First of all, like John Ryan, I want to express my delight over the high-quality broadcasts from Austria. Thank you, EHF, for ensuring that. One would wish that such handball propaganda would be available worldwide more often!

For me personally, it was a special experience to sit at home, like a ‘spider in a web’, having an overview of everything that was going on. During many, many years, my typical experience from World Championships amounted to ‘being stuck’ in one group, seeing the same few teams and referee couples for a week at a time. One then becomes somewhat ‘myopic’, getting an in-depth view of one segment of the overall event, but without any opportunity to make comparisons across the whole event and to spot any important trends. Indeed, despite not being on duty this time, I felt more ‘on top of things’ than ever before.

Nevertheless, I will try to tread carefully, not intervening unduly with the job of my old EHF and IHF colleagues. But apropos individual referee performances, it was especially nice to see the good progress of two younger couples, Horacek/Novotny (CZE) and Nikolic/Stojkovic (SRB). By contrast, I feel that several of the more experienced couples did nothing to strengthen their status The exceptions were Olesen/Pedersen (DEN) and Lazaar/Reveret (FRA) who confirmed their standing from 2009, and I was also happy to see that Abrahamsen/Kristiansen (NOR) had such a strong showing. Some other couples were able to use their experience to keep some games under a semblance of control and to appear reasonably even-handed, but this is not enough if questionable observations or judgments then start piling up. Finding the right mix of more experienced couples and younger, motivated couples will be a key issue for 2011. Fortunately, there are also a few couples who recently showed a good level in the women’s World Championship.

But the clearest impressions involve overall problem areas. It is a bit frustrating, but rather typical, that [u]the same old issues tend to come up[/u]. For instance, it tends to get me ‘worked up’ when I see so many unwarranted 7-meter decisions given, with the ‘excuse’ that a defender was in the goal-area. In far too many cases, these observations were simply wrong; as I have asked myself over the years, why does this have to be so difficult? And then the decisions regarding ‘offensive foul’, in those situations where an attacker tries to penetrate at the 6-meter line, at the same time as one or two defenders move laterally to close the gap. In no other area did the inconsistencies seem to be as great as in this one. Of course, the continuous struggle between pivot and defender, also when the ball is not anywhere near, continues to present difficulties. Nothing new for the referees or for my old colleagues, but the hard work needs to continue.

Editor's Note: Christer elaborates in detail on 'the same old issues' in the forum: https://teamhandballnews.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?1434

This leads me to what was for me the real revelation from my position of overview. One tends to focus on the strengths and weaknesses of individual couples, and their ability or inability to stay consistent during a game. But here the striking thing was the [u]clear differences in approach from one couple to another[/u], regarding style, game control, ‘tactics’, observation skills, concentration, judgment of key situations, or essentially the whole spectrum of refereeing. Each couple may have maintained some notion of consistency, but there was no ‘common line’, not a strong consistency among couples. Clearly, this must be a source of concern and problems for the teams. It should not be necessary to become surprised and have to adjust from one match to the next in this way. Here I believe is a key target for further, urgent improvements. Easier said than done, of course, but critical for the happy co-existence between teams and referees.

As regards this co-existence, for the most part the atmosphere on the court and between referees and team officials was no worse than what is normal. The number of ‘incidents’ was relatively limited, and some of those cases that did arise clearly resulted from inconsistencies between couples, as just discussed. But, as I commented in an article a couple of months ago, https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.889 most of the awkward scenes involving referees and coaches were more related to [u]systematic, ‘tactical’ provocations[/u]. All of us can easily distinguish between the spontaneous and brief reactions that are fully normal and understandable, and the continuous 60-minute ‘drama’ along the sideline, with gestures and outcries before and after referee decisions. The latter is a behavior against which not enough action is taken. Coaches are smart enough to understand that such behavior is not likely to improve referee performances, but they are also ready to believe that they may occasionally succeed, more than the opponents, in causing referee mistakes in their favor.

Finally, what is also frustrating is the awareness that some teams are capable of having a subtle influence in other ways that I view as unethical. Some of the methods involve on-court ‘theater’, where some players, often the ‘stars,’ have mastered the skill of faking and provoking, ‘dying’ on the court several times during a game. The referees need to be supported strongly in their efforts, not just to avoid falling for the tricks but to punish them. But it is even worse if the influence takes place off the court, when political clout enables teams to have impact on referee nominations and/or to create an atmosphere such that everyone involved in the games, including the referees, feel the pressure.

