A low point for USA Soccer: Losing to Costa Rica at home and failing to qualify for the World Cup

Yesterday, during his closing commentary on the Slate “Hang Up and Listen” Podcast, Josh Levin highlighted USA Soccer’s recent World Cup Qualification success and contrasted it with the U.S failure to qualify for the 1986 World Cup.  It’s an entertaining listen and a stark reminder of how far USA Soccer has come in the past 28 years.

Slate Podcast:  Link  (referenced commentary starts at 58:20)

In it’s final qualification match the U.S. lost 1-0 to Costa Rica in front of around 12,000 fans in Torrance, CA.  And most of those fans were Costa Rican Expats.  Shortly, thereafter the North American Soccer League (NASL) folded and the future didn’t look very bright at all for USA soccer.  But, as we all know things soon started to turn around.  The U.S. successfully hosted the World Cup in 1994 and restarted a professional league (MLS) which is now pretty stable and drawing decent crowds.  The Women’s team has won two world cups and youth soccer is played by millions across the country.  On TV just about every soccer match in Europe is available for viewing now on some network.  The U.S. is by no means anywhere near as soccer crazy as the rest of the world is, but the sport matters in this country and that is a remarkable success story.

It’s been common practice for many years to hold up soccer’s growth as the model for team handball to follow.   As I pointed out in this post several years ago, there are a number of flaws with this soccer analogy.   You simply just can’t photo copy soccer’s success or the successful growth in other sports like lacrosse, rugby and ultimate Frisbee.  What you can do, however, is take some pieces of their success and adapt them to a handball context.

And perhaps most importantly, you can take comfort in the fact that another sport was able to turn things around so dramatically.  I’m guessing if you were to ask the players and the handful of fans in Torrance cheering on Team USA, 28 years ago where they thought USA soccer was heading it would have been a lot of doom and gloom.  Yes, take some comfort in that it’s always darkest before the dawn.

America Soccer Now:  American Soccer in 1985:  The Failure in Torrance:  Link

The official results are in for the recent election to determine the 2 new “General Membership” seats on the 9 member USA Team Handball Board of Directors.  Former National Team player Jennie Choi and Denver Team Handball Coach/Player, Attila Agoston edged Minnesota Team Handball organizer Craig Rot.

85 valid ballots from USA Team Handball members were received by the USOC Audit Team and each voter had to rank all 3 candidates in order of preference.  For each ballot the candidate that was ranked first received 3 points, the candidate ranked second received 2 points and the third place candidate received 1 point.

The overall point total for the 3 candidates was

Jennie Choi:  176 points (34.51% of overall points awarded)
Attila Agoston: 175 points (34.31% of overall points awarded)
Craig Rot:  159 points (31.18% of overall points awarded)

With the ranking system used for voting it’s possible that as few as 9 additional voters supporting Craig Rot could have tipped the scales in his direction.

Commentary:  Low turnout is a reminder of sport’s low profile

Only 85 out of a roughly 1,000 members of USA Team Handball bothered to cast a ballot in this election. A less than onerous process (print, scan and email a ballot) that took me roughly 5 minutes to complete.  Perhaps the low turnout can be chalked up to the quality of the candidates and an assessment by members that each of the candidates were qualified and would be capable board directors.  Certainly, that was my assessment when I found out who the candidates were and it was also my assessment after I had the opportunity to chat with each of them.  That being said I was still able to pick a preference even if I wasn’t overly concerned with the outcome.

Regardless of the reason for apathy there is no getting around the fact that 85 voters is a paltry number and a stark reminder of the low profile this sport has in this country.  At different points in time I’ve reflected on just how low a profile.  In this piece written last year I assessed that there were maybe only around 300 hard core fans in the U.S.  Certainly, there are a number of ways to demographically look at the sport in this country and depending on how you want to define fandom you can edge that number up.  For sure, thousands of Americans saw the sport on TV during the Olympics and liked what they saw.  Federation membership is also on the upswing with over a 1,000 dues paying members, many of them youth players.  A low number, but better than 300 or so it was just a few years ago.

