20 years ago USA Team Handball conducted its own Philadelphia Experiment: A flawed, austere Residency Program for the Men’s National Team that was shut down after only one year. It provides a cautionary tale for the current administration as it apparently makes plans to restart Residency Programs.

In the first part of this series I tackled the basic question of whether Residency Programs were in principle a good strategy for developing U.S. National Teams.  In the next two parts I addressed the question of whether now was the right time to start Residency Programs.  Part 2 looked at prospects for qualifying for the 2016 Olympics and Part 3 addressed financial considerations.  Continuing the “Right time?” discussion I look at some planning considerations that need to be factored into any decision to start Residency Programs.

A Major Decision with Big Consequences

In most everyone’s life there are a handful of major decisions that have to be made.  What we decide for a career, where we choose to live and who we choose to marry are probably the three biggest ones.  Make a poor decision on any of those and be prepared to face the consequences.  No wants to spend their day doing a job they don’t like, residing in a place they don’t like or living with a spouse they don’t like.  In most cases we can recover from our decisions that haven’t turned out the way we wanted them to.  We can start a new career, move to a new city and divorce/remarry.  But, it goes without saying taking those steps in not always easy and without major consequences.

Starting Residency Programs is the rough sports federation equivalent of making all 3 of those decisions at the same time.  It is a huge decision and if USA Team Handball makes a poor choice there are some potentially big consequences.  And this isn’t just random conjecture from “some guy with a blog.”  No, USA Team Handball has been down this road before.  And the decision to pull the trigger sometimes has had disastrous consequences.

A Cautionary Tale:  The Philadelphia Experiment

As I gathered my thoughts for this series, I reflected on my own personal experience with Residency Programs.  Part of the trip down memory lane included a decision made almost exactly 20 years ago in 1993 to move the U.S. Men’s program from Colorado Springs to Philadelphia.  At the time the move was sold with the following rationale:

1. The U.S. population is more densely concentrated on the East Coast and locating in Philadelphia will make it easier to recruit athletes and have them move to join the program.
2. An East Coast location would make it easier for U.S. teams to travel to Europe and vice versa.  The costs of going to/from Colorado were an additional expense that sometimes precluded such travel.
3. USA Team Handball would be embraced by the City of Brotherly Love and we would no longer be one sport of many at a crowded Olympic Training Center.  Philadelphia would become America’s home for Team Handball and everyone would soon forget Colorado.

Needless to say many members of the National Team weren’t pleased with the prospect of moving.  Pretty much everybody liked Colorado Spring and some had started to set down roots in the place.  The move was made right before the National Team headed to Europe for the 1993 World Championships with some players moving their personal belongings and others (myself included) hedging their bets until after the World Championships.  The team gathered in Philadelphia for a few days prior to flying to Finland for a training camp and I caught a glimpse of what the program would be like.  The dorms at LaSalle University were a bit run down and it wasn’t clear if there would be access to a cafeteria or even a gym.  In short there were quite a few questions to be answered.

When the team came back from the World Championship, I personally had to make a decision regarding my future with the sport.  For those that have seen my less than spectacular talents it may seem somewhat laughable to think that I had any real decision, but playing in the World Championships had been a revelation for me.  Somehow, the afterthought player who had actually failed to even make a regional Olympic Festival team a year and a half earlier had worked his way into the starting lineup.  Albeit, only on defense and for a team that didn’t win a single game, but trust me if you are passionate about the sport and you get to play on the world’s stage, you’re allowed to have illusions of grandeur.

I contemplated the possibilities.  Leave the Air Force; find an aerospace job in Philadelphia; go to the Olympics in 1996.  But rationale thought and reality kicked in.  I assessed the odds were too long and the consequences were too severe.  And, easing that decision along for this athlete was an assessment that the Residency Program in Philadelphia wasn’t up to snuff.  It would have been one thing to continue the dream in quality surroundings; It would have been another thing entirely to so in a crappy environment.

And while losing me as a prospect was no real loss, it does illustrate the type of negative impact a shaky Residency Program can have.  I wasn’t the only player to make a similar decision and I can think of at least two talented athletes (Luke Travins and Brian Parath) who probably could have made the 96 Olympic Team if they had kept playing.  Not to mention the fact that the year in Philly was in many respects a lost year of prep for the 1996 Olympics.  I was not there, but the hardship stories are legendary.  It’s safe to say that training really didn’t get into full swing until the Philadelphia Experiment was unceremoniously ended and a Residency Program was established in Atlanta in 1994.  Would have another year of preparation made a difference?  Perhaps a close loss to Sweden becoming instead an upset victory?  We’ll never know, but a consistent training program wouldn’t have hurt.

And, this is but one example.  More recently, the Women’s program trained in Cortland, NY.   The setup there was also less than desirable with the athletes there making all sorts of sacrifices in terms of living conditions and job prospects.  (This ESPN article highlights some of those conditions.)  Not surprisingly, the program struggled to find quality recruits and was not very successful.  Even more recently, the U.S. held a training camp in Edmond, OK and at a press conference the Federation highlighted the possibility of starting Residency Programs there.  Alarmed, I wrote this commentary on that prospect.

Criteria to consider in locating Residency Programs

My commentary included a top level list of factors to consider when evaluating locations for Residency Programs.  These criteria included the following:

1. Quality and Availability of Facilities:  Ready and easy access to facilities
2. Local support:  Will the Residency Program be embraced by the local community
3. Ease of Travel: Both for teams visiting and recruiting. (Yes, there was some logic behind moving to Philadelphia)
4. Academic Opportunity and Quality:  The desired athletes are college age and many will want an opportunity to pursue a degree.
5. Athlete Financial Incentive:  Tuition, room and board, stipends, etc.
6. USOC Support:  An Olympic Training Center would be ideal, but the USOC also has arrangements with other facilities too
7. Intangibles:  Call this factor X; maybe there’s a benefactor out there willing to financially support a program
8. Gut reaction:  Some locales simply by their name will make recruiting easier.

This is just a top level summary, there’s a little more detail in the commentary from two years ago.

Olympic Leverage

In all likelihood USA Team Handball will evaluate these factors and more and will consider multiple locations before making such an important decision.  So, what are the chances that it can secure an arrangement with at least some of them in place?  At this point in time (March 2013) I would assess there’s probably only one scenario whereby a decent arrangement could be started.  And that would be the USOC reversing long standing policy to let a minor sport with negligible chance of medaling in the near term set up shop (beds for 32 athletes, meals in the dining hall, weight room access and dedicated court time) at one of the Olympic Training Centers.  It’s certainly possible, but the prospects seem slight due to the competing demands from a lot of sports, many with smaller footprints and more feasible medaling prospects.  Perhaps facility access might be provided, but room and board is probably a stretch.

