In the 4th and final installment of our interview, we discuss how USA Team Handball is now organized and its current financial status.

[b]Federation Organization/Financial Status[/b]

John Ryan: One of the bigger changes between the old Federation and the newest incarnation is the radically different staffing philosophies. For many years 3 or 4 staff members oversaw operations from a national office. The current staff is much larger. Exactly how many full time and part time employees are there?

Steve Pastorino:

Full Time ADMINISTRATION:
1. Steve Pastorino/General Manager (UT);
2. Dan Bush/Membership & National Teams (UT);
3. Alex Leopold (IL) / PR, Website/Development

Full Time HANDBALL DEVELOPMENT:
4. Mariusz Wartalowicz/Technical Director (IL)
5. Brian Finley/West Region (CA)
6. Dominique Dumont/East (FL)
7. Marko Brezic/Regional Coach (UT)

PART TIME/INTERNS:
8. Greg Myers/Marketing & Chicago Youth Development (IL);
9. Aida Kulasic, Intern Chicago (IL)
10. Brandon Gustafson, Intern SLC (UT)
11. Tim Fifield, Intern Fresno (CA)
12. Jaclyn Rymer, Intern LA (CA)
13. Timo Krueger, Intern Chicago (IL) (from Germany)
14. Ditte Rasmussen, Intern (UT) (from Denmark)

JR: Why the change in staffing philosophy? What are the benefits?

SP:
1. I believe we should be a national federation, with presence in multiple regions. There is not one central hub of handball in America where all of the resources/people/development should be centered (not Atlanta, not NY, not LA).
2. I think we need to be significant enough (in size, dollars, manpower) to run this sport with the attention, breadth and aspiration it deserves. Therefore, my staffing plan is bigger and more aggressive than in the past.
3. Mariusz, Brian, Dominique and Marko give USA Team Handball a face and on-the-ground presence in four important and different regions. We are trying to be far more ambitious in scope than our predecessors, and our staff is far more useful in four different time zones than all in one place.

JR: Such a staff takes a bigger slice of a limited budget. Are you concerned that this will preclude other expenditures like international travel, funds for club development, etc?

SP: Everything requires money. We have made a case to USOC that handball deserves substantially greater funding, and our message has been well-received when we pitch our long-term plans to them. I want to grow USATH into a $1M-$5M/year organization, with proper grassroots programs, proper National Team expenditures, substantial staff/club/player/referee/coach development.

JR: I understand that USATH wants the budget to grow, but in the meantime you’re dealing with a limited budget. Some tough decisions are being made that impact a lot of people. If the U.S. was spending a little less on salaries we wouldn’t have athletes digging into their own pockets to represent our country in international competition. Conversely, someone could even make the argument that if we cancelled a few more trips we could hire another regional director. Everything does require money, but how are those tough decisions being made?

SP: My staff provides budgets based upon their geographical location and/or projects where they are assigned; I compile these and then I present proposed budgets to our board; and they assist me in the prioritization process.

JR: What are the current year projected overall revenues and expenses?

SP: Approx. $800,000 (up from $500k in 2008-09 fiscal year.)

JR: Do you see overall revenues increasing from year to year? Can you give me a rough idea of where will be in 2012,2016,2020?

SP: I’d like to be a $5M/year organization by 2016.

JR: How much has Board Chairman, Dieter Esch, personally contributed since being certified by the USOC?

SP: More than $500,000.

JR: Wow. Even for a wealthy man that’s a significant chunk of change. Where would USATH be right now without that level of contribution?

SP: There would be no USATH. Perhaps there would be another group running a federation; or perhaps the USOC would still be administering the sport.

JR: Have all other independent board members contributed the $50,000 required by the Federation by laws?

SP: Several are spreading the payments over multiple years. All are on track to make at least $50,000 in donations.

JR: How much funding has the USOC provided? What percentage of total revenue is it? Do you see that percentage becoming smaller?

SP: In 2009, it was approximately $140,000. In 2010, approximately $260,000. It has been less than 30% of operating revenues. We anticipate that USOC will continue to increase their contributions, and the percentage of overall revenues will be in line with other NGB’s of our size and scope.

JR: How much funding have our sponsors provided on a yearly basis? Do you see this increasing over time? How much has progress on this front been stymied by the recession?

SP: $100,000 – $150,000 in 2009 and 2010; I would like to see this grow substantially. The recession has made it difficult, but sponsors and grants are a key to our long-term viability.

JR: You indicated that USATH wants to grow the budget to $5,000,000. The current budget is $800,000. How does the USATH increase its budget 6-fold?

SP: We’ve tried to build a business model for the long term. We have identified new areas of income (international events i.e., Battle of Chicago) and taken advantage of new and/or less cheaper technology to connect and promote our sport (televising events both on our website and channels like ESPN3 and Comcast Sport Net, making our home page a portal for news/info relevant to handball players in America, social media such as Facebook, etc. We’re trying to make the federation less dependent on one board member or one Executive Director by bringing board and staff on board with different business acumen, geographic location and ideas about sport development. We’ve forged a close relationship and accountability with USOC and multiple federations and clubs across Europe. This business foundation allows us to do more of the sport development at youth, teen and adult levels.

