In response to what has been written both by us in THN and in other media, I have had some feedback from persons who have either had some involvement in the process or are concerned about the results of the proposals before the IHF Extraordinary Congress.

It is understandable that people who are not directly involved have a very limited understanding of the issues, because the IHF has not exactly been open and transparent about what is going on. Not many have had an opportunity to review and understand the implications of the proposals. The same goes for the process that has been followed; not many know how it has happened that we now have a set of proposals that in many respects appear very dangerous and inappropriate. So I would like to dispel some misunderstandings.

Some persons have characterized the issue as essentially being a fight between the IHF and the EHF. This is mostly misleading, as it is true only in the sense that the EHF is the only entity that has openly protested against the proposals and pointed to the dangers involved. But this has happened only very late in the process, and personally I am not impressed with the overall role that the EHF has played; they have been far too unsuspecting or low-key until very recently. They were not invited to be part of an earlier Working Group but there is no indication that they were protesting this exclusion. Similarly, there is no indication that the EHF President ‘created an upheaval’ against what was happening, at the time of the most recent IHF Council meeting. Nevertheless, I am of course pleased that the EHF is now finally attempting to coordinate some kind of resistance.

Others have unfortunately focused more on the process than on the substance. There are indications of a ‘blame game’ between members of the Working Group and members of the IHF Council. From the Working Group it is said that ‘we just put forward a proposal but all decisions were taken by the Council’. From the Council it has been heard that ‘we are not experts so we felt we had reason to trust what was proposed by the Working Group’… If all the participants want to hold someone else responsible, guess who benefits from this kind of finger-pointing: the IHF President from whom almost all of the fundamental and dangerous proposals originated. Clearly, the process was not the issue. The President knew that he would not encounter any resistance. Far too many of the persons involved have their respective personal reasons for just going along with it!

So I simply want to restate briefly what I indicated in my lengthy article on March 21, https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.985 namely that there are [u]two completely inappropriate tendencies[/u] in the proposed new Statutes: [u]1. indications of a one-sided and heavy-handed shift in power in favor of the IHF, at the expense of all other levels and members in the international handball family, and 2. a major expansion of the personal power of the President.[/u] These are tendencies that run completely counter to all sound and modern principles for the management and decision-making in an international sports organization or, for that matter, in any democratic institution. Handball is being sent in a fast and dangerous down-hill slide. [u]Those of you who are in a position of influence must stop it before it is too late![/u]

As noted recently in Part 1 of my interview with Jaume Fort, he was for many years a world-class handball goalkeeper, playing on the Spanish national team during the period 1988-2000. In the process, he gained a bronze medal in the Olympic Games and a silver medal in the European Championships, both in 1996.

When Jaume finished his career as a player, he did remain firmly involved in handball, but not as a coach (and not even as referee, although I suspect he could have become a good one…). Instead he sensed a responsibility vis-à-vis his young successors. It is not surprising that, on the basis of what they knew about his character, his sense of ‘right and wrong’ and his eloquence in various languages, he struck them as the right person to have on their side.

[i]CA: So, Jaume, how did this ‘second handball career’ get started?[/i]

JF: I always tried to get 100% involved in Handball and be sensitive to what happened beyond the playing court. I was involved with ABM (Spanish Players’ Association) since its creation and I took up its presidency when I was playing for Teka Santander. When I retired, both the French and the Spanish players asked me to take the position of President for the European Handball Players’ Union (EHPU). There is a lot of work to be done, but it is a volunteer position without compensation, so for professional reasons I don’t know how long I will be able to carry on with this task.

[i]CA: In your role as Head of the EHPU, and looking at the situation of the top players in Europe, how do you view the current discussion about competition calendar, financial compensation, and the physical demands on the players?[/i]

JF: We have to be realistic: it will be very difficult to find global solutions which are valid to every stakeholder. Even among the players from different countries the situation varies a lot. Whereas top European players are completely burnt out by the inhuman physical and mental strain, the majority of players cannot complain about a brutal competition calendar. In my opinion, the only way out is to reduce the number of national team competitions, with just one EC and 1 WC in every Olympic cycle… and this will not happen in the next few years because the EHF and IHF events have been already awarded.

