In what I consider to be one of the most short-sighted moves in the history of sports marketing the German Bundesliga and their TV/internet marketer DSF have decided to limit the sale of internet Bundesliga matches to only the German speaking countries of Germany, Switzerland, Austria and Liechtenstein. Below is the text of the letter that I sent Sunday night to the HBL (Bundesliga), DSF and the USA Federation:

TO:
HBL: Mr Frank Bohman, Mark Schober
DSF: Mr Sascha Jungbluth
USA Team Handball: Mr Steve Pastorino, Mr Dieter Esch, Mr Ralf Uhding, Mr Steve Krassner

Subject: Internet TV restrictions for German Bundesliga broadcasts

This past Friday night after putting my two young daughters to bed, I opened a beer and sat down in front of my computer eager to see a key Bundesliga matchup between Rhein-Neckar Lowen and Hamburg. Having seen R-NL get trounced by Kiel on DSF www.tv.dsf.de in week 1, I was curious to see how they would bounce back. Instead, I got the following message on my computer monitor:

“Leider ist Ihre Netzwerkadresse (IP) nicht für die Nutzung unseres Angebots freigegeben. Aus lizenzrechtlichen Gründen müssen wir uns auf Zuschauer aus Deutschland, Schweiz, Österreich, Luxemburg und Liechtenstein beschränken.

We are sorry to inform you that your network address (IP) is not allowed to access our streaming content. Due to licensing restrictions, we can only accept viewers from Germany, Switzerland, Austria and Liechtenstein.”

While, I welcome the first ever use of the English language on the HBL’s internet platform, I am disappointed and puzzled by the HBL’s decision to deny Handball fans around the world the opportunity to purchase Bundesliga matches for viewing. For the past two years I’ve enjoyed watching matches on my computer through the Sportdigital platform and haven’t been shy about promoting it as the absolutely best Handball product on the internet. I’ve also tried unsuccessfully to get the HBL to market this product, but have been told that the HBL is instead focused on securing traditional broadcast contracts and that they are concerned that actively promoting internet streaming will hamper their ability to sign those contracts. Hence, the German language only website which I can attest as a challenge (“Bestellen” means “order” for example) to this customer as I patiently struggled for 30 minutes trying to figure out how to send the HBL money. But, now with the geoblock in place even this is no longer an option.

At the risk of stating the obvious here are a few points to consider:

1) No handball fan in his right mind prefers internet streaming content on his computer over TV broadcasts. The quality of the picture is a dramatic step down and can’t compete with relaxing on your couch and watching on a larger TV screen. Maybe someday the quality of internet streaming will match TV quality, but that day has not yet arrived. Therefore, the argument that internet streaming will prevent a TV contract doesn’t make sense. In fact, I think that a strong case that the reverse is true in that a decently marketed internet streaming product could eventually result in viewer numbers that could entice TV stations to sign a contract.

2) Highly successful professional sports leagues such as the NBA, Major League Baseball (MLB) and the National Football League (NFL) sell internet broadcasts of their matches to non-traditional markets. For instance, it’s possible for a German to pay and watch NFL and NBA matches. If it works for these highly successful leagues to market their product in Germany, one would think it would make sense for the HBL to do same in reverse. It’s also worth noting, that these leagues do have geoblocking blackout restrictions, but that their restrictions are only applied to countries that already have TV contracts. The reverse strategy of the HBL! And even in countries where they do have TV contracts, games are blocked only on case by case basis.

3) The opportunity for niche marketing in emerging markets is being missed. Rather than freezing out markets with geoblocking, why not skillfully cultivate them by offering discounted rates to watch matches over the internet. The vast majority of handball fans in many countries have a very limited knowledge and appreciation of club handball in Europe. Offering matches over the internet could rapidly change that and as the sport grows the HBL would have the benefit of being the early adopter. And I’ve read that the HBL and the U.S. now have a cooperative agreement. In the eyes of this observer a lot of nice words have been exchanged, without anything really tangible being provided. Certainly, offering web streaming to U.S. members at a discount would be something tangible and a clear win-win for both organizations.

I hope you will consider what I’ve suggested as an opportunity to pursue. At the very least I’d like an explanation on the geoblocking situation that I can share with my readers.

Yours sincerely,

John Ryan, Editor
Team Handball News

Previous Team Handball News articles on web streaming:
Oct 2007: Handball on TV in the USA? Yes!: https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.392
Oct 2008: EHF Champions League TV Coverage (Great Job, but more Bits Please!): https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.610
Jan 2009: World Championship Handball Web Streaming: Slow, but Steady Progress: https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.673

As of this posting, I have not received a response from the HBL or DSF. Steve Pastorino, however, did send a short message indicating that USA Team Handball fully supports any effort to broadcast handball via internet, TV or cable and that they would make their position known to the HBL.

If you’ve ever wondered why this great sport hasn’t successfully expanded from its narrow European market here’s a little more evidence for you.

Update (23 Sep 09): I got a short message from the HBL Bundesliga General Manager, Frank Bohmann in response to my letter. Mr Bohmann emphasized the licensing rights prevented the offering of internet streaming and that the HBL is aggressively working toward TV broadcasts in other markets. While I like the fact that they are working towards TV broadcasts it's still puzzling to me that internet and TV licensing impact each other so strongly. Hopefully, a more satisfactory resolution will be reached in the near future.

On October 2nd the IOC will vote to decide whether Chicago, Rio de Janeiro, Madrid or Tokyo will host the 2016 Olympic Games. It’s hard to understate the importance of this upcoming decision and its future impact for USA Team Handball. A Chicago victory means automatic qualification and likely a sizable amount of sponsor funding. How much remains to be seen, but if the Weather Channel gave USA Team Handball a Million dollars in 1996, it stands to reason that a lot more could be secured twenty years later. And that funding is vital to implementing a whole host of developmental programs that are envisioned. Ancillary benefits like national teams willing to come to the States and media exposure are also likely.

Not being selected won’t be the end of the world for USA Team Handball, but unquestionably it will result in a different income statement and, in turn, scaling back on whatever plans have been drafted for development, tours, and staff.

My colleague, Christer Ahl, did a good job describing the fickleness of the “very important” IOC voters and several pundits in the mainstream media have implored President Obama to travel to Copenhagen and work some magic on the voters the way that Tony Blair did four years ago. What’s been under reported for the most part, though, is that the smart money is still solidly behind Chicago. Yes, people can bet on where they think the Olympics will be held and Chicago is still a solid favorite despite the Olympic Channel debacle and the potential Obama no-show. Of course, bettors can be wrong, but I’ll generally go with people willing to put some skin in the game as opposed to pundits with nothing to lose and an axe to grind.

As to why Chicago is favored the biggest factor is the cash that a Chicago Olympics will bring. Sure there’s always a little bit of anti-American sentiment and deal making behind the scenes, but there’s also a realization that in this down economy it might be a little foolhardy to not cash in on the sure thing. Then again, Paris was a solid favorite 4 years ago when London edged them out. I’ll never forget the crestfallen faces of my colleagues in Paris and the dejected crowd at the Hotel de Ville on TV. Here’s hoping that there will be plenty of smiling faces in Chicago and Salt Lake City come October 2nd.