Entities with a loose affiliation with the USOC are probably a more likely prospect, but it’s also hard to see them offering up much more than a gym to practice and perhaps in-state tuition rates.  (This should immediately conjure up images of Philadelphia and Cortland.)  The problem is simply a lack of negotiating leverage– as in USA Team Handball has little if anything to offer up at this point in time.

But, maybe there is a point in time, in the not too distant future, where USA Team Handball might have a little leverage. Yes, I’m referring to the prospects of a USA hosted Olympics in 2024.  Hey, that’s over 11 years away, you might say.  Working back the timeline back from that future date, however, shows that host city campaigns and selection isn’t that far away.

2017: IOC selects 2024 Olympic host city
2015: Bid cities selected by nations start campaigning
Late 2014: USOC intends to select USA candidate city Link
Early 2014: USOC intends to narrow USA candidates to 2 or 3

So, might a U.S. city interested in getting selected to host an Olympics be willing to do a little bit more than they normally would to help a minor sport.  Maybe as part of a bid package San Francisco or some other city would include a training program for USA Team Handball at one of the local universities and job employment assistance with Silicon Valley companies.   (Finish your degree at Cal-Berkeley, work for Google and play Team Handball:  wouldn’t that be a nice recruiting pitch.)  With hundreds of millions of dollars on the line, it’s at least conceivable that competing cities will at least entertain possibilities that might make their host city bid package more attractive.

Besides the leverage possibilities in the host selection bid process the advantages of simply co-locating with the city that gets selected are also very significant.  Local sponsorship would certainly be easier to secure.  Start the program in 2015 and you would even have time to implement a Title IX High School program.  And those are just some of the possibilities.

The cart before the horse?

There’s no guarantee, of course, that the U.S. will get the 2024 Olympics, but surely the odds have never been better.  And, perhaps USA Team Handball can get a good deal at an Olympic Training Center without having to wait.  If it’s truly a good deal with good guarantees, why not?  But, if all USA Team Handball can get is a so-so deal for an austere program with a lot of question marks there’s a lot to suggest that it would be a smarter move to wait a bit.  To sum up, here are 3 big reasons to really think twice before moving forward with Residency Programs anytime soon.

1. U.S. National Teams stand very little chance at qualifying for the 2016 Olympics Link
2. USA Team Handball doesn’t appear to have the funding to fully support a program Link
3. Leverage for a better deal might be just around the corner

So that sums up my concerns with starting Residency Programs.  In the next installment I tackle the issue of whether it makes sense to hire full time coaches at this point in time and whether USA Team Handball has hired coaches with the right skill sets to match its current needs. Part 5

Will the US National Teams reside at an Olympic Training Center or will they have more austere arrangements?

In part 1, I tackled the top level question of whether Residency Programs were a good strategy for U.S. National Team development.  In Part 2, I started to address whether it was a good time to start Residency Programs by assessing U.S. chances for 2016 Olympic Qualification.  In this part, I continue that assessment, this time by addressing the financial costs of Residency Programs and whether the U.S. Federation can afford such programs at this point in time.

How much does a Residency Program cost?

The obvious first step in assessing the funding considerations for Residency Programs is to figure out how much those programs would cost.  I won’t try to break down exact dollar figures as doing so would require quite a bit of research and guesswork as there are several variables in terms of “in kind” support that might be provided by organizations like the USOC.  What I will try to do, however, is identify the key budget line items and provide a few notes as to what each might entail in terms of costs at the high and low end.

Practice Facilities
– High end: Rental fees for gym and weight room
– Low end: Free; provided by USOC or other source

Coaching
– High end:  $100K/year/coach or $200K/year
– Low end:  Volunteers with minor stipend; $10K/year/coach or $20K/year

Athlete Lodging
– High end:  Rental costs for apartments or dorm rooms
– Low end:  Nothing (athlete’s responsibility) or free; provided by USOC or other source

Athlete Meals
– High end:  Contract costs for cafeteria
– Low end:  Nothing (athlete’s responsibility) or free; provided by USOC or other source

Athlete Insurance/Medical
– High end:  High end plan paid by Federation
– Low end:  Low end plan paid by Federation or free; provided by USOC or other source

Athlete Stipends
– High end:  $25K/year/athlete or for 32 athletes ($800K)
– Low end:  Nothing provided

Athlete College Tuition Assistance
– High end:  Full ride scholarship provided as part of host college program arrangement
– Low end:  Nothing provided

Athlete Travel
– High end:  2 round trips home/year; extra funding also available to bring European based athletes to U.S. for periodic training
– Low end:  Nothing provided

Recruitment
– High end:  Full time recruiting coordinator; substantial travel budget for athlete tryouts and recruiting visits
– Low end:  Recruiting performed by coaches; very limited travel budget.

Full Fledged vs. Austere

If one does a little back of the envelope calculation into the high end costs it’s fairly easy to come up with Residency Program costs of $2/3M/year.  Of course, given the current state of Federation finances it would be impossible to fund programs at anywhere near that level.  Even when the Federation had more funding the Residency Programs were more towards the low end even if in kind support from the USOC at the Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs, helped stretch limited funding.

Obviously, more can be done when the funding is tilted toward the high end of the scale and such a full fledged program would have a better chance of success.  Better facilities, better coaching and more competition opportunities are bound to result in better results.  And better living arrangements and financial incentives would vastly improve the odds of attracting talented athletes to the program.  In particular, if these programs are ever going to have any chance of attracting decent athletes in the 18-22 age bracket they are going to have to provide benefits that approach those that are offered by NCAA sports.

If the funding is not available for a full-fledged program, however, it’s still possible to offer a more austere one.   And, even without all the bells and whistles there will still be athletes interested in participating such programs.  From 2004 to 2007, the women’s team trained in Cortland, NY and this program was clearly at the low end of the scale.  This account of an ESPN writer’s tryout with the team gives you some insight as to how austere that program was.  A men’s program that was in place for a year in Philadelphia had similar conditions and even the Residency Programs that were established in Atlanta prior to the Olympics were nothing to write home about.

Hidden Costs

Aside from the actual dollars that would have to be spent on Residency Programs it’s important to note there are also some pretty significant costs that won’t necessarily show up in any accounting ledger.  In particular, the man hours involved in the initial organization and continued management of the programs would be substantial.  These programs would also become the most visible aspect of the Federation and how they are managed and how the teams perform will be closely scrutinized, especially if the USOC is providing assistance.

And, as anyone who works for a living knows, where you are scrutinized is where you usually spend more of your time and energy.  Not always, mind you, but it’s usually the case.  For better or for worse, more and more time will be spent by Federation staff to support National Team activities.  We could argue about just how pronounced that shift will be, but there will be one.  And the hidden cost is whatever grass roots development, marketing initiative or club programs activity that might have been done will now not be undertaken.

Austere Program or No Program?

So, if one factors in the actual dollar costs and hidden costs of even an austere program does it still make sense to start Residency Programs?  Maybe, but rest assured it not’s a simple decision or one that should be taken lightly.  A lot of it depends on what the available funding is and how austere it is.  If the program is too austere, it runs the risk of being pointless.  If it’s too robust, it runs the risk of diverting too many resources from everything else the Federation would like to accomplish.