On January 23, THN provided an English translation https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.930 of an article that was published in the well-known German magazine ‘Der Spiegel’. In this article, it was noted that the IHF president, Hassan Moustafa, had been under a personal contract with the Sportfive marketing agency, with a remuneration of 602,000 Euro, during a period for which Sportfive had won a contract with the IHF for the TV rights to all IHF events. ‘Der Spiegel’ had obtained a copy of the contract between Moustafa and Sportfive, and also a confirmation directly from Moustafa.

Clearly, for Mr. Moustafa to obtain a very vague, but lucrative personal contract from Sportfive while at the same time the IHF is selling its valuable TV rights to the very same company, in a competitive bid situation, smacks of [u]conflict of interest[/u], to put it mildly. That some observers will take it a step further and start talking about kick-backs is rather understandable, especially as they feel that Moustafa has shown over the years that he has no understanding of, or regard for, the concept of ‘conflict of interest’. This remarkable state of affairs was picked up by handball media around the world, for instance in the major handball web site ‘Handball-World’. http://www.handball-world.com/o.red.c/news.php?auswahl=23915&GID=1

Not surprisingly, the IHF president found it necessary to try to counter these damning reports. On January 26, the IHF issued a press bulletin regarding the Spiegel report to back up statements the president had made. This press bulletin, however, was only provided to German news outlets, https://teamhandballnews.com/request64.html and has not been posted on the IHF website. The impression is that the IHF avoids giving its own press bulletin too much publicity, in an attempt to keep the exposure of the whole matter as limited as possible. This does not tend to be the methods of someone who has nothing to hide.

But the key points of the press bulletin are worth noting: in the face of the existing evidence, the president does not attempt to deny the existence of the lucrative contract. Instead, he tries to downplay the issue with rather hilarious arguments. For instance, “he was at this time [u]primarily a businessman[/u] with a Cairo-based company, with which Sportfive had obtained a contract, and [u]his position with the IHF was in any event just an honorary one[/u].” Well, while the president may feel that this attempt to portray his relative priorities may provide some kind of excuse, it all too well reflects precisely what his critics have said about the priority he has given to personal enrichment, in contrast to his treating the development of world handball as a small matter on the side.

It is also somewhat amusing that the press bulletin closes with the comment that the “the IHF has come to the conclusion that Moustafa in all respects has acted correctly”. I think it is universally understood that an IHF Media Officer will describe an ‘IHF conclusion’ in the way that the autocratic president orders it to be described… The typical reactions of knowledgeable people to both the initial revelations and the attempt at a rebuttal are well captured in the web site of the well-known German investigating journalist Jens Weinrich, http://jensweinreich.de/?p=6273 who also criticizes sports media in handball-crazy Germany for not giving the matter quicker and more prominent coverage.

An interesting twist to the whole story is that the Director of Sportfive during the period through 2009, when Sportfive had both the IHF TV rights and the personal services contract with Moustafa, was a Robert Mueller von Vultejus, who has since abandoned Sportfive in favor of a rival entity, UFA Sports, a subsidiary of the important German media group RTL. UFA Sports, which was established as recently as in 2008, was in early 2009 ready to jump into the competition for the IHF TV rights for the new quadrennial 2010-13. Somewhat to the surprise of the sports media world, [u]UFA managed to beat out Sportfive and other competitors and gained the rights for 2010-13[/u]. http://www.handball-world.de/o.red.c/news.php?GID=1&auswahl=23203 These results were announced in connection with the IHF Congress in June 2009. At the time, it may simply have seemed that this ‘coup’ could be ascribed to the experience acquired by Mueller von Vultejus when dealing with the IHF while at Sportfive.

But after the most recent revelations, the new regime at Sportfive is perhaps beginning to wonder if there’s more to the story as they have indicated that they are now examining the events involving Sportfive’s relationship with the IHF and Moustafa. They are bound to be asking if their former Director brought his questionable practices with him to his new company and therefore whether the bidding was really won fairly by UFA, as now is being forcefully claimed by Mueller von Vultejus. Perhaps the bidding was not as ‘sealed’ and confidential as it should have been!? Persons connected with the IHF who are familiar with the process would understandably be unwilling to risk their situation by speaking openly, but it would not come as a shock if one day it came out in the public that UFA had indeed been given a chance to [u]ensure[/u] that they had the winning bid…

Finally, on a personal note, I would like to say that it is painful to have reasons to keep writing negative things about the IHF. But my loyalty is to [u]handball[/u], its image and success, and to the people who work in an honest and selfless way for handball, [u]not[/u] to the IHF and its current regime.