On the positive side, I would like to point out that the overall level of the 2010 European Championship recently held in Austria was considerably higher than in Norway 2008, where the players had to play 8 matches in 10 days. Planning more rest days at the major competitions is a small step in the right direction.

[i]CA: Am I right in sensing that while one talks a lot in public about pushing the players too far, most of the discussions involving federations and clubs in fact focus more on money?[/i]

JF: Absolutely right. Taking all competitions separately; no one can be directly “accused” of pushing the players too far. The problem arises when you add up all international club and national team competitions. The clubs want the return on their investments (players) to be achieved, so it is dramatic for them to get a player injured, especially if the injury takes place while the player has been released to the national team. If the clubs got a big sum of money as injury compensation, would they still be so concerned about the players’ health? Meanwhile, we’ll keep on seeing coaches “crying” when their players fall injured, but who is really going to stand up for the players’ rights?

[i]CA: Yes, it is difficult to see that the views and concerns of the players are being considered sufficiently? It seems that often it is assumed that the clubs can speak for the players, but isn’t there a bit of a conflict of interest?[/i]

JF: The concerns of the players are definitely not taken into account. To some extent, players are also to blame here, since they have often been concerned just by the figures on their contracts. The foundation of EHPU is a sign that collective awareness is slowly growing. In many aspects the player’s interests converge with those of their employers but it comes a point where players have to make their own voice heard. I am trying to convey the message to the players that they have to gain more influence. EHPU is promoting the creation of player associations in countries where such associations do not exist. The goal is to get a strong, united voice and use this influence in a responsible way. Having a constructive attitude towards the current situation is the only way to gain credibility among the other stakeholders, who have traditionally seen players’ unions or athletes’ commissions as a problem.

[i]CA: It seems to me that the issues are very much the same for both male and female players, with the same calendar issues and the same physical demands? But most of the discussions involve the men’s teams and the male players; how come? Are the female players ‘super women’ who do not need the same protection?[/i]

JF: Women have the same problems; especially in countries like Norway and Denmark, where the women’s handball is at a high level, with strong, busy club teams and top players who are also on their national teams around the world. In our last meeting with the EHF representatives in Innsbruck, we made it clear that this issue should also be dealt with. Annelise Vido, the EHPU board member representing the Danish players is doing a great job by raising all issues which affect especially women.

[i]CA: What are the keys to improving the overall situation as you see it?[/i]

JF: Basically, players should have a voice and a vote in the decision-making bodies. Apart from the competition calendar, other issues to be dealt with are the standardization of contracts, life after the sports career, medical care and a minimum level of insurance, and providing the players with all necessary anti-doping information.

[i]CA: Apropos decision-making bodies, you have had a frustrating experience, being on paper a member of the IHF Athletes’ Commission but being given basically no opportunity to be active and participate. Recently we have observed severe problems regarding the governance of the IHF, with frequent scandals at the top level and now currently a clearly deliberate attempt to change the By-Laws in a way that would seem to create a dictatorship with no ‘checks and balance’s and no room for other opinions; how do you view this development from the standpoint of the athletes?[/i]

JF: Handball has recently caused too many negative headlines on the media, and this has damaged the image of handball. Instead of releasing clear and transparent statements and taking appropriate actions, there was a long silence before the IHF at best showed some kind of weak-willed reaction. There is a need to urgently bring more transparency to the governance of the IHF, and the new By-Laws proposal is definitely a dangerous step in the wrong direction. I hope that all those who will be casting their votes at the next IHF Congress understand what is at stake!

Already in 2005, when the IHF Athletes’ Commission (AC) was created, we expressed our willingness to contribute in many ways to the promotion of our sport. Unfortunately, the AC has been totally ignored. Meanwhile, we have seen all these negative events and witnessed important staff changes within the IHF without any clear explanation. The recent comments from IOC President Rogge on Moustafa’s contract with Sportfive should clearly be a serious warning for the IHF and its President. I appeal to common sense and hope that the well-being of handball will prevail.

[i]CA: On a more positive note, if we look to the ability of handball to compete with other sports and other leisure activities, for young athletes, for spectators, media interest, and sponsors, what can we do to increase our attractiveness? (new tactics, rules changes, the ‘framework’/atmosphere for the matches etc)[/i]

JF: I’m afraid that any substantial change of the rules will collide with the traditional reluctance of coaches, players and fans to change the essence of handball. The new IHF rule book that has recently been issued contains no big changes.