It remains to be seen just what the “flexible residency programs” that are being mentioned will consist of, but they will surely be pretty austere programs if the U.S. Federation is counting every penny.  Either that or the USOC is going to come through in a big way with Olympic Training Center access to include facilities, dorms and cafeteria.

When will these programs actually start?

In addition to the lack of information regarding what these programs will consist of there’s been some strong indications that there are no firm plans in regards to their start.  The initial announcement indicated that the programs were “tentatively scheduled to begin in early fall of 2013.”  A follow up email from CEO Matt Van Houten, indicated that athletes identified at tryouts would “be sent to the club system to learn the game but the goal is to establish a residency program for full time training.” A federation webpage on national teams also referred to the Residency Programs starting in 2013/2014.

The words which I’ve put in bold face (tentatively, goal and 2014) all point to a fair bit of uncertainty in terms to their actual start.  This could be for a number of reasons, but I’ll speculate that the actual start hinges on a number of factors to include sponsor funding, USOC support and Women’s team performances in upcoming tournaments.  And on top of the shifting date there surely are some floating plans as to where the programs will be on the sliding scale between full-fledged and austere.   One could even conclude that there might not even be funding currently in place for even an austere program.   All of this leads to some very obvious questions:

Did it make sense for the Federation to announce plans for Residency Programs if it doesn’t really know when they would start or what they would consist of? 

Or, would it have been better to wait until plans were more firmly in place?

So, I’ve now addressed Olympic qualification and financial issues in regards to the timing for starting Residency Programs.  In the next part I’ll tackle planning issues.   And, in particular, planning considerations that should be carefully weighed in order to get the best possible arrangements for Residency Programs. Part 4

What are the prospects for the U.S. Men’s and Women’s to make it to Rio in 2016?

In Part 1 I addressed the basic question as to whether Residency Programs were a good strategy for our National Teams.  I concluded that if the programs were focused on developing younger athletes it could be a good thing, but if the program had too many athletes in the tail end of their careers it was a highly questionable strategy.  This installment, however, sets aside that conclusion and assumes that Residency Programs are definitely the way to go.  Instead, the question under consideration is simply, does it make sense to start these programs now?

Why don’t we already have Residency Programs in place?

To assess whether now is the right time to start Residency Programs it makes sense to first explore why we haven’t had programs for several years.  In fact, the last time the U.S. had a full-fledged residency program was 1996.  Following that Olympics, USA Team Handball’s budget dropped precipitously.  There simply was no way that Residency Programs could be maintained at the same level they had been maintained in Colorado Springs or Atlanta, so it was discontinued.  Later in 2004 a residency program was established for the women’s team in Cortland, NY, but it was an austere setup that was only a shadow of earlier programs and it closed down in 2007.

In 2008, a new federation was certified by the USOC and with substantial seed money being contributed by its primary backer, Dieter Esch one of the first questions I asked him and the newly installed General Manager, Steve Pastorino was whether they had any plans to restart Residency Programs and hire full time coaches.   The answer then and in subsequent years was always along the lines of “No plans at this point in time; Maybe on down the road.”  And, as we all know, “on down the road,” never materialized during the Esch-Pastorino era.  My informed speculation is that it was never started due to three primary reasons:

1. Olympic Qualification considerations:  It was assessed that qualifying for the 2012 Olympics was highly unlikely.
2. Financial considerations:  There simply wasn’t enough funding to establish a credible program and it was decided that resources would be better focused on grass roots efforts.
3. Planning considerations:  There were tentative plans for Residency Programs contingent on Chicago being selected as the host city for the 2016 Olympics.  When that didn’t materialize there was no backup plan readily in place.

In hindsight, those reasons actually appear to have been pretty valid for the most part.  The U.S. didn’t come close to qualifying so there’s little to suggest that a Residency Program for either the Men or Women would have put them over the top.  Funding could certainly have been diverted from some grass roots effort, but it still would have been a pretty austere setup that would have probably looked a lot like the Cortland program.  Finally, while Chicago didn’t get the Olympics the positive opportunities of setting up shop in a host city surely merited the decision to wait and see what would happen.

But, that was the decision 4 years ago.  Let’s take a look at each of these three considerations now in the context of the Federations decision to pull the trigger on residency programs.

Olympic Qualification Considerations

While Residency Programs aren’t necessarily established solely with the intent of Olympic Qualification it nevertheless is something that factors into the equation.  How much so is open for debate, but the Federation’s own words stating that the program is aimed at 2016 Olympic Qualifications suggest that it’s the major reason for the program.  If this emphasis is true, that carries lot of implications in terms of the program’s structure and how quickly it will need to move from a developmental program to one more focused on winning now or at least very soon.  Time is of the essence as the next PANAM Games, the most likely path for Olympic qualification are now less than 2.5 years away (July, 10-25, 2015).  Depending on the qualification format that means Team USA could be playing in qualification matches as early as December, 2014.  Here’s a quick look at the prospects for both the Men and the Women.

U.S. Men Prospects:  Can they beat Argentina?

Based on recent national team performances there is a lot to be done if the U.S. is going to be a serious contender for Olympic qualification.  The Men finished 7th out of 8 teams at the 2011 PANAM Games and lost 36-19 to Argentina, the Pan American qualifier.  This past June they faced Argentina again and lost 33-13 on their way to finishing 7th out of 9th at 2012 Pan American Championships.  With better training and more opportunities to play together the U.S. would have done better, but it’s hard to see them making up 20 goals without some quality additions to the roster.

In theory, those quality additions could be new crossover athletes from other sports that would get their training through a Residency Program.  The best case scenario I can envision is the Men’s Residency Program starting up this fall and having a half dozen players developing rapidly in to raw, but decent handball players.  Those players would then mix with the more experienced players playing in Europe to field a team at the summer 2014 Pan American Championships that still isn’t strong enough to beat Brazil and Argentina, but can upset Chile for 3rd place and qualification for the World Championships.  That same team would then parlay that World Championship experience in Jan 2015 to field a team on top of its game by July 2015.  I still think it’s highly unlikely that the U.S. would be good enough to beat both Brazil and Argentina, but with Brazil already qualified as Olympic host, it’s possible the U.S. could play Argentina in a semi-final match that decides the Pan American qualifier.   And in a one match scenario it is at least possible to envision a big upset.

But, let’s keep in mind this all assumes quite a bit.  For starters, with Argentina having several of their top players playing in top leagues in Europe they are likely to improve as a team.  Chile, likewise and don’t forget that Canada will have the home court advantage.   Not to mention the wildcard of a Cuban entry.   No, the reality is that even making the semifinals at this point in time is less than a 50-50 proposition.  And then actually beating Argentina?  Anything is possible 2.5 years out, but it’s hard not to look at it as anything but a long shot (perhaps 20-1) at this point in time.

