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

If you have ever read the “About the Site” https://teamhandballnews.com/page9.html page on our website, you’ll notice that there’s a short discussion about the “news” provided by official Handball websites. Essentially, the argument is that it’s very difficult for an organization to critically report on itself. Several recent events in the Handball World and the way some official websites reported on them certainly illustrate the inherent problems with self-reporting. Here’s a few examples covering a variety of topics:

[b]New Zealand Handball Federation: [/b] NZHF – newest member of the IHF: http://www.handball.net.nz/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=0&Itemid=63
For a fledgling organization that has liked to point out that they were all about developing the sport in New Zealand and didn’t care for the politics of the sport this article is notable for its omissions, naivety and/or dishonesty. While trumpeting their organization’s recognition by the IHF there is no mention of the IHF’s removal of the Oceania Federation President, Vern Winitana, from the Executive Council. Winitana and his family has been closely affiliated with the now deposed, Handball New Zealand. The closest the article gets to this issue is its mention of a “complex political situation.” There may very well be some legitimacy to the NZHF’s complaints that Handball NZ had done a poor job in the development of the sport in that country, but it’s naïve/dishonest to not recognize that the “love” being provided by the IHF is all about striking back at Winitana and has nothing to do with NZHF’s development efforts. Trust me, if Winitana was still in good graces with the current IHF leadership we certainly wouldn’t be treated to photos of the NZHF with the IHF leadership in Cairo.

[b]IHF: Interview with Dr Moustafa:[/b] http://www.ihf.info/front_content.php?idcat=57&idart=1843
Well, this interview doesn’t even need commentary. Seriously, would anyone expect anything interesting to come out of such an interview?

[b]USA Team Handball Federation: Interview with Dr Moustafa:[/b] http://usateamhandball.org/news/article/13304
This interview, however deserves some commentary. As an American who has invested a considerable amount of time and energy exposing the many shortcomings of Dr Moustafa this interview, to put it mildly, rubbed me the wrong way. Back in May during the USA National Championships, USATH send out an invite to all of their followers on Twitter to send in their questions for the IHF President. I sent in a number of questions, two of which actually made it into the interview, believe it or not. As you might expect, though, none of my questions on Asian Olympic Qualification, finance irregularities or doping were asked. Instead a litany of softball questions were lobbed toward Dr Moustafa with no probing even gently into any of those issues. Of course, some might argue that a national federation shouldn’t ask probing or controversial questions in an interview. But those folks are making the wrong point. The correct point to make is that a national federation shouldn’t be doing interviews with controversial figures for official news publication. Why? Because when you do an interview with a controversial figure and you lob questions like, “You have been a successful player, coach and administrator of handball throughout your life. What have been your proudest moments?“ and omit the discussion of real issues you lose credibility and imply that the controversial issues really aren’t important anyway.

USA Team Handball has big plans to further develop the sport and they need to work closely with the IHF, regardless of whether it’s the cleanest or most corrupt sporting organization on the planet. But, that work can be done quietly behind the scenes. Posting an absurd, fluff interview on the official website accomplished nothing other than to upset the sensitivities of some (one can only hope, most) of its membership.

[b]EHF reporting on 2009-10 Champions League Format and Seeding:[/b] In general, I would assess that the EHF does the best job amongst the official handball sites, in their efforts to self report. But while they might be the best, they all too often fall short of the mark, especially when it comes to their frequent omission of relevant facts. Case in point has been the controversies swirling around which clubs were being given direct tickets to the Main Round and which clubs were placed in qualification or wild card tournaments in next year’s Champions League. Leon Ademar won Spain’s National Cup tournament and felt they should have got direct placement into the main round ahead of Valladolid. Instead they will host a tough wild card tournament with Germany’s Lemgo a real threat to win. Additionally, Sweden was able to lobby successfully for a direct ticket to the Main Round at the expense of one of the other nations playing in the qualification groups. And underlying all of this is a debate throughout Europe as to whether the Champions League should be a league for the Champions or a league for Europe’s best teams. In other words, how is it decided that 4th place teams from German and Spain are more important than 1st place teams from other countries. Not surprisingly, there’s no mention of these controversies, just simple announcement as to the seeding for the draw.

To their credit the EHF has reported on negative issues like the spate of referee controversies pretty well for the most part with periodic announcement as to the status of their investigations. Sure it would be nice to get more detail, but at least they are providing an official position.

[b]Canada: [/b]While the EHF has been posting official positions on some negative issues, I’m a little disappointed that Canada never posted anything regarding their non-participation at the ongoing Women’s PATHF Championships. When asked, Canadian Federation Ward Hrabi, was very forthcoming with the circumstances surrounding this decision. But the issue here, is that I first had to notice they weren’t playing and then find the time to ask the questions and write the story. I do my best to keep up with what’s going on, but inevitably worthy stories fall through the cracks. Undoubtedly, many Canadians probably already knew what had happened, but for those that don’t a simple announcement was probably warranted.