The Bundesliga has made some steps in the right direction by presenting handball in a very professional way, where fans consider every match as the event of the day. The spectators gather together in the sports hall long before the match begins and they stay until all interviews are over. There are big halls where sponsors (and occasionally also fans) can have close contact with the players. Furthermore, the atmosphere during the matches is really hot.

It would be interesting to make our sport become more popular in other countries and continents. I follow the initiatives to introduce handball in the USA, and I can’t help wondering if these attempts have been properly coordinated with the national and continental federations. The celebration of the next Olympic Games in London should also be accompanied by promotional activities in Great Britain. Could the Super Globe, which is now scheduled to take place in Qatar, not have been celebrated in London for example? The IHF AC could very well serve the promotion of handball worldwide.

Some actions to be taken are, for instance:
• Creating a handball “Ambassador Tour”
• Developing handball schools in countries where handball is not so popular.
• Releasing a short “hype” video showcasing big celebrations, crazed fans, incredible plays and goalie saves with spirited music.
• Make the technical videos available to the handball community through the internet.

[i]CA: THN is happy to have been able to provide a forum for interesting observations and ideas from a player perspective. As can be seen above, the views presented are not selfish or controversial but constructive and for the common good of all parties. We thank Jaume and hope that it will be a more common occurrence to have the voice of the players as an integral part of any discussions about the development of handball.[/i]

[i]'Part 1'with background information about gender issues and some provocative examples from the world of handball can be found here[/i]: https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.979

First of all I want to thank both the contributors who kindly accepted my invitation (their names will be show up throughout the text below and also down at the bottom) and those of our readers who took the trouble to send me their ideas.

In the feedback, there was a clear demarcation between the issues related to the ‘active participants’, i.e., players, coaches and referees, and the problems involving gender issues in the management of our sport. I will first pull together the comments regarding the differences in the men’s and the women’s game.

It was stressed by several, for instance Ekke Hoffmann, that we have to accept the realities related to basic physical differences between men and women. The men can play a stronger and faster game, and there is no point in having the women compete along those dimensions. Some noted that for a large proportion of both men and women watching sports, speed and raw strength is a fascination (compare the interest in Formula 1 racing, boxing and wrestling), so this will create an edge when it comes to TV coverage, sponsors and spectator numbers.

However, as many pointed out, including Frantisek Taborsky on the basis of scientific studies, and on the basis of years of observations, there are aspects of the game where the women can gain an edge. There is no reason why they should not excel on the basis of technical skills and interesting tactics. They also have some typical advantages in terms of psychological aspects. All in all, women’s players and women’s teams can indeed offer spectacular handball, as long as they are not focusing on competing with the men in ways where they have a natural disadvantage.

It was also pointed out, for instance by Jesper Harborg from Denmark, that often what matters the most is not the nature of the game but simply the success team are having. When the Danish national team had a long period when they were dominating globally, they automatically created a strong interest, and there was no lack of spectator or media support.

Some were commenting that women players tend to have a general disadvantage from a young age, being discriminated in terms of training time, resources and attention. As Ekke was noting, a major longer-term improvement would depend on targeted efforts with higher-quality coaching for female players in the younger age groups.

It was noted that media treatment of women’s handball may continue to be discriminatory in many places, not the least because, while changes may be coming, the majority of the handball journalists are still men. The watch and compare handball from a man’s perspective, sometimes failing to recognize the special qualities of women’s handball. Or, as Jesper pointed out, also in countries with strong support for the women’s game, there may exist tendencies to sexism in the reporting, i.e., comments on the way the players look (or even lead their lives) instead of on their qualities as players.

The fact that an overwhelming proportion of the coaches at the elite level are men, also for the women’s teams, was not seen as surprising. A lot simply depends on traditions in most cultures, where it is perfectly normal for men to be the ‘bosses’ of women but not the other way around. There is no reason why this should not gradually be changing, as women who have been leaders on their teams as players and have an instinct for teaching would be excellent candidates for good coaching careers. Indeed, chances are that it would be a clear advantage for the development of women’s handball if female coaches were more to become much more common. But it is a trend that needs to be strongly and explicitly supported by federations, at both higher and lower levels, for instance through facilitated access to the necessary education.