U.S. Women:  Can they emerge as the best of the also rans?

The performance of the U.S. Women in recent years at first suggests there is no hope whatsoever for qualification.  They didn’t even qualify for the 2009 or 2011 Pan American Championships and while they squeaked into the 2011 PANAM Games they finished 8th out 8 teams, including a total defeat by the eventual champion Brazil, 50-10.

Sometimes, however, it’s not how good you are, but who you’re playing against.  Beating Brazil in 2.5 years is a near impossibility, but Brazil’s hosting of the Olympics throws them out of the equation.  At the same time Argentina which has been the consistent #2 has conveniently regressed back to the pack of the also rans.  While they’ve been able to hold on to second place in the past two competitions they’ve been trounced by Brazil and have had to fight off teams like the Dominican Republic and Cuba in the semifinals.  So if one uses the following logic from the PANAM Games results:  Argentina beat the Dominican Republic 19-18 and the Dominican Republic beat the U.S. 33-26 then the U.S. only has to get around 8 goals better.

While such logic if often faulty it does suggest that an improved women’s team would have a decent chance of qualifying.  But, before we get our hopes up too much let’s keep in mind that all of the also-ran teams have been beating the U.S. in recent competition and it would be foolhardy to assume that they won’t also improve with an Olympic bid on the line.

As I see it the best case scenario for the women is significantly different from the men.  In particular, I would assess that they don’t need just a few new players, but instead could use a significant roster overhaul.   This assessment is based on the results of the past few years and what appears to be several players in the player pool who are older and unlikely to improve significantly in another 2.5 years.  Of course, that’s just one man’s opinion and it will better to just take a look at the results at next month’s North American qualifier in Mexico and at the 2013 Pan American Championships this summer in the Dominican Republic.  In particular, these two events should paint a pretty good picture of where the U.S. stands among the also rans.

And if a roster overhaul is seen as necessary this is where a full-fledged Residency Program with some top notch cross over athletes could make a difference.  Comparing different eras can be a shaky proposition, but I think if the U.S. brought in some raw talent similar to what they brought into the program in the 80s and 90s, they could assemble a team in two years time that is capable of taking 2nd place in Toronto.  Certainly, there’s little doubt in my mind that the U.S. Women’s team from 88, 92, or 96 would take 2nd if they could magically time travel to participate in the event.

It wouldn’t be easy, though, with just two years to work with.  The U.S. would need to do some phenomenal recruiting and it would require sufficient funding so that it was a full-fledged program.  A program that could entice the right athletes to commit and provide them a training environment in which they could improve quickly.

So, if one looks at Residency Programs primarily with a focus on 2016 Olympic Qualification prospects it appears that it will do little to enhance the Men’s teams prospects, but could, in theory, give the Women’s team a chance to qualify.  But, is the U.S. currently capable of establishing and supporting full-fledged Residency Programs?  Or, can all we expect at this point in time is an austere setup that can’t quite do the job?  In the next part of this series, I’ll look at the funding considerations inherent in managing Residency Programs and try to answer those questions. Part 3

USA Team Handball is looking to start  up National Team residency programs again. Is that a good idea? Maybe, but not it it means going back to the future.

Several weeks ago the USA Team Handball made a couple of very significant announcements.  First on 27 December in a notice regarding open national team tryouts it was briefly mentioned that the U.S. intends to start a long-term flexible residency program aimed at 2016 Olympic qualifications.  Shortly thereafter it was announced that high performance coaches had been named to develop national teams.  After some additional dialogue with USA Team Handball I was then able to confirm that these coaches are full time hires, although Coach Latulippe is not arriving until later this year.

Tucked away amidst typical news items like the location for the club national championships some readers might not have fully realized the significance of these two announcements.  Make no mistake.  These are major developments and a clear signal that the Federation has decided to dedicate more resources to its national team programs.

On the one hand, I see these developments as a welcome sign that USA Team Handball is finally going to start taking its national teams more seriously.  The revolving door of coaches and the cobbling together of players a week or two before major events clearly was not working.  The U.S. was not competitive and the results were dismal.  Even worse the previous Federation sometimes decided to not even send our senior national teams to World Championship qualification tournaments and initially even resisted supporting PANAM Games qualification, the path to the Olympics.

On the other hand, though, I’ve got some serious concern as to whether the residency model is the right long term strategy for developing our national teams.  And, even if it is the right strategy, I’m skeptical as to whether now is the right time to start it.  Going further I’ve got even more doubts as to whether now is the time to hire full time coaches and whether we’ve hired coaches which match our current needs.  What follows is a devil’s advocate review of Federation plans with the intent of influencing what appears to be a still evolving program for our national teams.

Residency Program (Right Strategy?)

First a short explanation of what a residency program is or at least was in the past.  As the name implies U.S. National Team athletes essentially lived and trained together full time.  Athletes were housed in a dormitory setting and coaches conducted daily practices (often 2/day).  In many cases the athletes coming into the program were exceptional crossover athletes from other sports who were unfamiliar with Team Handball.  As such, the program was often focused on teaching those athletes fundamental handball techniques.  Typically, however as the U.S. approached an Olympics the rosters would settle and the dynamic would switch from individual development to putting together the best team possible.

There are several good points to be made about the residency model.  First off, this model clearly resulted in the best teams the U.S. has ever produced.  The U.S. was able to qualify for several Olympics, routinely beat other developing nations and while we still rarely beat European sides, we could put some scare into them on the way to some respectable score lines.  Additionally, the residency program provided a tangible aspirational goal for every young player in the U.S.

All that being said, let’s be totally clear and honest about how successful Team USA was with that model.  We never won a medal and sometimes didn’t even qualify for the Olympics.  Let’s face it; in many respects talking about the heydays of USA Team Handball is roughly the equivalent to talking about the heydays of the Los Angeles Clippers and the Montreal Expos.  Americans aspire to win, not for respectable score lines.

Next and probably most importantly, residency programs are not cheap and over the years a lot of money was spent on a few chosen athletes, many of whom have barely touched a handball since punching their Olympic ticket.  While at the same time far less funding was channeled to grass roots programs that may have resulted in the establishment of a broader player and fan base in this country to develop the athletes needed.

Yes, I’m talking about the never ending debate between grass roots and national teams.  National Team proponents will argue that our grass roots haven’t producing the talent needed to compete.  Grass roots proponents will argue that funding residency programs is simply throwing money away on a handful of athletes that aren’t going to win anyway.

Of course, both proponents are absolutely correct in many respects.  Back in 2009 I wrote a three part series titled, A Framework for National Team Success (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) that addresses these issues in greater detail.  In part 3, I identified six shortcomings of the residency model, many of which I had experienced firsthand.  Those shortcomings were

1. The athletes were often too old to warrant the spending of development resources:  Often the athletes were in their mid to late 20s
2. Lack of whole person development: Athletes didn’t have many opportunities beyond handball
3. Uneven Funding: Sometimes the funding wasn’t there to fully support it.
4. Lack of competition:  Practicing against each other can get real old
5. Unclear commitments (both from the Federation and athletes): Players didn’t know where they stood; sometimes athletes bailed out
6. Uneven player skills: Athletes would plateau when there weren’t better players to push them

(This is just a short synopsis; for a further explanation read the whole article)

What’s the Alternative?