[b]The Solution: [/b]Official sites should follow these 3 guidelines when deciding what to report and how to report it:
1) Don’t report on controversial subjects not directly related to your organization
2) When something controversial happens directly related to your organization, however, don’t ignore it. Provide an official explanation on your webpage
3) And finally, when reporting the controversial topic don’t omit obvious aspects of the controversy

USA Team Handball has established a Competition Committee to develop a comprehensive plan for next year’s club competition. The committee, which is composed of a diverse group of club members and national federation staff has been given instructions to “examine formats for regular season competition, regional seasons and tournaments, and post-season championships in youth, open, elite and collegiate divisions.”

This is a very much welcomed move to me and others who have voiced concerns that the new Federation has not involved its dues paying membership sufficiently in areas that directly impact them. Importantly, it also appears the Federation is empowering the committee by giving them basic overall objectives and then sufficient leeway to come up with a comprehensive plan on their own. Rest assured it will not be a simple task. The U.S. is a vast country with handball developed unevenly throughout it. A one size fits all format won’t work and inevitably a number of compromises will be required.

Finally, I think its fairly safe to say that almost anyone involved in USA Team Handball has at least one member of that committee that they are comfortable with enough to discuss key competition issues that will affect their club. If you have suggestions on what should be done, it behooves you to contact those individuals now and in the upcoming months…. Instead of later, after the fact.

USATH Website Article: http://usateamhandball.org/news/article/13662
Earlier Commentary: USA National Championships (Format Problems and Solutions): https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.745

Of course, everyone’s probably been hearing about Twitter with news accounts of how it has been used by the protesters during the current unrest in Iran. I’ve been somewhat ambivalent about Twitter and what to do with my account. Heck, the only reason I had signed up in the first place was to get USA Team Handball’s feed. I enjoyed getting Handball scores from the National Championships on my cell phone, but other tweets are simply redundant to information you can get at the website. With that concept in mind, I didn’t think it was too necessary for me to both tweet and write at the Team Handball News website.

Yesterday, however, I felt that a timely message was warranted to Handball devotees. As I had my morning breakfast and checked out the latest Handball news, I saw a posting on the Handball123 forum concerning a live web stream for the Slovakia – Hungary qualifier for Euro 2010. As one of the only matches remaining with any real meaning I looked at my watch and clicked on the link and lo and behold, there was the match on my laptop live from Hlohovec, Slovakia. As I watched, I got to thinking, “Would I like to get a tweet on my cell phone with this news and a link?” And hence I sent my first tweet yesterday:

[i]Live webstreamed Euro 2010 Qualifier: Hungary at Slovakia. Slovakia needs win to Qualify 1600 CET http://www.stv.sk/live/?3[/i]

Alas, Hungary pounded Slovakia 30-19 to secure the last spot for Austria next January. Still, it was kind of neat to watch the match live from my kitchen table.

So, if you want to join the Twitter universe and get tweets like this feel free to join up and follow me on Twitter. http://twitter.com/TeamHandball And, if you don’t– Well, I won’t be offended.

The EHF Champions League has decided to dramatically alter its format next season by replacing home and away aggregate matches for the semifinals/final with a final four tournament. So which format it better? I’ll go over the pros and cons and try to answer that question. And just because I’m an American, I’ll propose another and better alternative.

[b]The Formats[/b]

[u]Home and Away Aggregate (H and A): [/u]This traditional format has the two teams playing two matches, one on each club’s home floor. The matches are typically a week apart and the winner advances based on the aggregate score for the two matches.

[u]Final Four (FF):[/u] Borrowed from the massively successful American NCAA tournament http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_four and later adopted by the basketball Euroleague this format is a simple knock out tournament played over one weekend at a neutral site. The semifinals will be played on Saturday with the winners squaring off in the finals on Sunday.

[u]Best of Seven playoff (B of 7):[/u] Over a span of two weeks two clubs play matches every 2 or 3 days until one team wins 4 matches. Teams alternate hosting matches with either a 2-2-1-1-1 or 2-3-2 split. This is, of course, my American alternative and the format that the NBA, NHL and MLB have used for years. I also realize that there are a whole host of reasons why this format can’t be implemented for the European Champions League. More to say on that later, but keep in mind this is a theoretical piece.

[b]Pros and Cons[/b]

1) Which of these formats is best for the local home town fans?

For this question I think it’s a pretty good assumption that this question boils down to which format is going to give me more games to see at my local arena?
[u]H and A:[/u] Local fans would get to see either 1 game (semifinalists) or 2 games (finalists) in their local arena.
[u]FF:[/u] Unless they happen to live near the host city they’re going to have to travel to the final four. And for some fans this will be too expensive. For other fans, they might not be able to get a ticket with a good seat.
[u]B of 7:[/u] Local fans would get to see at least 2 games and possibly 4 (semifinalists) in their local arena. Finalists would get at least 4 games and possibly 8 games.
[u]Assessment: [/u] Using the strictly numbers theory, B of 7 is clearly the best format followed by H and A. For local fans an FF is a disaster.

2) Which of these formats is best for the fans watching on TV?