USA Team Handball: Overheard in Chicago: http://www.usateamhandball.org/blog/post/1237
Washington Post: For Chicago's Bid, Yes, He Should: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/11/AR2009091101753.html?hpid=news-col-blog
Chicago Sun-Times: IOC member: Get Obama to support bid: http://www.suntimes.com/sports/olympics/1771541,oly-obama-091509.article

Intrade.com market: https://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/index.jsp?query=olympics
Bwin.com: https://www.bwin.com/olympics-specials

Apparently, I wasn’t the only one pretty surprised that Lemgo couldn’t even win one match at their Champions League qualification group tournament in Leon, Spain last weekend. In a swift reaction, by handball standards anyway, they fired their coach Markus Baur and their sports director, Daniel Stephan. Co-favorites to win the tournament with host Leon, Lemgo lost close matches to Kadetten Schaufhaussen of Switzerland and Celje of Slovenia before being drubbed by Leon 31-21 in the final match.

What makes the quick firings even more surprising are the long relationships Baur and Stepan had with Lemgo. Baur had played for the club from 2001-2008, was one of the more popular players on the national team and had returned to coach Lemgo after a 6 month stint coaching in Switzerland. Stephan had been with the club since 1994 and was the Handball world player of the year in 98. According to Handball-World, it wasn’t just the performance in Spain that led to their dismissal as the club had performed poorly in a number of preseason events.

EHF: Lemgo fires Baur: http://www.ehfcl.com/men/2009-10/article/12573/Lemgo+fires+Baur
Handball-World: Lemgo: "Prolonged drought sporting" costs and Stephan Baur their jobs: http://www.handball-world.com/o.red.c/news.php?GID=1&auswahl=21908
Wikipedia: Daniel Stephan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Stephan
Wikipedia: Markus Baur: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markus_Baur

If you haven’t noticed USA Team Handball has launched several new initiatives in the past few months, most of them focused on youth programs:

– Youth teams trip to Germany: http://usateamhandball.org/blog/post/1210
– 8 youths participating in a semester exchange program in Iceland: http://usateamhandball.org/news/article/15547
– Girl‘s futures program expansion: http://usateamhandball.org/news/article/15433
– Youth camp: http://usateamhandball.org/blog/post/1097

I certainly could quibble about the merits of these initiatives around the margins (How do we know are we getting our money’s worth? Are the youth teams maybe a little too Colorado centric?, etc.), but I (and others) sure can’t complain about the Federation sitting around doing nothing. Arguably, there has been more activity in the last month or so in terms of youth programs than there has been in the entire history of Handball in this country

And if I had to debate the merits of each of these initiatives I would feel a lot more comfortable taking the “good idea” side then I would be taking the “bad idea” side. I haven’t seen any of the youths in the youth movement playing, so I can’t really judge whether they are future stars or not. But they are under 18, like the sport enough to spend some of their own resources to play it and some are even willing to live a few months in Iceland to improve their skills. It’s hard to find much wrong with that. And to those who might complain that their region is getting short shrift I would simply say there’s not much holding you back to start your own program.

In terms of the development continuum these programs can principally be categorized as talent identification and the beginning stages of player development. Essentially what was outlined in the grassroots section of my series “A Framework for Creating U.S. National Team Success” https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.797 There’s bound to be some athletes that never materialize as Senior National Team players for a number of reason as taking these players and others to the next level in the critical ages of 18-22 will be a challenge. But, hey at least we have that as a challenge now.

The EHF website posted two new stories today on their website:

EHF Marketing signs two-year partnership with bet-at-home.com: http://www.eurohandball.com/article/12540
EHF referees prepare for new season: http://www.eurohandball.com/article/12541

I live in Las Vegas and I’ve been known to make a bet or two (or three or four), but it never ceases to amaze me the incongruence of European leagues and teams sponsoring on-line betting services at the same time they must guard against match fixing. As Christer Ahl pointed out at the Play the Game Conference, the recent spate of Handball match fixing has likely been a result of the clubs themselves seeking a better result. One has only to look at other sports, however, and assess that it unfortunately is probably only a matter of time before gambling interests cause a handball match to be fixed.

Perhaps, though, this seemingly odd relationship is really beneficial with bet-at-home closely monitoring betting odds and an agreement to quickly inform EHF leadership should any unusual betting patterns emerge. As Kurt Streeter of the LA Times recently pointed out, all of the major scandals have been at least partially resolved with the support of sports books, who have a vested interested in results being on the up and up.

I can also only hope that gambling was discussed at the recent referee seminar. It may seem that a simple, "Just say no" policy is enough, but other scandals have shown how honest people can get in over their head with gambling debts and find themselves in a position where throwing a match or shaving a few goals can get them out of a jam. A seminar warning officials of gambling could be the ounce of prevention that avoids another scandal. Finally, the referees should be clearly warned of the punishment for match fixing– a lifetime ban from ever officiating again.

THN: The Euro Way: Fully Embracing Sports Betting: https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.490
LA Times: States should get a cut of the sports betting action: http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-streeter30-2009aug30,0,1852177.column

In Part 1 of this series I put forth two underlying premises for the U.S. to have successful National Teams. Namely, the U.S. needs to develop athletes at a younger age and provide a path for those athletes to become professional. Part 2 described some key aspects needed in our Grassroots Programs to find Handball athletes and help them develop basic handball skills. Part 3 describes a new concept, National Development Teams that would take those talented athletes and set them on a pathway to professional status.

Why a National Team Program?

In countries where Handball is a major sport the National Team is essentially an all-star team that only trains together a few times a year, principally before major tournaments. The players, most of whom are professional spend most of their time playing for the club teams that also pay their salary.

In the U.S. the sport is entirely amateur with most clubs practicing 1 or 2 times a week. Simply getting the best athletes from these clubs together for a week or two of training prior to major international tournaments is (as has been shown by recent results) a recipe for embarrassment. In order to field more competitive teams, some program or plan is needed to take amateur club level athletes and turn them into elite athletes on a competitive U.S. National Team. Here are some ways such a transformation might be accomplished.

1) Develop the Grassroots infrastructure to the point where our amateur programs are turning out top quality athletes that are ready for the National Team
2) Set up a Resident National Team program to further develop club players and intensively train newcomers from other sports
3) Send players overseas to established clubs in Europe
4) Set up a National Development Team program targeted to further develop promising Handball athletes aged 18-22

Why Grassroots alone can’t get the job done

As much as everyone would like to have a Grassroots program that can deliver ready-made athletes for the U.S. National Team that is clearly not going to happen any time soon. In fact, I would argue that our Grassroots program will probably never get developed to the point where we are churning out athletes with all or most of the requisite skills necessary for a competitive National Team. The infrastructure requirements, challenges and competition from other more established sports are simply too overwhelming.

But while our Grassroots program can’t make that lofty goal, they can do a much better job at identifying more athletes with potential. As discussed in part 2 of this report, there are a number of Grassroots programs that can identify talent and develop their skills. We just can’t expect those programs to take us all the way. Something will still be needed to take players to the next level.