Of course, if a residency program is not the right strategy it begs the question:  What’s the alternative?  Cobbling a team together a couple of weeks prior to an event, as I already pointed out, hasn’t worked for the U.S. very well.  Thing is though, that’s pretty much what the rest of the world does nowadays.  Long gone are the days when the former Eastern Bloc countries kept their national team players on a short leash.  On the men’s side, all of the players on world’s top national team are professional athletes with club commitments.   Training and playing with the national team is an important, but secondary part of their handball careers.  The same is mostly true with the women’s teams, albeit for less pay, with the possible exception of South Korea.

The nations with middling success (Argentina, Brazil, Tunisia, Egypt for the men; Brazil and Angola for the women) have teams with mixed rosters (some professional, some semi-professional and amateur).  The teams with very little success (USA, Canada, Great Britain and Australia to name a few) are almost entirely amateur.  And, adding to their level of difficulty is the reality that their domestic amateur competitions are also at a very low level.

These facts all point to a logical, inescapable conclusion:  If you want to have sustained national team success you’re going to have athletes capable of playing at a top professional level.  So, the right strategy has little to do with how a national team trains and prepares for competition.  Sure, it certainly is beneficial to train together, but the quality of the players is far more important.  Accordingly, the right strategy is all about identifying, recruiting and developing quality athletes.

For nations with a quality club system and a professional league everything is already done for them.  For other nations they can either try the quick fix (the residency program) or go for the long hard slog to develop the grass roots, which is by no means guaranteed to succeed either.

A Third Way?

But, perhaps there’s another way.  A Residency Program that eschews the quick fix and seeks to develop quality athletes for the long haul.  In part 3 of my earlier series I outlined a residency model with limited objectives that was focused on taking college age athletes and boosting their handball skills so that they could play competitively in Europe.  The rough pathway I envisioned was an 18-21 year old player training at a residency program then at at 22 making his/her way to Europe playing in the 2nd or 3rd division to start, continuing to improve his/her game and then making the ranks of top sides around age 27 or so.

I won’t say that the model I’ve identified is the definitive one. What I will state, definitively, though, is that going back to the future to a residency program that mirrors the ones put in place in the past is a highly questionable strategy.

As of right now, it’s unclear as to what the Federation plan or overall objective is.  In particular, will the residency program be the key element of an intense effort to qualify for the 2016 Olympics?  The Federation announcement indicates that it’s aimed at 2016 qualification, but its certainly possible to seek qualification with an eye wide open towards the more feasible prospects of qualifying in 2020 or even 2024.  A key indicator will be the ages of the athletes participating.  Other signs of intent will be the overall cost of the program and how much funding it siphons off from grassroots efforts.  To date, the U.S. Federation hasn’t released a whole lot of details other than to indicate that it will be “flexible” and that they would like to start the program in the fall of 2013.    Information will surely trickle out as the program moves closer to actually starting.

Which leads to the next question I’ll tackle in this series:  Does it make sense to start a residency program now? Part 2

Balancing limited income with many desired expenses will require some tough decisions for the U.S. Federation.

New USA Team Handball CEO, Matt Van Houten, recently posted an update on his first two months of activity and made a point to highlight the federation’s dire financial straits and that he’s counting every penny.  There have been several indications of this financial stress in the past few years.  In 2011, former Board of Director’s President, Dieter Esch, decided to quit donating personal funds to support the Federation’s operations, forcing a number of cuts to staff and operations. For over a year, USA Team Handball team then functioned with an interim GM, Dave Gascon, serving on a pro bono basis.  More recently, it was announced that athletes wanting to participate in the upcoming Junior Men’s Pan American Championships would each be required to raise at least $1,200.

Beyond the pronouncements, however, it is possible to get a better sense of the situation by reviewing Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form 990s.  The IRS Form 990 is a requirement for all U.S. tax exempt organizations and provides a window of transparency in regards to finances.  The federation was a little late in providing some of this data, but recently did post its 2010 Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form 990. (Based on the accountant’s signature date (30 November, 2012) it appears to have only recently been filed.)

The 2010 form covers the period from 1 July, 2010 to 30 June, 2011.  This was a few months prior to the end of the Esch – Pastorino era so it’s now possible to do a little bit more forensic analysis on almost those entire 3 years.  Here are a couple of charts that summarize the Income and Expenses for three years covering the time period from 1 July, 2008 to 30 June, 2011.

A few key data points

– Salaries and other employee compensation constituted the lion’s share of expenses (roughly 40%) during this period.  At its peak the USA staff had as many as 14 (7 full and 7 part time) staff members.  In hind sight (well actually foresight for some) a large staff was not sustainable and did not make much sense given the sport’s state of development.

– A significant amount was also dedicated to travel expenses.  As chronicled on the Federation website there were several overseas trips to build ties and obtain sponsorships.

– Membership revenue declined all 3 years.  This is pretty telling statistic.  With regional staffs and development efforts this revenue area should have seen at least some modest growth.  In contrast, the 2010 membership revenue of $32,803 is the 2nd lowest yearly amount ever collected since 1997..

– Sponsorship revenue apparently peaked at $147K.  Developing sponsorship as a significant source of revenue was a major goal and deem necessary to wean the Federation off reliance of USOC and other donor (mostly Dieter Esch) grants.  There are a number of reasons that could be attributed to this shortcoming and some of them are detailed here.

– The Germany vs. Poland match that was held in Chicago (July 2010) had listed expenses of around $137K and was surely a net loss financially.  The exact amount is difficult to determine.  2009 had a special events income of $129K, so a minimum of $8K was lost and assuming that some other events generated income there probably was an accountable loss of around $30K.  If Dieter Esch opened his checkbook for some other expenses not directly on the books the loss might be far greater.

– It’s not possible to fully determine the contributions of Dieter Esch (and others) since those contributions are not broken out on the forms.  It is, however, possible to get a rough estimate by taking the total amount contributed ($1,857M) and subtracting out USOC contribution ($.857M during those 3 years).   Perhaps, a coincidence, but the number works out to just under $1 million.  (Further note:  There was a $50K contribution requirement for board members, so not all of that $1M came from Mr. Esch’s generosity.  Some of these contributions, though, may be reflected in the sponsorship lines.)

Dire Financial Straits

It doesn’t take an extensive review of this data to better understand the situation.  In simplistic terms, all one has to do is take about $333K off the yearly expenses listed above.  (This is a rough estimation of the Esch (and others) yearly generosity which no longer exists.)  Much like the fiscal cliff discussion the only way to solve the problem is to start cutting and/or raising revenue.