For the hard core fan, this question again boils down to simply determining which format provides more matches. For those fans it’s a no brainer to want to see the top 4 teams playing each other as many times as possible. For less casual fans the answer to this question is a little more nuanced as the concept of seeing too much of a good thing may start to apply.
[u]H and A:[/u] Using this format for both the semifinals and finals would result in a total of 6 matches for the TV viewer. This traditional format will serve up compelling handball, but in my opinion is hampered somewhat by the 1 week layoff between each match.
[u]FF:[/u] As this is a knockout tournament it will simply involve 3 total matches for the TV viewer. Each of these 3 matches will be must see for hard core and casual fans. The only shame is that it will be all over so quickly.
[u]B of 7:[/u] If the semifinals and finals were to use this format there would be 3 best of 7 series for a minimum of 12 to a maximum of 21 games for the TV viewer. This format is a feast for hard core fans, but is it too much of a good thing for the casual fan? To answer this I will draw upon my own personal experience in following the NBA for 30+ years. In my younger years I was clearly a hard core fan who watched virtually every playoff game from beginning to end. As I’ve become a fan of other sports and family commitments have eaten away at my personal leisure time I’ve become much more casual in my NBA devotion. The NBA now uses the best of 7 format for all 16 teams that make the playoffs and there’s absolutely no way that anyone can watch so many matches. In the early rounds, I will definitely pick and choose what games I watch and even then I find myself fast forwarding to the 4th quarter fairly often. But as the teams are eliminated my interest picks up and I watch more and more. This year, the semifinals (Lakers-Nuggets and Magic-Cavaliers) were genuinely compelling. And the sequence of the matches with the two series playing on alternate nights for 12 straight nights creates a rhythm that is pretty hard to beat for the TV viewer. There’s certainly, no need to wait very long to see how a team will respond to a tough loss.
[u]Assessment:[/u] As is probably fairly obvious by my lengthy diatribe on the merits of watch a B of 7 on TV, I think it’s the best format for fans watching on TV. For hardcore fans there should be no debate whatsoever. And while there may be an overload concern for less casual fans, I think they would still be engaged with the B of 7 format for the last four teams. If it was done also for the round of 16 and quarterfinals, though, a strong case could be made that too many fans would lose interest.

3) Which of these formats is best for fans with the time and funds to travel to matches?

[u]Assessment: [/u] This category is a no-brainer victory for the FF format as it is the only format which will allow a fan willing to travel to make trip plans months in advance. This includes fans of the clubs involved, as well as, a handball fan who doesn’t even care if his club is in the tournament. In fact, if done right, the final four could become a destination event for a certain coterie of fans who simply make plans to attend it every year. I for one, could envision planning a trip to Europe to coincide with the final four, especially if it’s in a destination city. London’s O2 arena perhaps?

4) Which of these formats would provide the best arena atmosphere?

The FF format is again the clear winner here. It’s really hard to beat the party atmosphere that is created when 4 clubs and their followers descend on one venue for the semifinals.

5) How fair are these formats to the teams?

But who cares about the fans. Which format is the fairest in terms of not giving one side a clear advantage over the other.
[u]H and A:[/u] Perfectly symmetrical; this is the ultimate in fairness
[u]FF: [/u]At a final four, fairness will clearly depend on the teams and location. Clearly.
[u]B of 7:[/u] The club with home court advantage has the advantage, but over 7 games this advantage can be overcome by the better team.
[u]Assessment:[/u] This category clearly favors the H and A, with the only marginal advantage given to either side being the opportunity to host the 2nd game. B of 7 is also a pretty fair format with the most significant advantage being the opportunity to host a 7th and deciding game. A huge advantage, but one that is mitigated by playing 7 games. In a two game series one bad game can spell doom for a team, but over 7 games the better team more often than not is going to come out on top. A FF is only fair if the court is truly neutral. Unfortunately, this is often not the case and the German sides will have a clear advantage next year in Cologne. Additionally, it’s tough to bounce back from a bad game in a two game series, but in a knock out tournament it’s impossible to.

6) Which of these formats is the most profitable?

Well, the answer to this question depends somewhat on who’s asking the question and how the money is split up. Clearly individual clubs stand to make money by hosting matches at their arenas. The EHF also gets a slice of that money as well as TV rights fees. How all that money is split is not clear, but I will speculate on how they compare financially.
[u]H and A: [/u] This format would feature 6 games at to be determined arenas, some of which might be of modest size. I’m guessing that the host clubs keep the attendance receipts mostly for themselves as well.
[u]FF:[/u] While only 3 games will be played these matches can be staged at a large arena and probably for significantly inflated ticket prices. I’m also guessing the EHF folks ran the numbers and determined that more money could be made for the EHF otherwise they wouldn’t be doing it. I would guess that TV revenue will also increase for these must see games. It’s less clear, however, how profitable this format will be for the individual teams. Surely, they will get their slice, but I expect they will make less money overall.
[u]B of 7:[/u] If fully implemented this format would also be a cash cow for European Handball. Profits, of course, would depend on the arenas, but a major TV contract for these playoffs would likely eclipse the other two formats.
[u]Assessment: [/u]There are a lot of variables that factor into this answer. Those variables include arena size, ability to fill that arena and TV contracts

7) Which of these formats would provide the most drama?