Why Resident National Teams couldn’t get the job done

The previous U.S. Team Handball Federation recognized that the Grassroots infrastructure wasn’t in place to field competitive teams. To bridge the gap Resident National Team programs were established to further develop the skills of club players and to train promising newcomers to the sport. The programs varied over the years, but some aspects remained fairly consistent. The majority of the players were provided room and board in a dormitory setting and they practiced daily (often twice daily) as a team. A monthly stipend was also usually awarded to athletes as “walking around money” and assistance was also provided for schooling and job placement. The quality of coaching varied, but often a “name” coach from Europe was hired to coach the teams on a full time basis.

Before I go into the litany of problems inherent with this model, let me say a few positive things first. Namely, these programs clearly demonstrated their ability to transform many athletes entirely new to the sport into fairly skilled players. Considering how far these players had to go in a short period of time, this was a substantial achievement. The U.S. teams produced by these programs, in most cases, also achieved a measure of respectability. They could beat the other also-run teams of the World and make the top teams occasionally sweat a little. The won-loss and medal count still had a lot to be desired, but these teams were not an embarrassment. All this being said, though, my assessment is this still was an expenditure of substantial resources for unsatisfactory results. Herewith are the major problems I saw with the program both from personal experience and observation:

1) The athletes were often too old to warrant the spending of development resources: Throughout the years the residency program was in existence there, to my knowledge, was never any consistent policy in place regards to the age of the players. Athletes in their mid to late 20’s were often a part of these programs. This might make sense in that the goal was to put together the best possible team, but it was short sighted in that these players were less likely to be around long term. Partly, this was due to legal concerns, but I expect that it was also due to the lack of suitable and available younger players. (Note: As a short aside here it’s probably worth mentioning that my own personal experience with the National Team clearly puts me in the category as “too old”. During my short stint from 1991-93 I was 26-28 years old.)

2) Lack of whole person development: There was some lip service provided concerning opportunities for players to continue their education, but the practice and travel requirements did not fully support it. Additionally, job placement was often very limited in terms of meaningful work that would enhance long term career prospects. Bottom line: If you were participating in these programs you were making a decision to put your life on hold. While some individuals were willing to chase their Olympic dream, I think many others were more practical. The merits of either choice can be debated, but it would be so much better if that choice didn’t have to be made.

3) Uneven Funding: The funds supporting the National Team programs seemed to ebb and flow substantially from one year to the next. In particular, funding support would spike in Olympic years as sponsor funding and USOC support increased. This resulted in a lack of continuity and required the program to essentially start over every four years.

4) Lack of competition: Practicing and residing in the U.S. as a national team resulted in U.S. players having very limited opportunities for competition. Trips overseas were arranged on a periodic basis and some foreign teams were coaxed into traveling to the U.S., but there clearly were never enough matches played to sharpen skills. Additionally, there is no better way to improve as a player than to compete against better teams on a regular basis. As a result of this many athletes hit a plateau once they got to the point that they had no one better to practice against.

5) Unclear commitments (both from the Federation and athletes): A common complaint, particularly from athletes who were not part of the starting team or player rotation was that they never knew exactly where they stood with the program. Were they there because they had a legitimate shot at making the next Olympic team or were they just fodder for practice? In between Olympic Games was the team focused on developing new players or continuing the development of its veterans? Conversely, were the players in it for the long haul (perhaps 2 Olympiads) or just to punch their one time Olympic ticket?

6) Uneven player skills: In the immediate run up to an Olympic Games, the National Team was focused on putting the best possible team on the floor. But, prior to this run up gifted athletes new to the sport were periodically brought in for tryouts. This mixture of uneven talent was a boon to the newcomers who benefited from training with veterans, but held back the development of more experienced players.

In terms of overall results few would argue that these programs were successful. The U.S. was able to field teams that were competitive, but with the exception of the 1984 Women’s team never came close to medaling. Even more dismal is the U.S. record in World Championship competition. The Women’s team has only participated twice and the Men’s team has the distinction of never winning a game (0-0-25) in 6 appearances.

Why we need to be judicious about whom, why, when and where we send promising talent overseas

So if we don’t have the Grassroots Programs in place and Resident National Teams are a failed model we’re still left with the same problem. Namely, how are we going to turn our promising athletes into skilled athletes that will fill out the roster of a U.S. national team that can compete for medals at the Olympics? The 3rd option I proposed in the opening paragraph is to send the up and coming players overseas. As I postulated in the first part of the series the only way we are ever going to be competitive is for the preponderance of the players on the National Team to also be Professional Players. Why not just focus on placing as many athletes as we can with foreign clubs and let them turn our athletes into world class talent?

The short answer is that it’s not just that simple. While I’m a huge proponent of American athletes playing overseas we need to make sure that the athletes we are sending overseas have

1) The potential to become a full-fledged professional
2) The requisite skills to start near the top of the club pyramid structure
3) The maturity to handle a foreign environment

1) The potential to become a full-fledged professional First off, to be clear, I’ll define a full-fledged professional as someone playing for a club in one of the top 4 leagues in Europe (German, Spain, France and Denmark) or a perennial Champions League club in one of the other nations. I’ll also throw in the German 2nd Division, but won’t go any further down the pyramid. (For more on what it means to be a professional handball player: https://teamhandballnews.com/2008/10/defining-a-professional-athlete/)  The importance of being a full-fledged professional goes to the heart of my basic premise about professionals almost always beating amateurs. If the U.S. is ever going to be competitive the preponderance of our athletes are going to be playing at this level.

So I’ve defined what I mean by full-fledged, but what do I mean by “potential”. This is not always an easy task and it is why professional clubs pay talent scouts good money. Certainly, a raw skills test, such as the one the USA Federation has used ( http://assets.teamusa.org/assets/documents/attached_file/filename/9310/National_Team_Tryout_Athlete_Guide_ch2.PDF ), can measure raw physical talent. A high score on such a test doesn’t mean that the athlete is going to be a great Handball athlete, just means that he has the potential. With sufficient training and proper attitude, in theory, that athlete can become a great handball athlete. A less gifted athlete is going to have a harder time reaching that higher level and arguably will never get there. Therefore only athletes with the raw talent should be sent packing to Europe.

2) The requisite skills to start near the top of the club pyramid structure: Simply having the raw talent, though, isn’t enough for a couple of reasons. Reason 1: Not all European clubs are created equal and the intensity of training and quality of play varies greatly from nation to nation. In general, though, the higher divisions will offer better and more structured training. If a player heads off to Europe with limited skills he may have to start at the bottom of the pyramid at a club with less quality training and competition. Still better, than anything in the U.S., but it will be a long slog to the top of the pyramid, which leads to Reason 2: The farther down the pyramid a player starts the less perceived potential that player will have in the eyes of the professional clubs. This will be particularly true for older athletes. Much like minor league baseball in the U.S. there’s a rough age to level correlation that’s considered appropriate. An 18 year old prospect playing at the bottom of the pyramid has time to work his way up to the majors, while a 23 year old prospect will find Father Time hanging around before too long.

3) The maturity to handle a foreign environment: So, the solution then is to send 18 year olds overseas. Right? Well, in theory the answer is yes. Assuming that we had dozens of prospects it would be great for them to be headed off to Europe to play Handball regularly even for lower level clubs. The reality, however, is that we don’t have that many prospects and even if we did there are very few 18 year olds ready to move to a foreign country with a different language and culture. There might be a few unique individuals ready for such an experience, but the vast majority of young adults need a little seasoning first.