Possible Cuts?

While there are areas which could be (are being) trimmed there’s not a whole lot of margin.  Employee salaries are the obvious expense to put on the chopping block.  There’s no way they can approach the previous levels and the staff is accordingly smaller and leaner.  Board Meeting notes indicated that the CEO salary would have a base of $100K with potential bonuses related to additional revenue being brought in.  Throw in a salary for a Technical Director (~60K) and some Coaching (TBD) and the total salary line (with benefits) is probably around $250K.  Travel expenses surely are another area that will be cut to the bone, perhaps to $25K.  National team expenses in 2009 and 2010 were listed at around $150K.  It’s not clear what all those expenses entailed, but I’d like to think that the bare bones programs of those years will at least be maintained.  With talk of a residency program they might even be increased.  Throw in another $75K for miscellaneous expenses and $50K for club competitions and a rough estimate of total expenses is around $550K.

Additional Revenue?

But what about the revenue side of the ledger?  With yearly Esch generosity no longer coming in the Federation’s biggest source of revenue are USOC grants.  From 2009 to 2011, the USOC contribution was roughly $286K/year.  Reportedly, the USOC has kicked in some extra funding to help pay salary expenses for a couple of years, but it’s not clear how much that will be and whether it will change the overall USOC contribution.  Perhaps the new total will be near $350K.  This means the rest has to be made up through a combination of sponsorships, membership dues and miscellaneous revenues streams (ticket sales, tournament entry fees, etc).

As previously noted the recent high water sponsorship mark was $147K.  Perhaps this number can be matched in the near term, but significant increases are unlikely overnight.  Membership revenue has dipped below $40K and it will surely increase, but near term perhaps $50K can be expected.  Without going into detail on the nuance of the different miscellaneous income items I would be surprised if they also don’t stay in the neighborhood of $20K.  This leaves a total of $607K, but it’s really a rough estimate based on very limited information.

Little margin for error and the importance of transparency

So, this simple estimate projects a surplus of $57K.  To reiterate it’s really rough.  If the USOC doesn’t want to chip in more or the sponsorship projections are off it quickly turns into a deficit.  And then you’ve got to start whacking.  Salary expenses, in theory, could be cut.  So could national team expenses. Maybe the National Championship will need to be a breakeven (instead of a money losing) venture.  Or maybe membership dues could go up.

Which all leads to the importance of transparency when it comes to budget data.  IRS reporting requirements have enabled me to do an assessment of a year and half old financial data.  Informative, but only of limited use after the fact.  It certainly makes you look back on some past Board decisions and really scratch your head.  The Federation couldn’t fund a team to go to the PANAM Games but it could pay for 14 full and part time staff members?  Did the Federation really need to pay over $200K in yearly travel expenses?  Or maybe most importantly, if the Federation had been a little bit more conservative with its spending would it be in such dire straits today?

Switching to present day, you can bet your bottom dollar that a number of decisions will be made soon regarding how to spend limited funds.  Do we have to wait a year and a half to see what funding was available and how that funding was spent? Or can we see what’s available now and what the plans for spending are?  How exactly are the potential spending options prioritized? With limited funds what takes priority: a national team trip, hiring a new coach, or sending funds to support new club programs?  Will a serious effort be made to qualify for the 2016 Olympics or will the Federation quietly opt to focus on 2020? Etc. etc.

To reiterate, the low hanging fruit is there.  With an emphasis on transparency here’s hoping that the Federation will provide real insight into the looming budgetary decisions that will have to be made.

American sports leagues have successfully invaded Europe. It’s high time for European handball to invade America.

In Part 7, I listed several reasons why for many years European handball entities did little to develop the American market.  In this part, I highlight how while Europe has opened its eyes to the possibilities, many of its initial efforts have faltered.  (Part 1) (Part 2) (Part 3) (Part 4) (Part 5) (Part 6)

A European Awakening

For many years European handball entities weren’t very much engaged in the development of Team Handball in the U.S.  The litany of reasons for this include basic indifference, a belief that the U.S. should develop Team Handball on its own, market competition from other sports,  the amateur focus in Europe, an unwillingness to invest, not understanding the American marketplace and ineffective American Federation appeals for help. The good news is that while these challenges still exist they are largely becoming passé as professional European leagues and Federations have awakened to the possibility of American revenue streams.

This has happened primarily for a couple of reasons.  First, European handball executives couldn’t have been blind to an American sports invasion in Europe.  Every kid wearing a Dirk Nowitzki, Dallas Mavericks jersey is one not wearing a Pascal Hens, Hamburg jersey.   Every NBA TV broadcast means a little less interest and money being spent on a Handball Bundesliga broadcast.   Ouch. That’s hitting the old pocketbook.  But, it also surely wasn’t lost upon some handball executive that if the NBA can sign big TV contracts and get kids to wear NBA jerseys, then maybe Handball could do the same thing to the U.S.  market.  Or as the South Korean women’s national team often demonstrates, sometime the best defense is a good offense.

Secondly, while there’s sure to be some trepidation in regards to a risky expansion in reverse, European soccer has proven that it can indeed be done. What once was a trickle of minor TV contract deals to get the European foot in the door has evolved into “no kidding” bidding wars.  Case in point was the recent NBC purchase of the English Premier League (EPL) rights for $80-85 million/annually.  This was four times what Fox was paying previously and, get this, you couldn’t even find any soccer matches on TV anywhere in the U.S. not too long ago.  That’s right a bidding war for something nobody, but a few Expats would have watched a dozen years ago.  Sacrilege of sacrilege, these sports networks are even reporting soccer scores on the bottom trailer during broadcasts of American Football games.  I guess I’m an old timer, but I still do a double take when I see Norwich 2, Aston Villa 1; Man U. 3, Reading 0; scroll across the screen.  And call me crazy, but if the EPL can get $85 million, surely the German Bundesliga can get a meaningful fraction of that at some point.  Even 1/100th of $85 million is better than no contract at all.

Stumbles Along the Way

So, with an ongoing American sports invasion in Europe and soccer proving that America could also be plucked, European entities have dipped their toes in the U.S. market.  As often happens, however, there has been some false starts and failures.  Most notably, live events on U.S. soil have only had marginal success.  The French League’s final four cup in Miami (2009) was well staged, but had dismal attendance.  The Poland-Germany match in Chicago (2010) was better attended, but didn’t create the desired post match buzz.  In hind sight it’s clear that these events didn’t fully take into account the basic awareness problem the sport faces in the U.S.  You can’t just simply fly to the states and expect Americans to buy tickets for a sport the bulk of them don’t even know exists.  Well, I guess you can, but there are surely more effective ways to spend your money at this stage of the sport’s development in the U.S.