The issues related to women referees are somewhat similar to those of women coaches. But it seems that decisions to go into refereeing often depend, for both men and women, on strong personal characteristics that make individuals ignore traditions and what is expected from them. In other words, being interested in a referee career requires a certain willingness to fight obstacles.

As Patricia Malik de Tchara noted, the women need to view their goals and interests more on an individual basis, not as members of the female gender, with an attitude that dedication and hard work will yield results for a determined individual. Tetiana Rakytina and Irina Tkachuk agreed, but noted that the drop-out rate for women starting refereeing careers may be higher due to pressures related to traditional family roles and other expectations.

But there was clear agreement that the acceptance for women referees at the elite level has been surprising good. Prejudices are noted in some parts of the world, but the teams tend to appreciate and focus on the actual performances. It has also helped that the IHF and continental federations have made a special effort to prioritize and integrate women at the top level; it has created a ‘demonstration effect’. But ‘artificial’ efforts are not a longer-term solution. A sufficient volume must be reached, from the bottom up, so that a natural progression to the higher levels can be had. Federations must simply sense their obligation to make serious efforts to increase the proportion of female referees, through recruitment, education, mentoring and strong opportunities for advancement.

[u]Leadership positions[/u]

When the discussion turned to the gender inequalities in positions of leadership in handball, especially at the IHF and continental/national levels, there was virtual unanimity and a much stronger tone. The current situation simply is not acceptable.

Carin Nilsson-Green talked about frequent embarrassment at IHF events in different parts of the world, where host countries showed a better gender balance than the very one-sided IHF picture. Desperate efforts to fit in some women delegates and referees at least at the women’s world championships have not helped much. And the nice PR photos of an IHF Council with one woman out of 17 are telling it the way it is. Dawn Allinger-Lewis commented that it is one of the saddest realities for her, after retirement as a player, to continue to see the massive male dominance in all areas of handball management internationally.

While the clear preference was for a focus on what needs and can be done, there were several comments about why the situation is the way it is. Ward Hrabi talked about reflections of societal norms and traditions as regards the filling of positions of leadership. As I myself noted in Part 1, one must keep in mind that in sports there is a gap of 1-2 generations between the active athletes and the managers. In other words, the pool of candidates for top positions reflects more what was available and typical among athletes quite some time ago. Not only was the gender balance not quite what is was today, but former star athletes were affected by traditions and confliction priorities in a way that one hopes will now gradually be in the past.

But there was a strong consensus that is just not good enough to wait for demographics and traditions to change, so that the balancing will begin to happen by itself. Strong and active measures are needed, not the least because the current, one-sided cadre of leaders is not likely to relinquish positions and power voluntarily at an accelerated pace just to make room for a better mix.

Despite the urgency, there was a clear trend among the comments received that change will not be achieved and embraced unless it supported by quality. Any measures that would lower standards for the sake of it are likely to backfire. This has a special relevance when it comes to the perceptions and effect of any kind of quota system.

Carin talked about the norms established by the IOC, and the fact that the IHF remains woefully short of that. But it seemed to be agreed that quotas should mainly be seen as an interim measure and only as a component of a broader package of measures. Short of an immediate switch to some kind of 50-50 requirement, which may not at all reflect the recruitment realities, there are clearly ways of insisting on a certain proportion that each board or committee or formal group must have. While this may be more difficult when individual positions are filled by individual constituencies, there are many positions that are filled on a group basis and leave room for considerable flexibility. Again, it is a ‘demonstration effect’ that is sought, and a first step towards a ‘critical mass’.

Beyond mandatory measures in terms of representation, there needs to be a strong emphasis on facilitation and encouragement, including a hand-picking of talents and then the education, nurturing and support needed to launch careers successfully. It needs to start at the ‘grassroots’ level, but accelerated progress for former elite athletes and other special candidates to move faster to the top must also be part of the package.

Just like in any work environment, it must be recognized that work processes, methods and schedules need to be adjusted and kept flexible so that the combination with other responsibilities (jobs, families) seems reasonable. This is not really just a gender issue, as it is needed for both genders to ensure a general rejuvenation. Work practices geared towards the ‘old boy network’ must be a thing of the past.

