The Swedish Womens Ice Hockey team’s 3-2 penalt shoot-out victory over the United States is surely one of the biggest upsets in Olympic history. Team USA had never lost a match to another country besides Canada in over 70 matches. Could Team Handball see the reverse happen? A bunch of teary eyed Europeans with perplexed looks of disbelief as an American, Canadian, Australian, or British team shakes up the current status quo?

Of course it “could” happen. Anything is possible. That’s why they play the game on the court instead of on paper based on each team’s reputation. However, the likelihood of any of the aforementioned teams (men’s or women’s) actually accomplishing a victory over a European team in a major international tournament is extremely unlikely, at least in the near future.

First, the sport of Team Handball, is simply not conducive to the great upset. It can happen, but the nature of the game makes it less likely. With a low scoring game like hockey, a small number of mistakes can have a disproportionate effect on the outcome of the game. One bad pass can lead to a lucky break away. An inspired defensive performance can then allow an outgunned team to secure a major upset. This formula has been used even more often in my favorite sport soccer. National cups are rife with stories of small amateur club teams putting together a string of victories against professional club teams. The same can not, however, be said with Team Handball. A few mistakes will lead to a few scores by a totally outclassed team, but they won’t add up enough for a victory. In order for the upset to be feasible the talent gap between the two teams can only be so great.

And right now, the talent gap between the have’s and the have not’s in Team Handball is simply too great. USA Hockey Coach, Herb Brooks, the architect of the original miracle on ice in 1980 has been quoted as saying that the Soviets would have beaten the USA 9 times out of 10, and that it was his job to make sure that his team was ready to win that 1 out of 10 opportunity. In all honesty, I think that it would be really reaching to think that the US or one of the other minor teams are in the 1 in 10, or for that matter the 1 in 1000 ballpark. I think for instance, right now, for the US Men’s team to beat France it would take a bizarre combination of injuries and red cards resulting in one of the French court players having to play goalie. And even then the US would have to play the game of their lives.

But if the minor teams can close the talent gap, the great upset could happen and the formula for victory is familiar. Sloppy play and poor shooting by the favorite resulting in several fast break opportunities combined with inspired play on defense and a game of their life performance by the goalie. We can dream, can’t we?

The Hearing Panel Report simply states the obvious and should have explored potential remediation

The Hearing Panel focused narrowly on whether USA Team Handball was meeting the requirements for membership in the USOC and recognition as an NGB. It cited 5 areas where USA Team Handball was failing. Those 5 areas are:

1) Lack of financial resources
2) Lack of managerial capability
3) Inability to resolve member grievances
4) Lack of organizational competence
5) Incapability to promote and develop the sport

Areas 1 and 2 are, of course, are a direct result of the USOC suspending all funding to USATH. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that a bankrupt organization can not meet its financial responsibilities nor pay staff to manage itself. Areas 3 and 4 both relate to the Constitution bylaw controversy which were unfortunately not resolved by the competing factions. Area 5 is also at least partially a money related issue. Funding from the USOC has steadily declined in recent years and not surprisingly performance has also declined. Money would not solve all of USATH’s performance issues, but it’s certainly an important factor.

It shouldn’t be surprising that no one on the USATH Board contested these findings. They are all essentially true. The simple lesson here is that you don’t mess with the USOC, especially if they are your principal source of funding.

What is disappointing with the Hearing Panel’s report is its simple, narrow focus. While the Hearing Panel did not have the authority to fashion a remedial settlement there is nothing that prevented them from highlighting or suggesting potential remediation. Certainly, if you are going to take the time to research and assess what happened, you can also form an opinion on how best to proceed. Simply stating that it's up to the USOC and USATH (an organization that they also declare is incompetent) to consider potential remediation is a disappointing neglect of implied responsibility. Certainly, the Hearing Panel was able to state that they were deeply concerned about the athletes being supported. If they were truly concerned they would have tried to also to identify a potential way ahead that would address the underlying problems affecting the sport. This is not just idle chatter, as one only has to plug in “USOC”, “Taekwondo”, and “Triathlon” into Google to see some of the brinkmanship and remediation that has taken place in the past.

In this case, the USOC has decided on finality and removing USATH. In starting over it appears that Team Handball and the USOC will be heading into uncharted waters. It will be interesting to see what the next steps will be. Some questions for the coming weeks:

1) Will the USOC continue to fund the Women’s National Team Program?
2) Will the USOC provide funding for a Men’s Team be formed to participate in the PAN AM Championships in April?
3) Will the USOC provide funding for the Club National Championships and Collegiate National Championships?
4) What are the future plans for Handball Governance by the USOC?
5) Will organizations like the National Team Handball Association apply for USOC membership and NGB status?