Showcases on U.S. soil can make sense, but only if they are structured to the current market.  A perfect example of that is the New York City Tournament and All Star Game held the past 3 years as part of a New Year’s Eve package primarily for German tourists; a much smaller event which has a chance to grow.  No, in order to properly stage a big event, you first need to grow your market.  Case in point, are the NFL regular season matches in London that now sell out 80,000 strong.  The NFL plotted this out over many years, slowly but surely developing a fan base in the UK that were hungry to see a live match.

And how was such a fan base developed?  Through TV, of course.  In fact, it’s kind of amazing when you think about it.  American Football had no historical background whatsoever in the UK.  Only a handful of people even play it there today, yet now there’s even talk of a London franchise.

Finally, on TV, but on the right channels?

Encouragingly, European entities have recently been able to break into the U.S. TV market.  The German Bundesliga was first on the scene with matches available first on the “My Sports Germany” Network, and now with Univision Deportes.  The EHF Champions League has also been available, first with MHz and now with beIN Sport and Univision Deportes.  The bad news, however, is that these networks are way off the beaten path.  In many parts of the U.S. they are either not available or require an a la carte or top tier purchase option with a Cable or Satellite TV provider.  In other words, die hard fans can now seek out and find Team Handball on TV, but the likelihood of new American fans stumbling upon Team Handball is pretty slim.

I’m not privy to the negotiations that resulted in Team Handball rights being sold to beIN Sport and Univision Deportes, so I have no idea how much these networks paid and whether any other networks were courted.  Further it’s unclear as to whether other factors such as a network’s market reach factored into the awarding of TV rights.  Let me put it another way.  If ESPN (the #1 behemoth in the U.S. with near total market reach) showed even the slightest inkling of interest (FYI: this suggests they had an inkling) into broadcasting the sport the EHF and/or HBL should have been prepared to bow down and serenade ESPN HQ in Bristol, Connecticut.  Such a possibility would be the ultimate game changer for the sports development in the U.S.  Seriously, every other commentary on this website would start with sentences like, “Before ESPN broadcast Team Handball or “After ESPN….yadda yadda yadda.”  Instead of a glorious two weeks of attention every 4 years during the Olympics there would be a constant stream of new fans and players picking up the sport.

A job too important to give to a middleman

Of course, I don’t know how beIN Sport and Univision Deportes were chosen for broadcast.  Perhaps, they were the only ones interested.  I do know, however, that in the recent past, that this website actually broke the news to one European Handball entity that their matches were now being broadcast in the U.S.  How could that possibly be, you might ask.   Well, it was certainly something that had me scratching my head.  It turns out that the primary reason for this was the farming out of TV rights to a 3rd party to distribute and make deals in foreign markets.   As I understand it, the 3rd party then gets compensated for each deal that’s made around the world.  Again, I’m not privy to the contract specifics, but such an arrangement probably makes it more likely that the highest bidder is going to win.  After all, the middleman has a short term contract and wants to make money.

The trade off of less money (heck, even paying ESPN) for greater exposure is simply not there for a middleman.  That’s not to say that money shouldn’t play a factor, but the right, smaller deal now could lead to better deals later.  Case in point was the EPL decision to go with NBC when reportedly beIN Sport was offering more money.  According to NBC Executive, Jon Miller, EPL Representatives “understand how a property can be hamstrung if it doesn’t have distribution.”  I’m not so sure, however, that the same can be said for European Handball representatives.

Going further, there’s probably a pretty good case to me made that the Europeans should have at least 1 person, if not a fully staffed office section, 100% devoted to the growth of foreign markets like the USA, China and India.  For sure, the U.S. Leagues have done so.  In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if the staff for NBA Global is bigger than the combined staffs of the EHF, IHF, HBL and the Liga Asobal.

Closing Thoughts on the Awareness Problem

I’ve gotten some negative feedback regarding my characterization of the awareness problem the sport faces in the U.S.  I’ve been told that I’m simply a Negative Nelly for exaggerating the problem and giving it too much prominence.  Essentially, by exposing the problem I’m making too strong of a case to Europeans and TV executives that it’s really mission impossible and they would foolish to waste time and money on something that’s never going to happen.

As you might expect I don’t buy that argument for a second.  I’ll just re-emphasize the crazy opportunity this awareness shortcoming presents.  The fact that such a great sport, tailor made for TV viewing has around 300 fans in this country is really unfathomable.  Despite all the challenges and obstacles I firmly believe that this sport will become a part of the American Sports landscape.  It’s not a question of if, but when?

So, I’ve now covered the underlying reasons why the U.S. didn’t qualify for the Olympics.  Namely the U.S. hasn’t had the funding/resources and that there’s a basic awareness/marketing problem which precludes the ability to secure more funding/resources.  Next, I’ll tackle some management/leadership shortcomings that have at times exacerbated the problems that USA Team Handball has faced.  

(Editor’s note:  At this time I haven’t delved into these shortcomings.  This currently is the last part of this series, but it may continue at some point in the future.)

Who Cares?: For many years this was the European attitude towards the development of Team Handball in the U.S.

In Part 5, I tried to fully capture the extent of Team Handball’s basic awareness problem in the U.S.  In part 6, I explained how more TV broadcasts could solve that exposure problem, but that a catch 22 TV paradox has kept the sport off the U.S. airwaves for decades.  In this part, I explain why the entities that would stand the most to gain if the U.S. was turned into even just a minor “handball nation” failed for years to lend an effective helping hand.  (Part 1) (Part 2) (Part 3) (Part 4)

Why should Europeans even care if the U.S. isn’t any good at handball?

First off, it’s probably a good idea to dispel the notion held by some that it just doesn’t matter that the U.S. isn’t any good at Team Handball.  After all, Americans are plenty good at a lot of other sports.  At the London Olympics the U.S. won the most overall medals and the Men and Women both won the Gold in America’s preeminent Olympic team sport, basketball.   With all this winning it’s not hard to contemplate how many might conclude that the Olympics will do just fine and dandy if the Americans don’t qualify in Handball and go without medals in field hockey, indoor volleyball and other sports.   And, it’s hard not to argue that for a typical non-American fan that is a perfectly rational viewpoint.

It is, however, more difficult to understand how any handball executive, coach or player could come to the conclusion that it doesn’t matter if most of the U.S. is oblivious to their sport.  A vast, untapped affluent market of over 300 million people?  A sport tailor made for the American mindset and only about 300 fans?  Oh my goodness!   Imagine just a small portion of that 300 million watching the sport on TV and buying merchandise.  It’s a potential bonanza that could raise the profile and income of virtually anyone involved with the sport.   Why then, for so many years did European handball entities not see and try to exploit the opportunity here?

Historical reasons for the lack of European support

As often is the case it was a combination of several different reasons that contributed to this lack of European support.  In no particular order, here are those reasons and some rationale as to why they may or may not have been valid:

1) Basic indifference:  While executives should have recognized the opportunities that the U.S. presented, I suspect that many simply had the same basic mindset of the typical indifferent fan.  Throw in some “Anti-Americanism” and you further compound the problem.