With that remark I draw the line for the moment on this important topic, and again thank the contributors to Part 2 who were:

Dawn ALLINGER-LEWIS, Ex-player on U.S. national team; Member of IHF Athlete’s committee; TV commentator
Jesper HARBORG, Editor, web site Haandbold.com in Denmark
Ekke HOFFMANN, Coach of German women’s national team for many years; former Head of Sports at the IHF;
Ward HRABI, President, Canadian Team Handball Fed.; former IHF referee
Patricia MALIK de TCHARA, the first woman at the IHF elite referee level
Carin NILSSON GREEN, Former President of the IHF’s Commission for Promotion and Public relations, and the IHF Working Group for Women; veteran leader in Swedish Handball Federation
Tetiana RAKYTINI / Irina TKACHUK, IHF referees and former players, Ukraina
Frantisek TABORSKY, Member of EHF Exec Comm and Chair of Methods Commission; career as University Professor and Researcher in Sports; veteran coach

Many persons in leading positions in this world have a completely false understanding of what [u]leadership[/u] means and what is needed and wanted from that kind of position.

A traditional and out-dated (mis)understanding is to [u]confuse leadership with power[/u] and decision-making authority. A more [u]modern, constructive and helpful[/u] way of defining leadership is to think in terms such as [u]strategizing, coordination, facilitation, motivation and encouragement[/u]. Most experts emphasize that it has less to do with personal knowledge, actions and decisions, and much more to do with how one gets strong groups together and provides them with the structure, resources, independence and inspiration to achieve great things as a [u]team[/u].

The form of leadership needed also depends on the [u]context[/u]. An international sports federation consists of a spectrum of participants, from traditional powers with substantial expertise and resources, to beginners with lots of enthusiasm but with inadequate know-how and resources. In this setting, like in any society, the focus must be on organizing a [u]sharing or redistribution of resources[/u] (technical know-how, best practices and financial capacity). There is also a need for a degree of coordination and standardization (for instance, adherence to the same rule book). Of course, there is a need for a central function through which competitions are organized. In summary, we are talking of a [u]service organization[/u], which exists for the aggregate benefit of its participants, not an organization that exists for its own sake. This must be reflected in the leadership style.

With this emphasis on [u]coordination and facilitation[/u], where the needs must be matched with existing resources, it should be apparent that the key ‘players’ are [u]those who require help[/u] and best understand their own needs, and [u]those who are being asked to share their knowledge and resources[/u], as a sacrifice but for the common good in the form of the global growth and the development of the sport. It goes without saying that this latter group deserves a major say regarding the goals and their implementation. And it should also be obvious that a ‘[u]bottom-up’ approach[/u] to leadership and management is what is needed. The active stakeholders need to be listened to, for the sake of fair and efficient resource sharing. A ‘top down’ direction from someone who thinks they ‘know better’ is out of place. The key direction comes through the [u]team[/u] of experts and administrators that is handling the coordination and facilitation

In my experience, it is quite clear that the desirable form of leadership and management has for some time been pursued by the EHF. By contrast, a steadily increased emphasis on outdated forms of ‘leadership’ is being pursued by the IHF and its president. The proposed changes in By-Laws or Statutes would clearly make things worse. Therefore, it is not surprising that the EHF is protesting these changes and warning about their serious consequences. Moreover, it is necessary for the EHF not just to think globally but also to speak for the majority of those handball federations who are the [u]providers[/u] of know-how and best practices and also the main [u]providers[/u] (through the IHF elite events and related income) of the financial resources that are being shared.

Personal instincts in favor of autocracy tend to be deeply rooted and do not normally diminish over time, as has been seen apropos the IHF Statutes. The letter from the IHF to the EHF (see THN article immediately below) sadly confirms that. It becomes absurd when the autocratic IHF accuses the two EHF leaders of ‘acting out of personal interest’, it becomes almost amusing when the IHF leaders suggest that it is a sign of democracy when the IHF council votes in support for its president (after he personally insisted on 95% of the final changes in the current version of the Statutes), and it becomes truly embarrassing for the IHF when their letter essentially accuses Messrs. Lian and Brihault of racism.