National Development Teams (Adapting the resident model to new goals)

To sum up: 1) Are grassroots programs aren’t up to speed; 2) Our Resident National Teams couldn’t get the job done; and 3) We’re sending players to Europe in which their combination age/skill level is a few years further behind what we’d like it to be. The solution: National Development Teams. As the name implies these teams would be National Teams that are focused on player development. In short, I’m proposing that we adopt the best aspects of the Resident National Team program and adapt them to new goals. Those goals are:

1) Further develop handball skills in a structured environment
2) Provide higher level playing opportunities for athletes (ages 18-22)
3) Further evaluate athletes with National Team potential

Program Aspects

Collegiate Scholarships: The U.S., more so than any other country in the world, closely ties its sporting programs with its education system. We can debate the merits of this model, but we can’t change the reality that this model is not going away anytime soon. The dream of many aspiring high school athletes in the U.S. is a collegiate scholarship to play their chosen sport. As such, the National Development Team would mimic the structure of a full-fledged collegiate program.

This program would be similar to the Women’s National Team program that was set up at Cortland University in New York, but with several enhancements, most of which would require additional funding and/or sponsorship. Key features:
– The program would be co-located with a sponsoring college
– All athletes would be required to attend college (either 2 or 4 year programs)
– All athletes would receive some financial aid and some would be on full scholarship
– All athletes would receive full room and board while participating in the program
– All athletes would be treated as scholarship athletes with the accompanying benefits and responsibilities

In short, the overall goal would be for the Handball Development Team athletes to be treated like Division 1 Collegiate athletes. Conversely, the athletes would be expected to train and prepare themselves like Division 1 Collegiate athletes.

Recruitment: The program would recruit athletes much like a collegiate program does. A select number of athletes would be recruited straight out of high school. In many cases, these targeted athletes would be all-around athletes not heavily recruited for Division 1 football or basketball. Much like a Division 2 college, the National Development Team will have to successfully find and recruit quality athletes that are missed by the big schools. Ideally, these athletes will also have already been identified at training camps and youth competitions. Faced with a decision to “walk on” in Div 1 or play Div 2 for their chosen mainstream sport these athletes might very well be swayed by the option for a full or half scholarship to play Handball at an established college with a good academic reputation.

The second type of recruited athlete would be collegiate club players that have shown promise in club competitions. These athletes would be encouraged to transfer to the college where the National Development Team is located and would be awarded scholarships based on performance/potential. And any athlete wanting to walk on at the College where the National Development Team is located they would also have the opportunity for an extended try-out.

Age Limitations: This program would be limited to athletes that are between ages 18-22. Occasionally, this requirement might be waived for an athlete that is turning 23 his senior year of college or who is going to grad school, but it should be an infrequent exception. Sorry, to those guys and gals that never pick up a Handball until their senior year of college. You might be that rare example of someone who’s willing to put the time and energy to developing into a world class athlete at age 28. And you will still have that opportunity- you’re just going to have to pursue that goal independently outside of this program.

Regimen: The overall training regimen would be similar to a collegiate Division I athletic program without some of the restrictions. In particular, there would be no out of season restrictions prohibiting formal practice. Teams would practice daily and have separate strength and agility training sessions. Athletes would reside in dormitory style housing and have training meals similar to other athletes at the school.

Competition: The National Development team would participate in club competitions in the U.S. and would periodically tour overseas. Overseas clubs would also be invited for tournaments at the college and the college would also be a logical location for National Team Competitions. The National Development Teams would also participate in the Collegiate National Championships. As full time scholarship athletes they should dominate the competition and if for some reason they don’t, the coaching staff should have a good idea on where to get new recruits for the program. Athletes on the National Development Team would also be candidates for National Team competitions, but would be required to try out like anyone else.

Program Management: A National Team Development Trainer would run the program. This trainer would not necessarily be the national team coach, but rather a coach with proven ability to teach the fundamentals of the game. (i.e., Phil Jackson of the LA Lakers might be a great floor general for professional athletes, but not necessarily the best coach to teach someone the cross-over dribble). Athlete performance would be reviewed periodically and athletes could be cut from the program.

Overseas Preparation: Athletes will be encouraged to study a foreign language and potentially study a semester abroad. Such an overseas program would be done in conjunction with a club program and serve as a springboard to a later overseas contract.

Program Feasibility

Obviously, this program won’t be free, but I would argue that it could be implemented at several different funding levels. As the program is similar in scope to the Resident National Teams of the 80’s and 90’s one could infer that it could be implemented if the USA Team Handball budget approaches the funding of those years. The substantial difference between the two models is the scholarship cost and the partnering arrangement reached with the TBD College would impact this bottom line. A high funding level and a sweetheart deal with the TBD College would result in full ride scholarships for 15 men and 15 women athletes. A low end program would simply be in-State tuition as was offered to Cortland program athletes. And a low, low end program would be the simple declaration that those wanting to train with the development team should move to the TBD location. Of course, no scholarship benefits and/or other carrots would also mean limited participation.

Another issue that would have to be addressed is the timing as it relates to the 2016 Olympic Games. Assuming Chicago is selected as host city (they’re the favorite, but it’s not a foregone conclusion) the pressure to focus on the Senior National Team will increase with each passing year. Seven years may seem like a long time to prepare, but the reality is that it is a lot closer than we think.

In the final part of this series I’ll take a closer look at the USA National Team Programs, the types of players needed, how they would transition to European sides and the U.S. prospects for 2012, 2016 and beyond.

The IOC Executive Board is voting on Thursday to determine which 2 sports of 7 candidates (Golf, Rugby 7s, baseball, softball, karate, roller sports and squash) will be considered for inclusion in the 2016 Olympic Games when the Olympic Committee meets in October. The Associated Press and other sources have indicated that Golf and Rugby 7s are likely to be selected.

ESPN thinks this IOC board vote on inclusion is interesting, but wonders how the current 26 sports rank from top to bottom amongst fans world wide. To vote Team Handball #1 and Gymnastics #26 go to this link: http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/rank?versionId=1&listId=364

[b]Punishments to fit the crimes?[/b]

My colleague, Christer Ahl, makes the case that the debate over whether one punishment should be tougher than another is difficult and somewhat pointless when there’s no established precedence in place. This is certainly true, but few would argue that the punishments leveled against Russian club, Chekov Medvedi, and the Romania National Team are laughable. With the so-called “threats of suspension” it reminds me of the parent warning the toddler, “if you do that again, you’re really, really going to get it next time.” We all know how effective that threat is compared to actually meting out a punishment. Seriously, does anyone in the EHF hierarchy really think that fining Chekov and Romania and threatening suspension if they get caught again is a real punishment? Give me a break. The amount of the fines are even less than what they were reportedly offering to throw the matches! If the EHF wanted to send a message the proper one would have been 2 year suspensions…. Period.

As far as punishments for the individuals involved, the EHF showed some willingness to mete out punishment. Five year bans were given to the Romanians, Federation VP Palau Petre and former National Team coach, Aihan Omer. According to the press release and news reports it appears that there is little doubt as to their culpability. I would argue, however, that the penalty for match fixing should be nothing less than a lifetime ban from the sport. Yes, a “death penalty” is pretty harsh, but match fixing is so unquestionably wrong and detrimental to the sport that it deserves the ultimate punishment. The only life-line, I’ll throw the EHF is that I don’t think they had any clear penalties established.