JR: The current Board of Directors (BoD) construct consists of 7 members with independent credentials and 2 athlete representatives. None of these directors, with the exception of the athlete reps are elected by the membership. While, I think the independent directors have given the Board a better business orientation I’m concerned that the rank and file doesn’t have much of a voice on this current board. Do you think this is true? Should it be a concern?

SP: We are adding another athlete rep who will be elected by a broader group of individuals than the AAC Rep (which is an artificially small number per USOC Bylaws). The rules for this election will be established this week. This Board member will have an important voice. Additionally, we have had guests at several board meetings now, and we will continue to facilitate that. Any rank-and-file member who wishes to voice opinions (through board members, my staff or directly to me) is encouraged to do so – and we hear from members every single day. I think our Board representation is fair and this has not been an issue to date.

JR: Some sports have a larger body (e.g. a congress) that provides input to the board in an advisory role. Do you see USATH adding that?

SP: We’ve discussed it… but until I see / hear more feedback that it is requested by the membership, it is not a priority.

JR: You’ve covered a lot of ground in this interview and I’ve found it very informative. In some respects, though, I think it only scratches the surface in terms of USATH’s plans for the future. Does the USATH have a more detailed plan which outlines objectives and includes benchmarks to measure performance? If so, can the membership see that plan and provide input?

SP: We provide a High Performance Plan to USOC annually, but they primarily want to know about our long-term Olympic prospects, not the broader plans, business model, etc. I have read several “10-year Plans” that were written in the past at USTHF, and unfortunately, none of them came to fruition. I prefer to let our work speak for itself, but there is always room for more public input and participation.

JR: In closing, I’ll ask the same question I asked you two years ago when we first met at the USA Team Handball Summit in St Louis. You had just taken the GM job and had heard 8 solid hours of discussion in regards to the challenges of developing Team Handball in this country. I asked you then if you were starting to realize just how hard it was going to be and whether there any second thoughts about taking on this challenge. You were full of optimism then. Two years later, how do you feel?

SP: No second thoughts. This sport is rich in history and tradition, inspires great passion and has unlimited potential. Is it a challenge? Absolutely. Is it exciting to be a part of the process? Without a doubt. I’m still optimistic. Go USA.

This concludes the interview, here are links to the other 3 installments.
Interview Part 1 (National Team Planning): https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.1098
Interview Part 2 (Overseas Players and Future’s Program): https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.1101
Interview Part 3 (Part 3: College Programs and Club Issues): https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.1104

In part 3 of our interview, we discuss college programs and club issues in the U.S.

[b]College Programs[/b]

JR: What’s the USATH plan for college programs?

SP: We work with interested college students, club sports organizers, athletic departments, etc. On a case-by-case basis, we are trying to build programs. We try to identify an advocate everywhere we go. Success stories include: Texas A&M, Ohio State, Florida Atlantic, Oregon State, Gallaudet, Cal Lutheran – all of which participated in events last year. This coming year we are working with many schools including: Claremont Colleges, Utah, BYU, Colorado State, University of Illinois-Chicago, Western Kentucky, Penn State, Pitt, several Florida and Georgia schools. We don’t have an advocate / see a path to get it done more quickly on an intercollegiate/conference/regional basis.

JR: This year’s tournaments didn’t have a lot of college teams participating. What steps are being taken to expand the number of college clubs? Long term, how many clubs do you think the U.S. will have?

SP: I think we can get to 24 schools by 2012, with roughly half west of the Rockies. One key is to develop them in clusters, so they have nearby competition. I think the idea of College Nationals is ahead of its time; and we’d be better served with College West and College East championships, but for now, it’s worthwhile to protect and continue the tradition of one collegiate champion. I loved having Nationals outdoors in Myrtle Beach – it attracted a lot of attention and was a fun Spring Break type destination for our athletes, but it’s an expensive place to get to by air. We’re looking at similar environments near hub airports in the future.

JR: There was a short snippet in one of the Board’s Meeting minutes highlighting Cal Lutheran in Southern California as becoming a training site. What exactly is planned for that program?

SP: Cal Lutheran is one of USA Water Polo’s training centers so there’s precedent for their relationship with an NGB. They have lined two gyms with permanent handball lines and purchased equipment. They have supported the formation of a student club. They are making dorm space and gym space available to us on an annual basis for tryouts, clinics and/or camps. We will likely hold residential camps in the summer there as soon as 2011. We’re talking to University of Utah to do the same; and to schools in Central and Eastern time zones as well.

JR: Funds are limited and choices have to be made. Are college clubs seen as a cornerstone for USA development or a “nice to have”? In other words where does it fall in terms of priorities?

SP: They are a cornerstone. But we felt that we needed to establish a base of high schoolers playing first so we could begin to direct them to college programs starting in 2012 or so. We’ve spent more time on HS programs (futures and other grassroots) but always had our eye on colleges that would complement our other programs.

JR: Are there any plans to get Team Handball back on the NCAA Emerging Sports list? Could we even envision it as a fully sanctioned NCAA sport?