This is a tough one to answer because I’ve seen pretty high drama with all 3 formats. Here’s the pros and cons:
[u]H and A:[/u] On the plus side the aggregate factor eliminates the possibility of a boring match in the first leg as both teams will play to the end with the knowledge that every goal counts. On the negative side, the 2nd match could be essentially over midway through the first half if one side has a big aggregate lead. Still it’s hard to beat the drama of a match going down to the wire in this format.
[u]FF:[/u] Win or go home always has the potential for drama. Additionally, the knockout format makes it more feasible for a weaker side to rise up get that 1 upset victory.
[u]B of 7:[/u] With a B of 7 format the drama question often depends on the matchup. If one team is overwhelmingly better few will sit through 4 blowout matches. But, if the teams are competitive than it’s pretty tough to beat the drama that can ensue. Each game builds upon the next. If one team is blown out or suffers an overtime loss everyone wants to see how they will respond the next game. Add a scuffle or two or some incendiary post game commentary by one of the coaches or players and the drama builds even more. Ciudad Real – Kiel played two great matches; instead of being tied 1-1 and moving on to game 3 it’s over just as it should be getting started.

[b]Overall[/b]
As a hard core fan, I’m going to vote in order of which format gives me the most games, so B of 7 is my clear winner, followed by H and A and FF. From a current marketing standpoint, though, I’m going to give the edge to the new Final Four format. It’s probably the right move at the right time for the EHF and it will undoubtedly give the sport a grand weekend and great exposure.

[b]A final conceptual argument: Could a B of 7 be done for Handball?[/b]

To start off let’s reverse this theoretically exercise (i.e., Ask the question for the NBA: Which format is best?) I think it would be virtually impossible to find anyone who would recommend an NBA Final Four or Home and Away aggregate. The concept of the NBA changing to either format is laughable. So if this format works for this very successful basketball league, can it work for European Handball?

The answer is no, but it has nothing to do with the sport Handball, itself. Handball is more physically demanding than basketball, but two top professional Handball clubs could play a B of 7 over 2.5 weeks. If it can be done for a contact sport like Ice Hockey, it can be done for Handball. Enough said on this topic.

The reason it can’t be done is simply that the current league structures/schedule in multiple countries won’t support the time required it would take to implement a playoff system. Or to put it more sarcastically, meaningless and all too often lop-sided regular season matches are preferred to compelling matches pitting the very best against each other. The only way such a playoff system could be implemented would be to ditch the national leagues in favor of a true European Super League. And with national interests involved it will be tough to change the current landscape any time soon. Although, I think I could make a strong case for it, I’ll save that for another commentary.

Well, the IHF election results are in and the IHF delegates have spoken with a resounding 115 – 25 vote in favor of keeping Dr. Moustafa around for another 4 years. It’s bewildering to me personally that such a mandate has been awarded to an individual with such a suspect record, but I can’t argue with the results. As Jim Rome says, “Scoreboard” [Definition: (interjection) ‘The final score negates your argument’ [used as a rebuttal to postgame complaints of bad luck, poor officiating, etc.]

I certainly have been asking myself, though, just who are these voters, anyway? Every delegate is surely unique, but I would assess that they can be grouped into 5 general categories:

• Group 1: Very uniformed as to what has taken place in the past 8 years and very amenable to direction from their continental peers who have provided their nation with assistance. (I would assess this group as fairly large and perhaps the largest bloc of nations. Seriously, does anyone think that the delegate from St Kitts and Nevis and other assorted small nations is well versed in handball affairs. It’s possible, but unlikely.)
• Group 2: Aware of Dr Moustafa’s corruption, but think that it’s minor and is outweighed by his good works (I would assess this group as fairly small because it’s a pretty big stretch for a sports federation president to actually rationale match fixing of an Olympic qualification as not a big deal. Most are also probably smart enough to realize that the heralded development of the sport is less than it should be and could have been accomplished by practically anyone.)
• Group 3: Aware of Dr Moustafa’s corruption, but willing to look the other way for personal, national and continental considerations (Perhaps the 2nd largest group in attendance. Around 40 delegates)
• Group 4: Aware of Dr Moustafa’s corruption because they are also corrupt and therefore totally on board (Hopefully, a very small grouping, but disturbingly probably larger than we would care for)
• Group 5: Aware of Dr Moustafa’s corruption and voted for change (Well, this total is pretty simple: It’s the 25 who voted for Kaiser)

So, if the election were to have been different, the votes could only have come from Group 1 or Group 3. For group 1 it’s the not so simple matter of changing the uniformed to the informed. Websites like Team Handball News can play a role in the education process and our website certainly has been getting a lot of visitors from all over the world lately. But while the USA was ready for a net roots revolution in 2008 for Barack Obama, the far flung handball outposts of the world were not ready in 2009. Additionally, one can not underestimate the impact of face to face contact in influencing voters. Such a campaign, however, takes money and incumbency, particularly with a subsidized travel budget, is tough to overcome.