With the German officials, Lemme/Ullrich, they haven’t admitted actual match fixing, but just a failure to report. I guess its plausible, but they won’t name the solicitor and you really have to suspend belief to think that they were surprised when the $50,000 was later found in their luggage. If we are to believe this story, we can only speculate what they would have done with the money had it not been discovered by the Customs official at the Moscow airport. Safe on German soil would they still have been reluctant to report it to the EHF? Perhaps maybe they would have simply burned it to avoid any complications?

Still, there seems to be some truth to the claim that the EHF had a poor process for reporting events like they experienced as well as a poor track record in following through with investigations. Certainly, the fact that the Danes reported the incident in Romania, but the EHF only took action after the Kiel-Flensburg story blew up backs this claim. With that in mind, perhaps 5 years is sufficient for Lemme/Ullrich.

[b]A leadership vacuum[/b]

Another point worth mentioning is that there is a leadership credibility problem at the top of the IHF and EHF. Yes, this is an EHF matter, but certainly it would be helpful if we had an IHF President who could use his “bully pulpit” to speak out on the match fixing scandals. As many of the referees in question officiate both IHF and EHF matches the IHF President could play an active role with constructive dialogue to address mutual concerns and issues. Such a possibility with the current President, however, is a laughable prospect in light of his culpability with the Kuwait – Korea Olympic Qualification match.

Also, compromised is the EHF leadership. With their tacit support of the current president in the last IHF election they sent a message that match fixing isn’t a very big deal. For illustrative purposes let’s pretend that the current IHF President was a European. And let’s speculate on what sort of punishments would be meted out if this IHF President was found to have intervened in the selection of an officiating pair for a Champions League match and then the tape of the match was shown to be undeniably biased in favor of one team. Perhaps, a two year suspension for the club in question? What about the penalty for the supposed IHF president who made phone calls to enable match manipulation? A 25,000 Euro fine? A 5 year ban? Or would the EHF just keep quiet, pretend nothing serious has happened and support that President’s re-election?

In fact, I’m a little surprised that none of the aggrieved have pointed out the hypocrisy in these uneven responses. Or perhaps this is why some of the penalties have been lenient?

[b]And the irony of it all[/b]

Finally, let’s not forget that Lemme and Ullrich were the unbiased, experienced officials that the IHF sent to Japan to officiate the infamous Korea – Kuwait Olympic qualification match. If they had officiated the match instead of the Jordanian pair the Olympic qualification scandal would have never occurred. And while the Olympic qualification scandal took place miles away, there’s no denying that it helped create an atmosphere that heightened awareness of the issue in Europe. An atmosphere that eventually led to the European investigations and thus completed an unlikely chain of events that led to Lemme and Ullrich‘s downfall.

So, if the match-fixers had been allowed to officiate a match fairly in Japan they might still be calling matches in Europe. Of course, a cynic might point out that Kuwait should have hired Lemme/Ullrich instead of the Jordanians. We don’t know for certain if they fix matches or not, but we do know they won’t report it.

Video: Lemme/Ulrich chatting with a Korean reporter: (Fast forward to 13:30)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-908556008345758262
Team Handball News: Video: Korean News on Olympic Qualification: https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.422

No, it wasn’t the Handball Coupe de la Ligue Final, it was the French Soccer Champions Trophy: A one off match annually held between the Ligue 1 winner and the French national cup winner to kick off the new season. For the record Bordeaux beat En Avant Guingamp, 2-0 in front of 34,000 fans, Saturday afternoon at Montreal’s Olympic Stadium. Not a massive crowd, but more than the semi-prestigious match has been able to garner previously in French venues. I’m not an expert on French soccer, but according to this Wikipedia article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophée_des_champions it looks like the match is often played at smaller stadiums as kind of a showcase for the provinces.

So, why am I posting about French soccer at Team Handball News? Well, there are some interesting contrasts and parallels that can be made relative to French Handball’s initial foray this past Spring in Miami. Both events were somewhat daring attempts to market a lesser known sport outside of France in North America, but only one event was able to garner a respectable crowd. Why?

1) Soccer has a long, long way to go before it approaches the popularity of hockey and probably many other sports in Canada, but it’s at least on the radar map. Also, as the NY Times article points out, it wasn’t the first time a good soccer crowd has shown up in Montreal.

2) Montreal has a strong tie to France. It’s a language and cultural thing. Even though the French soccer league is a step below the other leagues in Europe, that fact doesn’t matter in Quebec. It also explains why 40 kids from Montreal took a 30 hour bus trip down to Miami to see the Handball Coupe de la Ligue. Maybe they would have made the same trek for a Bundesliga match. Then again, maybe not.

3) Perhaps an investment with a professional sports marketing company, European Football Group http://www.europeanfootballgroup.com/index.php?section=about_history, was money well spent. Pure speculation on my part, but I’m guessing they probably did something right. Even still, they couldn’t get Fox Soccer Channel to air the match for free in North America.

Regardless of why they were able to draw a decent crowd, Handball fans can take heart with the fact that inroads can be made even in the heart of Hockey country.

Bordeaux Wins French Champions Trophy in Montreal: http://goal.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/french-champions-trophy-game-in-montreal/

Part 1 identified some of the challenges with creating a successful U.S. National Team Program and laid out two underlying premises. Namely, the U.S. needs to develop athletes at a younger age and provide a path for those athletes to become professional. Part 2 describes why a good grassroots program is needed, what it should look like and how it can feed into national team success.

Grassroots vs. National Teams

A good Grassroots Program should be part of the overall USA Team Handball program in the U.S. for a number of different reasons. Fundamentally, one of the missions of a sports federation is to promote the sports growth and give its members opportunities to play the game. Establishing strong local programs nationwide is the best way to support that objective.

Another key mission of a national sports federation, however, is fielding successful national teams. Most people will argue that these shouldn’t be competing interests. After all, grassroots programs are a pretty good way to identify and train athletes that will eventually make the national teams. Conversely, solid national team programs and the opportunities they provide athletes can be a strong marketing tool to support grassroots development. Obviously, both are needed, but what do you do if you have limited resources?

For many years, the U.S. Federation found itself caught in a trap as it related to Grassroots vs. National Team support. Its primary source of funding, the U.S. Olympic Committee, increasingly tied its level of funding support to national team success. Without success there would be less funding. So predictably the U.S. Federation spent most of its limited budget on its National Teams in the vein hope of successful results. The biggest chunk of which was spent on National Team Residency programs in which players trained together full time and periodically traveled abroad for competition. These short term pushes resulted in a degree of respectability at the 1984 and 1996 Olympics, but fell short of a medal.  (The women’s team did come close in 1984, though)

To many observers these short term stop gap efforts were seen as long shot ventures that were hogging all the funding that could have been better spent on grassroots programs. Grassroots programs, in their opinion, that if properly funded and supported would still be in place today and developing a constant stream of players feeding into the national teams.