Today the IHF President tries to deny any impropriety in the matter of his mixing personal business arrangements and his key role in the IHF business arrangements with the former TV rights holder of the IHF, Sportfive. Of course, when ‘conflict of interest’ appears to be an unknown concept to a person, then it is easy to deny any wrongdoing. However, THN will shortly come back to this matter, especially as new revelations are not unlikely. For instance, the new Sportfive management has stated that investigations continue regarding the dealings between their former director and Moustafa.

But this is not the only matter these days where poor judgment is reflected in the IHF decision-making. For instance, as has been proudly announces, the IHF will in a few days host a [b]'working group' meeting[/b] on the urgent issue of the strained [b]competition calendar[/b] and the strained relations between IHF/continental/national federations and clubs/players. But even when finally taking a first step on this important matter, the IHF does it in a way that has invited criticism. For such sensitive matters it is crucial not to put one’s foot wrong regarding procedures and participation, if one wants to get all parties concerned to feel ‘ownership’ of the outcome. Criticism has been heard on several aspects.

First, the focus is exclusively on [u]men’s[/u] handball. Clearly, the women’s handball suffers from the same problems regarding the congestion in the competition calendar and the pressures on the top players. Perhaps it may practical to have two separate meetings, but [u]if[/u] there is such awareness and sensitivity on the part of the IHF, then one indicates up front that ‘the corresponding issues for the women’s handball will be dealt with separately’. But there is no hint of that, so naturally this has caused claims of discrimination. Moreover, while clubs have been invited, there is no direct representation for the key persons in this whole matter, i.e., [u]the players[/u]. The usual mistake has been made in assuming the interests of the clubs and the interests of the players as individuals coincide. As recent THN articles have underscored, this is certainly not how the players view the matter.

Then one needs to ensure that there is no sense of a biased [u]hand-picking[/u] of participants. Croatia, France, Germany and Spain are the only countries represented, both for federations and for clubs. (As it happens, three of these countries are also represented in the IHF Executive.) The line must be drawn somewhere, and we are not suggesting that, for instance, the Irish or the Maltese should have been invited, but surely a somewhat broader inclusion genuinely strong handball countries would have been helpful to the process. Similarly, why would IHF get involved in hand-picking clubs, when there is a well-known and formal entity representing the top men’s clubs, namely the GCH!? Nevertheless, we can only hope that the IHF learns it lessons of politics and procedures as the effort moves along.

Another issue is the mysterious and secretive (although by insiders fully anticipated) appointment of a new [b]Managing Director[/b] in the person of Mrs. Amal Khalifa. The issue is not that the IHF has chosen to go back to the traditional method of having one person at the top, as opposed to situation of having two parallel positions of Head of Sports and Head of Administration. Following the most regrettable departure of Ekke Hoffmann, who found his situation increasingly untenable, it was a natural move to appoint a Managing Director. But while the President and the Executive have the ‘excuse’ that the By-Laws give them the right to be in charge of the IHF Office, it smacks of abuse of power, nepotism and lack of professionalism, when it just suddenly appears that the faithful old ‘servant’ of the President starts signing documents as Managing Director.

The ‘stealth’ involved is the same as when Mrs. Khalifa first arrived as Head of Administration, replacing Mr. Geissler who had been let go. For months, the IHF made no announcement, and in fact continued to give the explicit impression that Mr. Geissler was still in charge. For a position as vital to the IHF as that of Managing Director, clearly a genuinely professional and international search process is warranted. There is not likely to be shortage of highly qualified candidates, all of whom would be without the baggage of Mrs. Khalifa as a long-term ally of the President. Moreover, Mrs. Khalifa does not appear to have any of the background that would have matched an appropriate job description and advertisement. And then the final clincher: after the IHF Council had agreed that at some point the Managing Director position was going to be reinstated, they found themselves caught unaware by the specific appointment just like the rest of the handball world.

The third issue is one that normally never comes out in the open. It concerns the [b]monetary compensation[/b] granted to IHF officials. The president will now be earning a salary, but the amount has not been revealed. Apart from that, the compensation takes two forms: first there is an annual honorarium for all council members, in recognition of the work they are supposed to perform; this amount differs from one position to another, as it is taken into account that some positions carry a much heavier burden throughout the year. Of course, one really wonders how much work the continental representatives actually carry out on behalf of the [u]IHF[/u]. For the most part, they represent the interests of their respective continents and also carry out the bulk of their work in and for their respective continents/federations. The individual amounts are confidential.