Group 3 is a little more troubling. Ignorance is one thing, but knowing that something is wrong, and still choosing to do nothing about it? Let’s just say that history is full of examples of where that policy has ended up causing a lot more harm than good. Still this group is ripe for changing their minds four years from now if the right candidate steps forward. This year’s election results for the Chairmanship of the Playing Rules and Referees Commision (PRC) provides a clue as to how many voters were in this swing group. German Manfred Prause narrowly defeated Iranian Dawud Tawakoli. I’ve seen conflicting vote totals, but it was close, something like 70-65. It’s a pretty safe bet that Prause got every single one of the 25 Kaiser votes and then took swing votes from Group 3 to get a majority. Apparently Tawakoli’s involvement with the Asian Olympic Qualification controversy was clearly just a little too much for some voters to stomach as the new man responsible for referee assignments. This fact combined with Prause’s reputation resulted in a swing of about 40 votes when compared to the Presidential election.

So arguably a candidate with a strong reputation and one that is not seen as a total outsider could muster the “look the other way” crowd to his side next time around. But a lot of things could happen in four years and while Dr Moustafa might be emboldened by his election mandate he is also probably aware that he is also under more scrutiny. Certainly, it’s hard to imagine a move as shockingly corrupt as match fixing will ever be attempted again. And hey, I’m a reasonable guy, maybe I’ll be so impressed with new innovative world-wide development efforts and unprecedented openness and transparency that I’ll lead the cry for “four more years.”

Finally, in light of these results, do I still believe in the “Yes, we can” mantra? Well, keep in mind I never said that we could win the election, only that we could influence. I’d like to think that some portion of the 25 Kaiser voters were at least influenced by this site and/or some of the readers of this site who decided to take action on a national level. I’m also guessing that some portion of the 115 feel a little bit dirty and are annoyed that they could not make a compromised choice without criticism. But, I’ll have to acknowledge that this may just be wishful thinking on my part.

Anyway, I’ll be glad to moving on to other topics for a change. Coming up will be a commentary on the new final four Champions League format and a new national team strategy for the U.S. As always, stay tuned.

• Yes We Can!; Oui, Nous Pouvons!; Si, Se Puede! (Influence the outcome of the IHF Election) (Part 1): Link
• Yes We Can: Part 2: Link

As Jean Kaiser points out in his recent memo, the Handball disparity between Europe and the rest of the world is striking. Outside of the Korean women’s team and occasional flashes from the Korean, Tunisian and Egyptian men, this sport is undeniably European. Kaiser is certainly correct in his assessment that whatever is being done now in terms of development outside of Europe it’s clearly not working as well as it should.

But there’s not much that the rest of the world can do about it, Right? Well there actually is because once every four years the Handball minnows of the world, become regular size fish as the IHF Congress as each country gets one vote in the IHF election. It’s the one time in the Handball world that Ghana, El Salvador, and the Cook Islands stand on equal footing with Germany, France and Spain. The question of the day is whether these nations will seize that opportunity in Cairo, before they revert back to their minnow status after the vote.

Press accounts seem to indicate that these nations are oblivious to this opportunity and have assessed that Dr Moustafa has the three A’s (Asia, Africa, the America’s) solidly on his side. If this is indeed a solid block of nations then he will win the election. But perhaps there are cracks in this alliance?

The Asian Olympic Qualification scandal clearly exposed the split between Eastern and Western Asia and notably Bahrain even voiced displeasure with their Kuwaiti neighbors https://teamhandballnews.com/comment-n448.html which are closely aligned with Moustafa. In Africa, rifts between Arab and sub-Saharan nations have always been below the surface as Arab nations have dominated the Men’s competitions. In the America’s, the northern nations, USA, Canada and Greenland have frequently been slighted by the Latin south and those nation’s voters have plenty of reasons to cast their vote for a new administration. Less clear is what the nations in Central America and the Caribbean will decide as their programs are sometimes caught in the middle between North and South.

Another bloc of nations to consider is the Commonwealth Handball Association (CHA). This group of former UK colonies has been underserved for many years by the IHF and if the English speaking nations ever decided to vote as a bloc they could probably sway the election in either direction. http://teamhandball.blogspot.com/2005/07/time-for-anglophone-alliance.html

Finally, the dynamics of an election with only 159 total votes means that it only takes a relatively small number of voters switching sides to change the outcome. As an example, a current Moustafa lead of 90 to 69 would only require 11 voters jumping ship to give Kaiser an 80-79 victory. As hard as it may seem to believe in this wired age of the 21st century, a good portion of the voters in Cairo are likely oblivious to many of the current administration’s transgressions. And what they may have heard could be one sided and not tell the full story. Jean Kaiser will be on the ground and campaigning for votes. If he has an opportunity to speak with delegates prior to the election he has a chance to swing votes or at the very least get some delegates asking questions. And perhaps other like minded delegates will join in the campaigning as well especially when a colleague asks, “What exactly happened with Asian Olympic Qualification?” Rest assured the more debate and discussion that takes place in the margins of the hotel in Cairo before the vote, the more likely it is that votes will be swayed. Will it be enough? Stay tuned.