After the 96 Olympics to a certain extent funding was shifted to grassroots development at the expense of the national teams. I say to a certain extent, because arguably funding streams had fallen so sharply that a national team resident program was simply impossible to fund anymore. Aside from a scaled down two year program at Cortland University for the Women’s team, there has not been a National Team resident program since 1996. Predictably, the performance of the National Teams has fallen sharply, with the respectability of the score lines getting progressively worse and the U.S. starting to lose to teams that would have been unimaginable 10 years ago. But whatever funding that was spent on grassroots since 1996 also has very little to show for itself in 2009.

But the point here is not to argue how money was spent in the preceding decades. The point here is that in upcoming decade, even with new funding coming in to the Federation, the Grassroots vs. National Team debate will undoubtedly return front and center. This will especially be true if Chicago is selected as host for the 2016 Olympics. Ideally, there will be money to both continue grassroots efforts and field competitive national teams, but that remains to be seen.

Grassroots Program Goals

So let’s throw aside the old Grassroots vs. National Team debate for now and assume that these two programs can work in tandem with each other. And let’s also throw aside the grassroots goal of simply helping the membership play the sport. Instead let’s look at Grassroots purely from the standpoint of “what can it do for the National Team”. In those terms I would argue the goals of the Grassroots Program would be the following:

1) To expand the player pool. The U.S. is a big country and it’s a numbers game. The more people playing the sport the more “diamonds in the rough” there will be waiting to be discovered.

2) To train and develop athletes as much as possible before direct national team involvement. National Team programs are expensive. The more that is done to develop athletes at the local level the more time and resources that can be spent transforming club level athletes to elite athletes.

3) To identify athletes with National Team potential. Expanding the player pool is only half the battle. Correctly identifying the players with the most potential to one day contribute to the National Team is the follow on goal.

Grassroots Programs

So those are the goals, but how can we achieve them? Below are some of the programs and activities that can support a national grassroots programs. Many of these programs have been done in the past or are being implemented as we speak. While it may be intuitive that these are the things that should be done, it’s worth discussing the “why for?” analytically since limited resources might mean that some of these programs are more worthwhile than others.

1) Conduct clinics:  Clinics are one off events intended to introduce the sport to people (generally youth)
Benefits: It cannot be underemphasized how important it is to increase the name recognition of Handball (Team Handball) in the U.S. Before a player can even enter the “player pool” he needs to know that the sport exists! (A short diatribe here for illustration purposes: I attended a clinic conducted by Olympians Bob Djokovic and Tom Schneeberger at the Air Force Academy in 1984. That one clinic had a profound impact on me as it helped set in motion a lifelong devotion to the sport. It’s highly probable that I would not be typing as we speak if that clinic had never occurred.)
Costs: Variable depending on the availability of volunteer support, availability of balls/goals and travel requirements
Return on Investment: Highly variable. Undoubtedly, many clinics result in a few kids simply learning that the sport of Team Handball exists. But, undoubtedly there are also many clinics where new devotees get their first taste for the sport. It’s also important note that new devotee may never make a National Team, but on down the road he might be that one person who finds the next big star. This is known as the snowball effect.
Overall Assessment: In most cases, I don’t think it’s cost effective to conduct clinics where there is no local base of support. Travel costs for Federation staff and equipment could probably be better spent elsewhere. But, anywhere that clubs or players are residing in sufficient quantities there should be at least one clinic conducted on a yearly basis. The Federation should facilitate clinics occurring through engagement with clubs. Additionally, the Federation should consider modest incentives such as balls or reduced club fees to encourage clinics being held.

2) Engagement with schools to add Handball to their P.E. Curriculum: Believe it or not, one of the top internet related handball searches comes from teachers throughout the U.S. looking for information on how to teach Team Handball to their classes.
Costs: It depends. Of course, it would be nice to conduct a clinic for every school in the country, but that is simply not practical. And even in the locations where clubs exist, it’s often not practical for adults to take off work to go demonstrate handball. But, a cheaper alternative exists and that is providing instructional material on the Federation website.
Return on Investment: Highly variable: Much like clinics, it’s a numbers game. Rest assured, though, the more people exposed to the sport the better.
Overall Assessment: The Federation has some written information available for schools, but in this web 2.0 internet age this should be taken to the next level with a web streaming video specifically geared to teaching handball in P.E. classes. The video should include an introduction to the basics of the game, drills and demonstrations with actual school age children. If there’s enough funding available a slick, high quality video should be produced. If the funds aren’t there, though, just get a camcorder and post it on youtube.

3) Engagement with community organizations to add Handball to their sports programs:  Organizations such as the Boys & Girls Clubs and the YMCA are strong candidates to develop a program in which youth play and practice Handball on a regular basis. Such programs might be considered a half way step between simply exposing an athlete to the sport and that athlete joining a fully fledged club program. The Boys & Girls Clubs, in particular, have a proven track record with eventual National Team players getting their first taste for the sport at B&G clubs in California and Georgia.
Costs: It depends. Again how much this engagement will cost will be dependent on where the program is based and whether local volunteer assistance is available to get it started. Additionally, the Federation could consider equipment (balls and goals) donations or reduced costs as an incentive to get programs started
Return on Investment: Highly variable with the key being the motivation of the program staff involved
Overall Assessment: Clearly these programs have merit, but only if interest is sustained over a period of time. Sustaining that interest will require continued Federation and club volunteer engagement.

4) Support youth clubs/teams (11-18): Youth clubs are clubs that are independent of supporting organizations (e.g. the Boys and Girls Clubs) and totally devoted to the sport of Handball. This is more than an “after school” program and these teams would be comparable to an all-star or traveling team in other youth sports. In many cases the youth team would simply be one team that is part of a Handball club. Such a club would mimic the European model and would include a Senior Men’s team, Women’s team, Veteran’s team, etc. Alternatively, youth clubs could be established with no real ties to other clubs. The Federation could support youth clubs in a number of different ways. These ways include reduced or donated equipment, sending coaches to conduct advanced clinics with teams, organizing youth club championships on a regional and national basis, subsidizing teams for travel to competition
Costs: Substantial for Federation involvement
Return on Investment: Limited due to high costs involved
Overall Assessment: The short summary above is a simplification, but the point I’m trying to make is that establishing legitimate youth clubs comparable to existing adult clubs would be expensive. If the parents of the youths involved are so motivated to pay the costs involved in establishing such clubs that would be great, but it would be foolhardy for the Federation to expend limited resources to try and make it happen. Sure it would be great for such clubs to exist as they would undoubtedly feed into our senior clubs and National Team programs. The reality is, however, that most athletically inclined youth will want to focus on the more mainstream sports. And what clubs that could be created would likely have to travel significant distances for competition. (As an aside, I’m aware that the old federation actually subsidized travel for youth teams on a few occasions. This, in my opinion, was an incredible waste of resources)

5) Support the establishment of Junior High and High School Handball programs (Ages 12-18): This program would be a major concerted effort to convince a number of schools to establish Team Handball as a varsity sport just like basketball or football. And once the convincing was done a significant amount of resources to sustain the program(s) the first couple of years.
Costs: Substantial
Return on Investment: Very high, but only if successful
Overall Assessment: I will have to claim a fair degree of ignorance on this topic. It would have been impossible at the schools I attended, but my school experience is very dated. Convincing schools to add sports can be a challenge, but if they’re playing lacrosse in Las Vegas, why not Handball. My sense is that it would probably take significant effort from a Federation staff member, a cabal of dedicated volunteers and some amenable school administrators. Before such a program is green lighted a well thought out plan would be needed.

