahead of time, and the actual impact will not really become clear until much later. We can only hope that the optimists in Britain will turn out to be proven right.