Several news articles discussing the IOC’s recent decision in Turin to not reinstate Baseball and Softball have referenced Team Handball as an example of a sport not nearly as worthy of a spot on the Olympic program.

http://www.enidnews.com/sportslocal/local_story_042004450.html?keyword=topstory

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Columnists/Gross/2006/02/12/1438675.html

While this context is certainly American centric there is also a significant amount of truth to the argument that Team Handball is simply a European sport. On the Women’s side, outside of South Korea, and a little noise recently made by Brazil, the sport has been dominated by European teams. On the Men’s side, outside of a little noise by Egypt and more recently Tunisia, the sport is also dominated by European sides. For more discourse on the sport’s popularity check my earlier blog entry: http://teamhandball.blogspot.com/2005/07/just-how-popular-is-team-handball.html

Team Handball passed an IOC vote last summer, but at some point in the future there will be another vote taken on the sport’s Olympic future. And while the IOC may have disproportionate European membership now, this will probably not always be the case. Hopefully, the IHF is getting this message and we will soon see more aggressive steps to market the sport world-wide.

No, this lawsuit has nothing to do with the USOC (as far as I know). But, if you ever wondered whether it’s a good idea to have insurance in place prior to playing Team Handball this article might answer that question for you.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060106/METRO02/601060348/1003/METRO

I find it amusing that the lawyer is quoted as saying “the Team Handball game is a non-contact sport.”

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 39:22 — 13.5MB)

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

A lot has happened since I last wrote about this topic:

• 28 May 2005 Constitutional Crisis (Part 1): Link
• 19 Jun 2005 Constitutional Crisis (Part 2): Link
• 06 Nov 2005 Constitutional Crisis (Part 3): Link

The new Bylaws (the Constitution) was passed by the membership by a vote of 211-23 and the Board of Directors voted to remove President Hurdle by a vote of 19-5. Of course, the legality of both of these votes have been called into question. What is not uncertain, however, is that the USOC has stopped providing funding to the USATH and has filed a formal Legal Complaint against USATH.

Also, worth reviewing is a USATH report that was done earlier in July that addresses some of the issues in the complaint.

As part of this new handball website, I’ve conducted interviews with Matt Van Houten, the Athlete’s Advisory Council Board Member and Mike Hurdle, the current or former President. These podcasts are available on the website and I encourage those with a stake in the future of USA Team Handball to take the time to listen to both interviews.

• Interview with Mike Hurdle, December 2005: Link (Right click to download)
• Interview with Matt van Houten, December 2005: Link (Right click to download)

After having read the USOC complaint and conducted both interviews, I am personally struck by how what appears to be some small differences of opinion has turned into a grand canyon divide. Maybe, I’m just naïve, but I think this whole crisis could be solved simply by taking the following steps.

• 1) The Board of Directors should acknowledge and accept the result of the 211-23 vote on the By-Laws. This is a very clear signal from the membership that they approve of the new By-Laws and they want the bickering to end. (Yes, there was a misleading note on the website, but everyone also knows (or should know) that we have a small membership base which is well informed by this and other websites.) The new constitution should be put in place. All claims concerning the legality of the vote should simply be dropped.
• 2) The President needs to acknowledge that the 19-5 vote by the Board of Directors to remove him from office also sends a very clear message. The Board of Directors were either duly elected or appointed to their position. One of the key roles that a President has is to work with the Board in the governance of the sport. This Board has clearly stated that they have lost confidence in the President.
• 3) The President also needs to acknowledge the seriousness of the USOC Complaint and the need for USATH to effectively address USOC concerns.
• 4) As the main point of contention is the leadership of USATH in the interim phase until new elections, the simplest solution is to install an interim leadership that is acceptable to the Board of Directors, President and the USOC. Certainly, Dr Leroy Walker, a former USOC President who has already indicated a willingness to fulfill such a role, would be a strong candidate. I’m sure that there are others which could also be acceptable to everyone.
• 5) With alternative interim leadership in place, the President should then resign. Everyone can then thank him for his service to the sport. (either sincerely or with sarcasm)

Now without going into detailed analysis of this proposed resolution it should be evident that it would require some give and take from both sides. After having interviewed both Matt and Mike, though, I have the impression that this or something similar is acceptable to both parties. Perhaps, the Hearing Panel, rather than focusing on decertification, can lead us toward a resolution. Regardless, let’s get our USOC funding back and get the lawyers out of the process.