6) Support collegiate clubs (Ages 18-22): This program would seek to establish more collegiate clubs and regional competitions throughout the country. It would involve engagement with colleges to start new programs and continuing assistance until each club is firmly established.
Costs: It depends; if volunteer assistance and established clubs take an active role the cost can be minimized.
Return on Investment: Medium Impact; These programs will identify and develop quality players. Unfortunately many of these players will be also be too old to make the transition from club level to elite level in a timely manner before “life issues” impact their ability to continue playing handball
Overall Assessment: Collegiate clubs have been an integral part of USA Team Handball for years and the first place that many in this country have touched a Handball. And in all likelihood, it will continue to be the first time that top athletes in this country choose to make Handball their chosen sport. Sure, we’d like more athletes to make that choice at a younger age, but that’s not going to happen any time soon. Colleges also have the infrastructure and social structure already in place so starting clubs is comparatively easy. Other sports (rugby for example) have thousands of collegiate club athletes. The model is there it just needs to be copied.

7) Support the establishment of NCAA Varsity Handball programs: This would seek to establish Team Handball as on official NCAA sport. This would take an organized effort and direct engagement with schools in the NCAA. The NCAA actually has an office that addresses emerging sports and a defined pathway to Varsity status
Costs: Significant
Return on Investment: Extremely high, but only if successful
Overall Assessment: NCAA Varsity sport status and the legitimacy it provide would be a major, major accomplishment for the sport as it would lay the foundation for the development of hundreds of elite athletes. At first glance, it might seem the impossible dream, but a combination of Team Handball’s Olympic status and Title IX requirements might make such an achievement possible. In the 1990’s Team Handball was recognized as an emerging sport and there was reportedly some talk of the South East Conference (SEC) setting up a Women’s competition. Alas, this never materialized and the NCAA removed Team Handball from its emerging sport status due to a lack of collegiate clubs. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: If Arizona State University (in the middle of the desert, for god sakes) can have a varsity women’s rowing team and grant scholarships to athletes that have never rowed before than why not Team Handball?

8 ) Support adult clubs (Ages 18+): This program would seek to establish new clubs and support existing clubs in the U.S. regardless of the age and citizenship of its members.
Costs: It depends; if volunteer assistance and established clubs take an active role the costs can be minimized.
Return on Investment: Minor direct impact, but potentially major indirect benefits. In most cases these programs will not identify and train players with national team potential. Where these programs have long term value is in their potential to provide volunteer support to many of the other grassroots program and in particular to youth club development.
Overall Assessment: Most of the players who play club level handball in the U.S. do so because they love to play the game. In many cases, these clubs are top heavy with expat players who couldn’t play for the U.S. in the first place. The U.S. needs more of these team for their long term benefits and potential for volunteerism. And, yes we need the Expat clubs to show newcomers how to play the game. Speaking from experience there is nothing more motivating to a young American Handball player than being schooled by an out of shape, chain smoking Euro in his 30’s.

9) Conduct regional and national camps: Regional camps would be highly organized 3 to 7 day camps where youth players would receive instruction in Team Handball techniques from experienced coaches. The camps would also include games and scrimmages where coaches could evaluate players for their national team potential
Costs: Substantial, both for players and the Federation (Regional camps have some advantages on reduced travel cost for participants)
Return on Investment: Potentially significant depending on the quality and numbers of athletes that participate
Overall Assessment: Camps may be expensive, but they also have tremendous value. If athletes can be brought into a competitive and challenging environment at ages 14-18 they may get sold on Team Handball as a sport to pursue. And if they are athletes with the raw athletic ability to become elite national team players we may have solved the age conundrum that has plagued USA Team Handball since it’s inception.

10) Establish Junior National teams and send them to International competitions: This is pretty self explanatory. A true junior national team would need to have at least one training camp prior to departure. Additionally, a fair and equitable process for selecting these players would need to be established.
Costs: Very Expensive
Return on Investment: Debatable; Does the cost of an overseas trip justify the expenditure?
Overall Assessment: I’m skeptical as to the merit of sending youth teams overseas to play in competition. There’s no debate that for the players involved it would be a tremendous experience, both on a Handball and personal level. Additionally, it’s a tremendous carrot to attract talented athletes to try give Handball a try. But, it also costs a lot of money and we currently have a very, very small pool of athletes to draw from. History, if I’m not mistaken, also paints a pretty dismal picture as far as Junior athletes eventually becoming Senior national team members. There’s been a few, but I suspect that it would be difficult to argue that there was a justifiable Return on Investment.

Evaluating Grassroots Program Success

Admittedly, the costs, return on investment and overall assessment on each of the programs above are a gross simplification and just one person‘s opinion. There are just too many variables to factor in and determining whether a grassroots program is successful or not will always be fairly subjective, particularly in the short term. This is one of the reasons the USOC prefers to grade simply on National Team success as it is entirely objective and very, very easy. You just total up medals awarded and the wins and losses. On top of that you can even look at the final scores to make a further detailed assessment of where a program stands.

But while measuring Grassroots program success can be challenging there are a few reliable metrics that can be tracked. Here are a few for consideration:

– Total number of USA Team Handball Memberships
– Total number of USA Team Handball Youth Memberships
– Total number of registered clubs
– Total number of registered collegiate clubs
– Total number of registered clubs competing at the National championships
– Total number of clinics conducted
– Total number of schools inquiring about P.E. program instructions
– Total number of athletes inquiring about U.S. National Team programs

Along with these numbers, the amount of time and money spent supporting each Grassroots program can and should be tracked carefully. It may not be readily discernible what the “return on investment” will be for a particular program, but it should be relatively easy to track what that “investment” is. At each board meeting this information could be presented to the Board of Directors so they can better assess whether the investment for each of the different programs is indeed worth the time and money spent. For instance, if conducting a national camp costs a lot of money then a compelling case should be made as to why it’s worth it. Conversely, a less expensive program might get lesser scrutiny, unless of course it’s assessed as totally without merit.

Another big part of the evaluation process should be an assessment of the overall program. The needs and goals of the program shouldn’t be entirely static. The importance for some programs (clinics) may fall by the way side as the sport becomes more well known and popular. Conversely, other programs (Junior National Teams) might become more important as the player pool expands. I’m not an expert on US soccer, but I expect the emphasis that they’ve placed on different programs has evolved substantially since its explosive growth in the 80’ and 90’s so should the programs for Handball as the sport broadens its base of support.  Finally, we should also not forget that while a major reason for supporting Grassroots programs is to feed athletes into the National Team pipeline it’s not the only reason. It’s also important to simply seek to further develop the sport for the benefit of it’s members.

While Grassroots programs are great for identifying talent and developing athletes into good club level players that won’t count for much on the International stage. In the next section of this manifesto, I will describe a new concept (National Developmental Teams) that I think will effectively transform club level players into elite level players with National Team potential.