In remains to be seen as to whether this low turnout is just a blip on the road to the sport’s greater awareness in this country.  With one of the two board members just serving a two year term, there should be another election in a couple of years.  With gains in overall membership the voter turnout should increase.  Additionally, two years from now one can anticipate that it will be more clear as to what Federation plans and programs are in place and executing.  Instead of dealing with hypotheticals there will be reality and a greater likelihood for candidates with differing viewpoints.  Yes, some mild controversy to get voters energized never hurts voter turnout.

Why USA Team Handball should slow down on its plans for residency programs

USA Team Handball is in the midst of ironing out a final agreement with Auburn University to establish Residency Programs for both its Men’s and Women’s National Teams.  Going ahead and signing on the dotted line for this agreement which would last through the 2020 Olympics is one of the biggest decisions USA Team Handball has made in years.  Arguably, it’s the biggest decision the Federation has made… ever.

I could certainly argue the merits of Residency Programs, but I’ve already done that extensively.  I’m somewhat of a skeptic based on my own experiences and the changing times.  I also have some doubts as to the timing and most certainly disagree with the total lack of strategic planning to underpin why this is the way forward for USA Team Handball.

No, this time around I will simply make the case that if USA Team Handball is going to start a Residency Program it would be better to take it’s time, do it right and get the full approval of a Board of Directors.

Here are 3 reasons why:

Reason #1)  All options should be explored:  USA Team Handball has not put out a solicitation notice of any kind and has not discussed the possibility of a Residency Program with any other University or city.  That USA Team Handball is willing to go sole source without even a precursory exploration of other options is pretty much unfathomable to me.  This is not to say that sole source isn’t justified in certain circumstances.  Sometimes it’s clear that there’s only one viable option, but in this case USA Team Handball hasn’t even floated the possibility to others.  Heck, even Auburn only became a possibility as a result of unrelated phone call.  And sometimes time is of the essence.  A formal competition and a weighing of proposals takes time.  Which leads to reason #2.

Reason #2)  There’s no rush:  While there were bold pronouncements that the Residency Programs would make the U.S. difficult to handle in as little as 18 months there’s little illusion that it’s a long shot prospect at best for the U.S. to qualify for Rio.  Both CEO Van Houten (in my office visit) and Coach Garcia Cuesta (on the Argentine podcast) made that abundantly clear: The real and realistic focus is 2020.  If 2016 was a realistic goal you could make a good case that a Residency Program was an immediate need.  Heck, you could have made that case 2 years ago- Which is the point; it’s too late for Rio.  And, if we’re talking about 2020, the difference between starting a full up program in the fall of 2013 or the fall of 2014 is pretty marginal.  Yes, it would help some but not enough to warrant rushing forward.  Why, it could even be argued that waiting to the fall of 2014 would give more time to fully define all aspects of the program and have it clicking on all cylinders on day 1.

Reason #3)  Common Sense:  The Federation By-Laws detail the roles and responsibilities of the Board or Directors and Section 6.2 E) identifies “review and approve significant corporate actions” as a specific responsibility of the Board.  If signing on for a 7 year National Team Residency Program doesn’t fall under the definition of a significant corporate action then nothing does.  Why even bother to have a Board of Directors?

Board of Directors Status

Which points to the problem that USA Team Handball doesn’t currently have a fully constituted Board of Directors.  On January 1st of this year, the Board had only 5 members.  With President Jeff Utz’s departure in April that further dropped to 4.  The Board has not met in months and wouldn’t have a quorum even if it did meet.  Yes, for all practical purposes there is no Board of Directors currently providing policy, guidance and strategic direction.  Steps are being taken, however, to rectify this glaring problem.  An election for 2 “General Membership” Board Directors will conclude on 6 September and a Nominating & Governance Committee is hopefully in the final stages of identifying 3 “Independent” Board Directors.  Seemingly, a nine member accountable Board is just weeks away.

And at that time the Board should review plans for Residency Programs and provide guidance and strategic direction.  Perhaps that would be approval of the Auburn Residency Program.  Perhaps it would be a decision to slow down a bit and explore other Residency Program options.  Maybe it could even be a decision to develop a Strategic Plan that identifies organization goals and objectives first, before jumping into solutions.  Regardless, there’s no significant harm in waiting for a Board to make decisions that a Board should make.