Well, I ran a contest https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.754 in hopes of getting someone (anyone) to speak out for Dr Moustafa. As you might expect there were no takers. I’m guessing that $20 was not enough enticement for anyone to step forward for Dr Moustafa, either out of conviction or for the quick $20. Well, if I can’t get somebody to concoct some reasons I guess I’ll have to do it myself. Of course, I’ll need to point – counterpoint this debate appropriately.

[b]POINT: Dr Moustafa should be re-elected as IHF President[/b]

First off, a non-European is clearly needed to counterbalance the strong European influence handball has in International circles. Putting a European in charge of the IHF could lead to an EHF/IHF alliance that overly promotes European interests. It’s no secret that a majority of the top handball nations in the world are European and that the EHF and IHF have been frequently at odds due to competing interests. This could abruptly change very quickly with a European in charge of the IHF now doing the bidding of the Europeans. Here’s a few things that could very well happen.

The World Championships could change from a once every two year event to a once every four year event. The EHF has indeed proposed this under the guise that there are too many games being played by the top athletes each season, especially in Olympic years. Of course, at the same time the EHF has no plans to cut the European Championship to a once every four year event and on top of that they’ve added a lengthy European Championship Qualification schedule. Less frequent World Championships would not be a blow for the Europeans, but it would be a major blow for nations outside of Europe as the World Championships and the Olympics are their only significant Handball events. A European IHF President might very well strike a deal for his European colleagues.

The President’s Cup could be discontinued from WC events. This consolation tournament for nations that do not advance to the main round at World Championship events has given the non-European teams a chance to play additional games against like competition. This event, however, loses money and does not attract crowds. A European IHF President might decide to cut this event as a way to save money.

In general, just about every decision could be made with European interests at stake. It’s hard to assess everywhere this will have an impact, but rest assured the rest of the world will get the short end of the stick.

Perhaps even more import to consider, though is the unprecedented growth of Handball under Dr Moustafa’s leadership. Handball was the most watched team sport at the Beijing Olympics. The Men’s World Championships in Croatia and Germany had sold out crowds and brought in significant income for the IHF. Visits to the IHF website are increasing by leaps and bounds. This strong momentum must be continued.

[b]COUNTER POINT[/b]

Well, let’s address the European issue first. There’s some legitimacy to the basic premise: namely, that an IHF President is going to have a tendency to favor their continent and their country. This is a probably true no matter where the President comes from. It certainly would be hard not to argue that Dr Moustafa has had a tendency to favor African and Arab countries during his administration. With a European President, however, this home continent concern is also exacerbated by the dominance of Europe in all things Handball. An IHF President in total lockstep with the EHF would undoubtedly have negative repercussions for the rest of the world.

There are a couple of arguments, however, that should mitigate those concerns.

1) Jean Kaiser is from Luxembourg. A little geography lesson may be in order. Luxembourg is a small country with a bit of an independent streak. Because of its small size they are not a Handball power and it’s unlikely that they will ever be one. Handball is popular there, but the concern one might have with a German or Spanish President doesn’t apply. In fact, a Luxembourg Handballer might be more likely to empathize with other small Handball nations in other parts of the world. As far as the independent streak goes, Luxembourg may be a small country, but they don’t like to be pushed around. In the past, their larger neighbors have from time to time tried to push them around, but generally they’ve been unsuccessful.

2) In my opinion, Europeans for many years have been way too short-sighted in understanding the need to develop the sport of Handball world-wide. Recent efforts by the EHF, German Bundesliga and French LNH, however, are proof that they’ve recognized the need to further market their sport beyond Europe. Of course, this isn’t being done for altruistic purposes, but instead for financial gain. Regardless of why it’s being done, though, non-Europeans don’t have to worry about a European trying to keep their European hegemony intact. In fact, the Europeans with financial interests won’t stand for it!

3) Perhaps most surprisingly, some European nations even want to keep Dr Moustafa around as they think they can cut deals with him in order to serve their best interests. Yes, some of the European nations actually fear a truly independent IHF president.

The second argument which touts Handball’s growth under Dr Moustafa’s leadership is farcical. In one sense, it’s like taking credit for the sun coming up every day in the East. Handball is a great sport with tremendous growth potential. It’s going to increase in popularity regardless of whose President. It also doesn’t take a financial genius to figure out that putting the Men’s World Championships in Germany and to a lesser extent, Croatia is going to result in a huge dividend. What’s troubling, though, is the question as to whether those dividends are now being used to develop the sport or to buy support for an IHF election. Furthermore, I would argue that with better leadership and vision the sports growth would have been much greater. And we should keep in mind that other sports, in particular basketball, have experienced far greater growth in recent years. My goodness, more people now play basketball than handball in Iceland of all places. https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.499 If that shouldn’t worry people about where the sport is headed I don’t know what will. And don’t even get me started about the IHF’s pathetic website. You’ve got the number one world-wide address for the sport and this is all the IHF can muster?

Finally, though, I would like to finish with some sincere words on one accomplishment directly attributable to Dr Moustafa. The President’s Cup tournament at the World Championship is a great event for the non-European nations and my understanding is that Dr Moustafa deserves the bulk of the credit for its creation and has had to fight off European interests that think it is a waste of resources that should be discontinued. So credit, where credit is due: Job well done on establishing this tournament. Of course, this one good initiative can’t make up for everything else, but at least it can now be said that even I can find something positive to say about the current President.