2) A belief that the U.S. can or should fix it themselves:  It’s no secret that the U.S. is one of the wealthiest countries in the world.  Why should they get any help?  If the U.S. wants to promote handball then it should spend its own money to do so.  This contextual viewpoint, however, doesn’t appreciate the fact that the U.S. government does not provide any funding to its sports federations.   And whereas many nations have a fairly egalitarian distribution of funding to their federations the USOC can and has limited its support to handball.

3) The lack of professionalism:  For many years European handball was more amateur than professional.  Accordingly, there was less structure and less concern with growing and bringing in more revenue.  As the club leagues became more professional and revenues increased, however, executives became more inclined to explore new marketing opportunities.

4) Market share struggles at home:  While the IHF has often proudly proclaimed that handball is the 2nd most popular sport in the world this is simply not true.  The reality is that even in countries where the sport has a significant following there are a lot of resources that have had to be expended to simply maintain market share at home.  The thought of expending scarce resources in a foreign country probably seemed foolhardy in many instances.

5) Unwillingness to pay upfront for potential return on investment.  Even when Europeans saw the potential they were usually unwilling to invest the necessary funding required for promotion in the U.S.  While this is somewhat understandable in the context of all the other challenges listed above, there have been unsubstantiated reports of lost opportunities along the way; Rumors of networks like ESPN expressing interest in broadcasting, but the deals not being closed due to European insistence on more money for rights fees.

6) Not understanding American sports structures and marketplace.  While anyone who’s traveled and/or lived in both Europe and the U.S. will find a lot of similarities between the two, there are still some significant differences.   Just try explaining the importance/relevance of collegiate and high school sports to a European or conversely explaining the European club structure to an American.  Or the concept of rotating seasons (U.S.) and the September to June model that Europe uses for most of its sports.  On top of all this is a U.S. sports marketplace which has been evolving rapidly in terms of TV channels and promotion.  Heck, U.S. sports (Baseball and Ice Hockey) have had trouble keeping up; Pity, the poor Europeans attempting to navigate this minefield.

7) Ineffective American sales pitches.  Well, it’s quite simple for me to sit back and whine about how clueless Europeans have been.  But, it would be disingenuous to not fully acknowledge that each of the reasons listed above also has an American failure component to it.  I wasn’t around for any of the pitches that have been made through the years by the U.S. Federation and others, so it’s impossible for me apportion “blame.”  It could be that past Federation officials were master promoters that couldn’t convince obstinate Europeans to do more.  Or, it could be that they were bumbling fools that savvy Europeans quickly determined weren’t worth supporting.  I will speculate, however, that it was somewhere in between with the U.S. being good, but not great promoters and the Europeans being a little more resistant then they should have been.

So, that’s why the Europeans for years paid scant attention to the development of Team Handball in the U.S.  In Part 8 I will highlight why Europeans have awoken to the possibility of turning the U.S. into a handball nation, but still haven’t quite figured out how to awaken the sleeping giant, that is USA Team Handball.

No, these three apples can really be plucked easily.

As anyone who has followed the trials and tribulations of USA Team Handball through the years knows the sport has some huge challenges.  Rome wasn’t built in a day and it won’t be quick and easy to solve all of USA Team Handball’s challenges either.  New General Manager, Matt Van Houten, most likely already has a massively long checklist of things to do.  Some of these items may take years to fully address and it’s only a matter of time for a chorus to rise up and start complaining that nothing has changed.

Fortunately, however, there are a few items that should be relatively easy to fix.  Items that can be accomplished to show near term progress while the more difficult items are addressed.   Herewith, is the low hanging fruit:

1) FIX THE WEBPAGE

This hardly needs any explanation.  Not only has it been updated way too infrequently for over a year it is has been woefully lacking in substance and style.   Here are a couple of recent examples to highlight a few obvious problems.

• Don’t post a one paragraph link to a bland IHF story on the upcoming challenge tournament.  Two USA youth teams are going to the tournament, but you wouldn’t know about it from this post.  Why not a story about some of those athletes and their ongoing preparation?  Or better yet, strongly encourage those athletes to blog about and during the upcoming event.
• There was a major club tournament last weekend in Chicago.  Why not a photo and a story or at least a link to a site with all that information?    Heck, I’m guessing, if asked, Craig Rot would have done a nice little write-up of the whole event.
• Find better quality photos.  The blurred “IHF trophy” block letters and the photo of the new GM just don’t cut it.
• Finally, if a site has an audio interview with the new GM, wouldn’t it make sense to link to relevant content like that.

The need to fix the webpage simply cannot be understated as it is the all important, first impression for literally thousands of potential fans and players of the game.   Probably more than a few potential sponsors, as well.  USA Team Handball cannot afford to let folks conclude as this Orange County register reporter did during the Olympics, that the sport is not a priority and that our webpage looks like it’s hosted by Geocities.

2) Secure a sponsorship deal with U.S. TV networks currently broadcasting Team Handball

Yes, there are networks broadcasting the sport in the U.S.  In former USATH CEO Mike Cavanaugh and former USATH GM Steve Pastorino’s fantasy world they would have walked on to the job with this situation in hand.  Cavanaugh tried for years to secure a TV deal unsuccessfully and Pastorino finally was able to facilitate a deal with the MHz network.   The MHz deal is gone, but now two networks (beIN Sport and Univision Deportes) have chosen to broadcast the sport totally on their own.

As far as I can tell (multiple emails regarding this topic to the Interim GM and BoD President have not merited a response) there has been no dialogue between the Federation and these two networks on potential sponsorship of USA Team Handball.  The MHz Network had some sort of deal with the USA Federation, so I’d like to think these two entities would also jump at the chance of sponsoring the Federation in exchange for a little promotion on the USA website.

3) Post USA Team Handball’s financial data on the Federation website.

The Federation’s own by-laws state the following:

Section 17.5. Website.

USATH shall maintain a website for dissemination of information to its members. USATH shall post on its website its Bylaws.  Additionally, USATH shall post on its website its most recent annual financial statement and its most recent 990 Form filed with the Internal Revenue Service.

Yet, the latest and greatest information is the 2009-2010 IRS Form 990 and a bad link to the 2011 BoD approved budget (it goes to a Form 990).    As we are approaching calendar year 2013 it’s more than high time to post more current information.   Not only is it a requirement, it’s the right thing for a transparent federation to do.

And to be even more transparent, some explanatory documents which highlight what key financial decisions are being made, and why in greater detail would be highly appreciated.   As an example of what not do, just try to decipher the notes regarding finances in the last two board meeting minutes (Feb 2012, May 2012).  These explanatory documents would not have to be a detailed prospectus, but they should give members real insight as to how much funding is going to support the various programs, be it club development, national team trips or organizing the Club National Championships.

So, three easy tasks that hopefully can be checked off the To Do List.  In the coming weeks, I’ll try to highlight some of the more important and challenging tasks that will require some heavy lifting.