I’m working on a article about Handball in India and would like to get the perspectives of handball players and fans living in India. If you would like to be interviewed for the article please send me an email at john.ryan@teamhandballnews.com

INTRODUCTION

A forum posting a while back about why U.S. national teams haven’t had much success in recent years sparked a lot of discussion. I postulated 3 main reasons why the U.S. hasn’t had much success:

1) The raw athletic ability of national team athletes has been low
2) The handball skill level of national team athletes has been low
3) The quality of other national teams, particularly in the Pan American region, has improved dramatically

I don’t think too many people would disagree with this assessment as to why we haven’t had much success. It’s pretty self evident. Where the big disagreements arise, however, is in the solution to the problem. It’s almost always easier to point out problems, than it is to solve them. And in the case of Team Handball in the U.S., if building a quality national team program had been an easy task, it would have been accomplished years ago.

So, how could the U.S. create National Team Success? I won’t try to lay out all the specifics, but I will try to lay out a basic framework. Along the way, I’ll also point out some fallacies with previous efforts and reasons why I think some proposed strategies also aren’t likely to succeed.

First off, a note on funding: It will be difficult, if not totally impossible, to establish any type of credible program without sufficient funding. Securing the necessary funding is probably the most important task that the Federation has. I and others have written about how important it is for USA Team Handball wean itself off limited USOC funding and establish other revenue sources. Of course, simply stating this fact won’t make it a reality. On top of that the current economic situation makes this difficult task even more challenging. Still, some level of funding will be available, especially if Chicago secures the 2016 Olympic bid. This post, however, is not about how to secure more funding. Instead it is about what to do with that funding to create a successful national team program.

Now, to frame the discussion I will put forward a couple of premises that I’m pretty confident are accurate and hard to refute.

Premise #1: The U.S. will never achieve a high level of success if the preponderance of athletes on its National Teams consists of players who first start playing handball in their 20s.

Handball is a relatively easy game to learn, but one that takes several years to master at the highest level. A player who starts out at age 20 can become a world class player with around 5 years of dedicated training and a handful of American players, in fact, have demonstrated that it can be accomplished. But, it has only been a “handful” of players and a number of “life issues” have usually precluded players from getting to that higher level. These “life issues” are career and family concerns that are typical and to be expected for Americans in their mid-twenties starting to think about their futures. As a result of these outside handball concerns, players often reached a plateau level of performance which was good enough for them to make the U.S. National team. They then participated in an Olympic Games and then promptly retired from the sport once that goal was obtained.

Players in the top Handball nations have a vastly different path to their National Teams. Typically, those players begin playing the sport at a young age and start to master the game in their early 20’s. They also have a different outlook on the sport directly related to the fact that they are professional athletes, which leads to premise #2.

Premise #2: The U.S. will never achieve a high level of success if the preponderance of athletes on its National Teams consists of amateur athletes.

Amateurs will lose to professionals almost every time and an amateur team will [i][b]never[/b][/i] pull off the string of victories needed to medal at the Olympics. Professionals, as they should be, are dedicated full time to their sport. Amateurs can also be very dedicated, but the training regimen and regular competition offered to professionals makes it impossible for amateurs to compete with them on an equal footing.

Years ago the U.S. could achieve a certain level of respectability with top collegiate athletes crossing over to handball. The U.S. was always handicapped by less handball experience, but in terms of raw physical talent the gap was often marginal, and sometimes the U.S. arguably even superior. As the sport became more professional in Europe though, the gap in raw talent and handball skill widened. Even worse, the pool of top amateur athletes from cross-over sports like basketball became smaller due to greater opportunities for those athletes to pursue professional careers in Europe and other parts of the world.

So, if you accept these premises (and I challenge anyone to come up with valid arguments to dispute them) it’s pretty clear that in order to field competitive National Teams you need to develop a framework that will create a National Team in which:

1) Most of the players are professionals
2) Most of the players start playing the sport in their teens.

To accomplish this a framework needs to be established which will support player development at younger ages and create a pathway for those players to develop into professional athletes. This could be accomplished with 3 major program areas:

1) Grassroots Program (with a primary focus on ages 12-18)
2) National Development Team (ages 18-22)
3) National Team Program

Coming up: Part 2: Grassroots Programs

Readers to this site, know fully well my thoughts on misapplying success stories from other sports to developing Handball in the U.S. https://teamhandballnews.com/news64.html But, they also know that the one sport where I see the most parallels to Handball is rugby. https://teamhandballnews.com/news372.html

Notably, USA Rugby is achieving two very important benchmarks in the development/publicity department during this quiet sports week in the doldrums of summer. The first is the feature cover story in the USA Today Sports section which is all about the USA national team and its upcoming World Cup qualifier with Canada this weekend. In the article, you’ll note a number of handball/rugby parallels including cash strapped budgets, the challenges of competing against more established sports for attention and the challenge of competing against professional athletes. As a side point the article inaccurately downplays the significance of the growing contingent of professionals on the Eagles side. A few of these players are not mere afterthought athletes playing for minor clubs, but full time professionals making good money and playing for top clubs. https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.629 But, aside from the inaccuracies, there’s nothing better than a feature article in the top U.S. National daily sports section to promote your sport.

Well, actually there is and that’s a live broadcast on a Saturday afternoon. Sure, it’s the 4th of July and many folks will be out celebrating, but there’s no denying that you’ve hit the big time when a pivotal match is broadcast live on the #1 sports network. Undoubtedly, it will be the biggest TV audience ever in the U.S. for a rugby match. Rugby has been on basic cable many times, but in most cases the broadcasts have been tape delayed and edited. Additionally, the broadcasts were typically on the lesser known ESPNU, ESPN2 or ESPN360. With the broadest market penetration, the decision to show the match on the “mother ship“, ESPN, in High Definition (HD) means that the suits at the ESPN network our saying that this rugby match is the most marquee product available for this time slot.

[b]Tangible Benchmarks for USA Team Handball[/b]

Every four years during the Olympics, Team Handball gets a media boost as reporters either watching on TV or in person discover the sport. Occasionally, a quality feature article gets published like the one that ran recently in the NY Times: https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.748 More often than not and especially in recent history, the story has been about Handball in other countries and how the U.S. is a unorganized basket case.

A tangible benchmark for USA Team Handball, which hopefully is not too far in the future, would be to see a featured article extolling the USA national team in the same vein as the Rugby article does. And even more desirable would be an ESPN broadcast of a Handball match. A U.S. national team match would be great, but I’d also take a World Championship, European Championship or Champions League match. Perhaps this may even happen sooner than we think. In January, with a little nudge from the U.S. Federation, ESPN broadcast World Championship matches on its web platform, ESPN360. ESPN must have liked the numbers it got, because in May they broadcast the Champions League Final. And more importantly this time they chose to buy the rights all on their own without any push from the Federation.

You’ve got to start somewhere and ESPN360 is as good as place as any. Here’s hoping that the viewership numbers continue to impress, the U.S. national teams improve and we all see Team Handball go to the mother ship!

USA-Canada Rugby World Cup Qualifier (Match 1): July 4th, 4:00 PM EDST on ESPN HD

Note: Similar to Champions League Handball this is the first match in a home and away aggregate series. The 2nd match will be Saturday, July 11th in Edmonton. Combined aggregate scores will determine the overall winner.

USA Today: Earning their stripes: U.S. rugby team takes aim in spotlight: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2009-06-29-us-rugby-cover_N.htm