A while back I wrote a commentary that cited Barack Obama’s campaign theme, “Yes we can”, as a counter-point for those that think the upcoming IHF election is a foregone conclusion. In what can only be described as poetic serendipity, President Barack Obama has announced that he will be traveling to Cairo to give a speech to the Arab world on June 4. Coincidentally, this is the same city and the same day that the IHF Congress is scheduled to start. OK, what are the chances of that happening?

June 4 is scheduled as a “social day” for the delegates. Following a trip to the pyramids they currently have the option of either a trip to a museum or a spa treatment. Might I suggest adding a third option to go see President Obama make a historic speech. Maybe that will inspire some to rethink their vote?

I’ll also have to hand it to the current IHF administration. They certainly are not afraid to trumpet the amenities of the upcoming Congress on the website, proudly noting the 5-star hotel and spa treatment that will be available. One would think in light of the current economic crisis and the minimal budgets that many national federations have even in good times, that they would have quietly sent this information via email where it’s less likely to face scrutiny. I’d like to think that money for spa treatments and hotel rooms (for some federations) could be better spent on handball equipment or marketing of TV broadcasts. But, maybe this is standard operating procedures for the current IHF administration. And maybe it’s high time to change administrations.

Have you contacted your National Federation President yet? There’s still time to do so.

London Times: Barack Obama aims high on first visit to the Arab world: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6261843.ece
IHF Congress Website: Social Day: http://www.ihfcongress2009.org/congress2009/touristic.htm
IHF Congress Website: Hotel accommodations: http://www.ihfcongress2009.org/congress2009/abouthtoel.htm
Yes We Can (Influence the Outcome of the IHF Presidential Election: https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.743

Stefan Fatsis, once again is doing his best to promote Team Handball in the U.S. This time with a cheering section report in one of the most widely circulated papers in America, the New York Times. The story doesn’t have much in it that will be new to Handball fans, but it is great for the sport to get that kind of exposure.

One tidbit that was news to me was the $1,500/game cost that ESPN charged for the satellite uplinks during the World Championships. Yes, we’ve got to pay to get the sport on TV in the U.S. (even web TV!) But, it’s money well spent as that is the fastest way this sport is ever going to grow in this country.

New York Times: Team Handball Has It All, Except an American Interest: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/10/sports/othersports/10cheer.html

Earlier commentary by Stefan Fatsis
Wall Street Journal (Aug 2004): http://www.stefanfatsis.com/writing/weoughttoplay/
NPR Interviews: https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.685

Can you teach an old dog a new trick? https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?extend.372 (or why I think TV is so important to grow the sport in the U.S.)

I won’t be attending the USA National Championships this coming weekend, so regrettably I will be missing out on and opportunity to catch up with old friends and talk about Handball issues with the Federation leadership. But, if I was attending Nationals, I certainly would have a few burning questions. A town hall meeting is scheduled for Saturday at 1:00 PM. Here are some suggested topics and questions for those who will be there:

1) Board of Director (Election/Selection): The Federation By-Laws that were approved at the first Board Meeting are not exactly clear as to the procedures for Electing/Selecting Board Members. Namely, the by-laws includes language (Section 5.2) concerning member rights to vote in elections, but the language (Section 7.6) for choosing Board Members only describes a selection process. As I read it, the Nomination and Governance Committee will be the sole decider as to who the new Board Members are. And the Board of Directors gets to decide who gets placed on the Nomination and Governance Committee. Thus creating a potential never-ending do-loop where only like-minded individuals can possibly get a seat at the table. With the exception, of course, of the two athlete representatives who must be elected.

Going back to the original applications submitted to the USOC, I noted that the lack of an election process was pretty undemocratic, but perhaps that was designed intentionally to save USA Handball from itself. The conflict in the by-laws suggests, however, that there might be some reconsideration of this. So, the simple question to ask is “Will the Federation membership ever get to vote on candidates for the Board of Directors?” and, “If no, Why not?”

2) Competition Committee: See my last post on this topic for more detail. The basic question to be asked is how will Nationals be set up next year?

3) Little has been said or written as to how the USA plans to field competitive National teams. Here’s some relevant questions:
– There were talent identification camps this year, but now there’s already talk of requiring the Men’s team to self fund their attendance at the PATHF Div 1 championship later this year. It looks like the USA is already resigned to not qualifying for the 2011 Men’s WC. Is the USA also throwing in the towel in regards to London 2012? When will the USA first attempt to seriously qualify for major competition?
– Is the USA considering establishing a resident National Team program? If so, when and where?
– Are their plans to more aggressively place USA players with foreign clubs?
– Is there a master plan that lays out what the goals are near term, mid term, long term? Can we see it?

4) German Bundesliga: I’ll say again that this partnership deal could be a major breakthrough for USA Team Handball. The key words are “could be.” The questions are, what are the concrete benefits of this partnership and when will start to see them?