SP: It could be sanctioned NCAA sport sooner on the women’s side – which is why the Futures program was launched for girls one year before boys. But there’s a lot of work to do. We need dozens of established clubs before we can even think about Varsity status. When we have 10-20 solid clubs on men’s or women’s side, then we’ll revisit the idea of being an Emerging Sport again.

JR: Some sports federations, (USA Rugby for example) have a full time college director. Is that a possibility for USATH?

SP: Some day.

[b]Club Issues[/b]

JR: A lot of our discussion has focused on the end goal of a competitive National Team. But, this is not necessarily a priority for many members of the rank and file that just want to play the sport. How do you balance developing national teams while serving the needs of the membership base? Which has a greater priority and what’s a rough percentage as to how the USATH splits its efforts between those needs?

SP: I ask our regional directors (currently Brian and Dominique) to focus on clubs, members, grassroots – and as little as possible on National Teams. Mariusz and Dan spend time split between National Teams and Clubs. In Mariusz’ case, he oversees Coaching, Referees, Domestic competition, National Team organization, etc., so he’s pulled in many directions. Dan spends a significant chunk of time managing our Membership, but also helps communicate with the National Team pools and spending a few weeks a year with National Teams (where he doubles as our trainer).

Our members and their heritage as handball’s core supporters in America are still a huge priority. But we ask them to demonstrate that they are building a bridge to the next generation – incorporating young players into their clubs; coaching/mentoring kids; helping us with clinics/tryouts or other developmental activities. I think we’ve found a good balance between sustaining traditional competition, managing developmental programs and establishing a structure for National Teams.

JR: With a few exceptions, the current demographics for U.S. clubs tend to be older and international. How big a concern is this and what can be done to get to change those demographics to more and younger Americans playing?

SP: The overwhelming majority of participants in all of our new programs (Futures, urban programs in NYC/ATL/CHI, recently established clubs, grassroots programs) are individuals with US citizenship. We need to get the sport into the psyche of young American people and let them grow into our future. I know the demographics are changing, but you can’t tell yet by the rosters at Nationals. We are discussing an Olympic Sports Festival style event in 2011 that is for Youth & Junior National team candidates only.

JR: USATH has implemented a qualifying system for the Elite Championships. Are you satisfied with the current system? Do you expect it to continue to evolve?

SP: I’m sure it will evolve. For now, I think it’s what the member clubs want.

JR: There’s a real lack of legitimate Women’s clubs in the U.S. How is this being addressed?

SP: The Futures program introduced 150 young female athletes to the sport – and that number will hopefully double in 2010-11. As they get older and move on to college, they will be the core athletes that will comprise our next generation of college programs. If we form a dozen strong women’s collegiate programs, I think women’s clubs will follow. NYC THC, DC & Philadelphia are to be commended for starting women’s teams in 2009-10. Army, UNC, Furman Boston and Chicago continue to provide opportunities for women. The Futures program is primarily in the West right now, where opportunities have been especially thin.

JR: Many clubs in the U.S. put forth either no effort or only a token effort in regards to broadening their club to include youth and women teams. Is this a concern? How can these clubs be encouraged to do more?

SP: This is an old generalization, based upon “old clubs” in a club structure that is somewhat archaic. New clubs are putting more of an emphasis on broader development (Denver, Minnesota, DC, Philadelphia, Colorado Springs, Salt Lake, Chicago all come to mind). There will be a place for all of these clubs in the future… but we hope the majority of clubs become broader based.

JR: The National Championship Tournament has evolved to include a Men’s Elite and Open Division. Do you foresee this format continuing? Are you concerned that the open tournament might get too big?

SP: I hope we can continue the format… and I hope the Open tournament gets so big that it challenges us in every way. More clubs and competition is good – we all have to work collectively to make sure we can sustain and fund the growth.

JR: The Houston Firehawks Women’s team which dominated the Women’s Championship was almost entirely composed of Mexican citizens living in Mexico. Will USATH rewrite the rulebook to preclude non-American teams participating in the U.S. National Championships?

SP: Our Championships are open to teams that adhere to the Rulebook and meet the established criteria. There are no plans to overhaul the Rulebook. If we elevate the level of women’s handball in the USA, the Firehawks’ makeup won’t be the issue.

JR: U.S. sanctioned events now charge foreign clubs an extra $100 to participate. This has upset some Canadian clubs that were never charged before. What’s behind this policy? Is the extra revenue worth the ill will it may have caused?

SP: The more teams that compete in events in the USA, the higher the costs are for the organizers and USATH (referees, sanctioning, insurance, facilities, etc.) It’s a modest fee to ask (roughly $5-$10/player) when we ask our own players to pay $60 to compete. In Minnesota next month, we are waiving the fee because Canada is supplying some referees. If Canadian teams/players would rather register as USATH members, they can avoid the $100 fee. It is not intended to cause long-term strife between us and our friends in Canada.

In the 4th and final part of our interview, we discuss USATH’s organizational structure and financial status.

Links to Parts 1 and 2:
Interview Part 1 (National Team Planning): https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.1098
Interview Part 2 (Overseas Players and Future’s Program): https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.1101