In addition, each IHF official receives a ‘per diem’ for each day spent in meetings, conferences and especially World Championships (including the travel time). This is not a per diem in the sense that it is supposed to cover the expenses for hotels and food. This is provided separately. So the per diem is really nothing other than ‘pocket money’. The rate used to be the same for all categories, but some years ago it was increased for council members. It was explained internally that this was just another, less conspicuous way of providing money, in lieu of increasing the rates for the honorarium. Last December, however, the Council granted itself a hefty increase to 400 Sw.Frs. per day, whereas the rates for all other IHF officials, such as commission members, lecturers and referees, were set in the range 100-200 Sw.Frs., depending on the level of the event involved. This means that those who, generally speaking, do the least amount of work during a World Championship get substantially more than the ‘working people’.

Of course, when judging these provisions, one must keep in mind that that there is no compensation for the loss of the regular income of the individuals concerned. This argument may be less relevant for an official who was volunteered to be elected for a position, but it may be more so for those, like referees, who are brought in to do a very necessary job. But the fundamental concern is that of a lack of a clear rationale, transparency and accountability. Moreover, to the extent that some key officials in elected/volunteer positions do carry out a very large amount of work, not just during events but throughout the whole year, this may often be the result of a huge lack of professional, hired resources for technical positions at the IHF Office. This is another reason why the recent move towards a set-up with ‘one big chief’ and lots of ‘foot soldiers’ goes completely in the wrong direction.

The current international competition calendar calls for the men’s and women’s World Championships to follow the pattern of always taking place in January and December respectively. The same goes for the European men’s and women’s Championships. As is right now happening in Austria, it means that a large proportion of these events are held in winter climate, especially, as is often the case, when they are organized in Central Europe or the Nordic countries.

While handball, of course, is playing these events indoors, it still means that the organizers, the participants and the spectators have to reckon with the complications and the caprices that the winter weather may cause. It may have an effect on the scope for recreational and social activities between games, but normally it is related to the issue of transportation to and from match sites and training etc. Rarely does it have an impact on the conduct of the games. But it does happen!

From my personal experience I can mention a situation where snow and ice on power lines caused temporary electrical failure and a commensurate postponement of matches. I also remember a scary episode where a bus with a team skidded off the road, although fortunately without any injuries as a result. But once inside the handball arena one tends to be able to assume that everything will be OK.

In one relatively recent case, the Men’s World Championship in Tunisia in January 2005, it seemed rather safe to assume that the climate would give us a break from any worries about the impact of cold temperatures. But we were less than well-informed about typical temperatures, and we were also surprised by the state of the hall for one of the four preliminary groups. We encountered a situation where the temperature inside the hall was so low that we spent a week shivering and getting numb, despite learning quickly about the need for bundling up with all the warm clothes we could find.

Coat, scarf, cap and gloves were needed between games and during half-time, for those of us who were on IHF duty and had to sit still during three consecutive games, looking proper in blazer and tie on world-wide television. The players were fine as long as they were moving, but there were several intended substitutions that never materialized, because the players on the bench did not have time to shed all the layers of clothes before it was too late. The two teams that seemed to take it in more in strides were the cold-weather veterans from Iceland and Russia. But not even they were prepared for what would happen precisely in the game between the two of them.

Nothing seemed amiss during the warm-up, but it soon became clear as the game started, especially with quick steps and changes of direction needed for the attacking players outside the 9-meter line on one side, that something ‘slightly unusual’ was going on. The Icelandic team mysteriously skidded around and lost the ball on the attack several times early in the game. Frequent time-outs and wiping did not help. Finally I had to conclude that more drastic measures were needed and the game was halted. A discussion with the organizers suggested that their normal cleaning methods, suited for a wood floor, had inappropriate been used for the artificial playing surface. Nothing could really be seen, but apparently the cleaning residue, combined with the frigid temperature and condensation caused by sweating players, made for a surface that behaved like a sheet of ice.

A normally reliable method for this is to apply alcohol in large quantities; fortunately not vodka or scotch, which might have been harder to find, but the industrial variety. After some search, and then a period of intensive scrubbing and drying, the game could finally be resumed after a half-hour delay. Not an ideal situation in a game broadcast live abroad, but fair conditions and, above all, player safety must be paramount. Our Icelandic friends caught up and had the game tied at half-time, but in the end the experience may have caught up with them and they lost the game.

A change in the competition calendar is being sought by many of the major federations and clubs for good reasons, and the episode above may provide additional arguments as to why this might be advisable…