Side note: The IHF President is attending the USA National Championships. It’s no secret that I’m not a big fan and you can guess how I feel about the implied endorsement USA Team Handball has given, by welcoming him less than a month prior to the upcoming election vote in Cairo. The President, however, is the representative of the IHF and should be treated with respect. That being said, the National Championship is an excellent opportunity for you to make it clear to the Board of Directors how you feel about the upcoming election. Some of the Board of Directors are total newcomers to the sport and most likely would be interested in getting feedback from the rank and file on a number of issues. USA Team Handball Board Members names and photos are here: http://www.usateamhandball.org/about/board/ If you spot them, go ahead and chat them up for a few minutes. I'm sure they will appreciate it.

There was a lot of hot air expended in the forum section of our website in regards to the format for this year’s National Championship. Aside from the hot air, though, most of the complaints we’re pretty legitimate. This commentary will look at the basic problems with the format, the process that was used and provide a proposed solution

[b]National Championship (Format)[/b]

Rather than traditional pool play, the Federation first informed clubs that this year’s tournament would use a simple knock out format. It didn’t take too long for clubs started to complain. The problems identified included the following:

1) The seeding of the 20 teams was highly suspect. Notably, the Condors with national team player, Gary Hines, were seeded very low.
2) The single elimination tourney format combined with the poor seeding, undoubtedly would have resulted in some quality teams playing for either 17th, 9th or 5th place.
3) Eight teams were subjected to play-in games that not only placed the losers into finishing no better than 17th place, it required them to play an extra game prior to playing a 100% fresh team in the round of 16.
4) Not securing a facility for Sunday morning games, thus not providing enough time to easily adapt the format.

To the Federation’s credit, they listened to the uproar that ensued, recognized the inherent problems with the original format and replaced it with a new format. Instead of 8 teams being immediately subjected to elimination games, each team losing in the first round will now be given a 2nd chance to play their way back into the round of 16. After the round of 16 the knockout format then gives way to pool play. While better, the new format is still not without flaws. Namely the seeding is still highly suspect and the round of 16 games are still paramount. Two strong teams could still meet in that early round and one of them will be sent down.

[b]National Championships (The process for developing the format)[/b]

But, while there were problems with the format, what I find even more troubling is how the Federation came up the format. First off, last Fall the Federation quickly put together a competition rulebook that laid out in detail a semi complicated scheme for qualification to the National Championships. This competition rulebook was rushed and inherently failed to recognize that the club structure needed to pull it off simply didn’t exist yet. It took awhile to recognize this, but eventually most aspects of the rulebook were thrown out for the 2008-2009 season. The 2009 championships became an open tournament and requirements for U.S. Residency and Citizenship were thrown out when challenged.

And when it came time to lay out the format and seeding for the tournament, the Federation did so in a manner so non transparent it makes the IHF look good. I had thought that it was simply done in-house by the staff, but according to some email traffic I’ve seen it appears that a select group was quietly chosen to participate in the development of the format and the seeding of the teams. Hey, I exchange email with the West Point coach from time to time and the Carolina guys seem OK, but surprise, surprise, I noticed that those clubs and Chicago (the Tech Director’s club) fared pretty well in the original seeding matchups. Hypothetical here, but if they had been matched up in the first round vs. the Condors, I’m thinking the first format probably would not have survived its in-house sanity check. Keep in mind that I’m not alleging intentional foul play. I’m just saying you’re less likely to recognize a potential problem effecting some other club. And obviously, no matter how good a job they might have done there is an inherent perception problem in that these folks were never identified. Imagine if word got out that Coach K was secretly sitting in on the selection committee for the NCAA Tournament and Duke got great seeding in Greensborough and UNC was sent out to Boise.

[b]The Solution[/b]

Not much can be done for this year’s tournament beyond the band-aid that’s already been applied. Next year, however, it should be a different story. Here's what should be done:

1) Establish a Competition and Organization Committee: The committee should contain 4-5 respected Federation members from the different regions of the country. The Federation staff can take the lead, but the committee should be an integral part of the planning and decision making process.

2) Take a good hard look at the competition rulebook. There needs to be a balance between what we would like to have in terms of national and regional competition with what’s realistic considering the current state of our club programs. A meaningful and fair qualification format for Nationals is feasible, it just needs some thought. The rulebook should be adjusted accordingly and then a formal review should be conducted. Keep in mind that it also can’t be foisted upon the clubs and be successful. The clubs are going to have buy in to it and this is where those 4-5 respected Federation members can go a long way towards making that happen

3) Stick with the rules outlined in the revised rulebook. As long as you do a good job of developing a realistic qualification system this shouldn’t be a problem. Yes, there should still be some flexibility, for unseen circumstances, but in general, clubs will prefer a clearly defined set of rules that they need to follow.

From a big picture standpoint, it’s starting to get a little old to keep saying, “let’s get it right next year”. Depending on when you want to start counting the new Federation is either a year old or approaching it. Some good things are happening. It looks like some high quality officiating will be at the tournament and the long term impact of the Bundesliga deal could be huge. The Federation needs to recognize, however, that the “we’re the new guys” excuse is no longer valid anymore.