Several days have elapsed since I requested clarification from USA Team Handball as to when, how and why it was decided to not participate in the Men’s Division 1 Pan American Team Handball Federation (PATHF) Championship https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.853 . Lacking an official response, I’ll try and fill in the gaps with some speculation.

[b]Announcement of the decision[/b]

But before I speculate as to why the decision was reach, I’ll first provide a little diatribe as to the communication of that decision. Best that I can tell the only “sort of” announcement of this decision was one sentence in the Board of Director’s Minutes for their meeting last July http://usateamhandball.org/news/article/15556

“As part of this process, USATH is orienting national teams towards Europe for competitions, friendly tours, etc. until the continental question is resolved.”

I interpreted that statement to mean that the U.S. would primarily plan trips and seek competition with European nations and clubs. I certainly didn’t take it to mean that the U.S. would exclude itself entirely from PATHF competitions especially when World Championship and Olympic qualification can only be accomplished through those competitions. Seriously, if that’s what was meant then state it in plain English like this:

“As part of this process, USATH will not be participating in PATHF events until the continental question is resolved.”

Choosing to simply focus on the positive European trip aspect and neglecting to mention, “oh, by the way, scratch off Sweden 2011 as even a remote possibility” is not being fully honest.

And obviously, a clearly articulated National Team plan would have cleared up any misconceptions. Such a plan would include time windows for trips, planned locations for those trips, training camps, etc. Since my earlier posting I have seen some email traffic indicating that players trying out for the National Team were informed that the U.S. would not be participating in PATHF events, but then again those same emails also indicate that the Men’s team would be traveling to Poland and France for competition this winter. It now appears that the Poland trip has been cancelled or perhaps it has been replaced with the women’s team trip that has now been announced. Again, let’s don’t play I’ve got a secret with the players and the membership.

[b]The Decision Itself [/b]

So, now on to the decision itself. Here are a few reasons as to why the decision might have been made.

[b]The USA Federation didn’t want to jeopardize the establishment of a North American Handball Federation (NAHF)? [/b]

The Board meeting minutes imply that the decision is related to the Federation’s desire to establish a North American/Central American Handball Federation. Perhaps, USA Team Handball wants to make it clear that they are done with PATHF and don’t want to send a mixed message. Apparently, though, they are the lone nation with that concern as the PATHF Div 1 Championship is practically the first ever NAHF Championship with 5 of the 7 teams participating (Canada, Mexico, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, Guatemala) likely to be members of this new Federation should it come to fruition. I would also expect that no one in the IHF would hold the fact that a nation wanted to compete for a spot at the World Championshp as a reason to deny the creation of a new federation.

You also won’t get any arguments from me about the merits of establishing a NAHF. Heck, I’ve spent a lot of time and ink detailing how our South American friends have arbitrarily made several unfair decisions impacting Greenland, Canada and the U.S. And even if the PATHF was a modicum of fair play and well organized, I still see merit in a more compact region which would eliminate expensive trips from one continent to the other. But as Christer Ahl pointed out https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.825 , just because it makes sense doesn’t mean it’s going to happen, especially if it means that some continent is going to have to cough up Olympic and WC berths.

[b]Not enough money to afford the trip?[/b]

This reason is pretty easy to scratch off the list. With 3 teams travelling to Europe and another trip planned for this year there’s clearly the resources available. It’s just a question of deciding which trip to take. Arguably a trip to the Dominican Republic might be substantially cheaper in terms of cost as food/lodging is the responsibility of the host nation. Travel costs are probably more complex, though, as we might have had to pay for some players to travel from Europe to attend. Notably, however, this isn’t a problem for our Canadian neighbors who have virtually no resources and usually require their own athletes to pay some, if not all, of the transportation costs out of their own pockets.

[b]A European Friendly trip is seen as more productive?[/b]

A case can be made that a friendly trip to Europe is a better expenditure of limited resources. If the trip is well organized, competitive matches can be played against club and national teams that are near peers. As the matches are friendly, there’s also less pressure to win so the coaching staff can give inexperienced players more playing time and conduct practices more focused on fundamentals as opposed to strategy for the next match. All true, but there’s a lot to be said for playing qualification matches that are by definition more meaningful. After all, friendlies are called friendlies for a reason.

[b]Participating would disrupt the youth movement?[/b]

One has only to look at the U23 and U18 trips that have taken place to notice that the USA Federation is probably setting its sites on 2016 (again it would be nice to see this articulated in a plan). Generally, though, when a nation is seeking to qualify for a WC or the Olympics it puts the very best team on the court that it can. The “future is now” so to speak and that means playing an aging veteran if he’s the best player at his position instead a promising newcomer. This is a legitimate concern, but it’s one that can be mitigated with straight talk with the players and a smart mix of old and new talent. Certainly, the U23 team that was sent with a sprinkling of veterans who didn’t meet the U23 requirement is a good example. The same sort of team could have been sent to the Dominican Republic and the youth movement would have benefited greatly from the experience.

[b]Team USA wants to avoid embarrassment?[/b]

The U.S. women’s team participated in the Women’s Division 1 Championships last year and was soundly beaten in all its games. To say the least, a very humbling experience and perhaps the fear is that the same thing would happen to the men’s team. On paper, I would assess Canada and the Dominican Republic as the clear favorites for 1st and 2nd. The other sides, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Guatemala, Venezuela and Columbia, however, are on par with the U.S. I’d like to think that we would beat them and after a few games under our belt maybe even beat Canada or the Dominican Republic in the semifinals. But, even if we couldn’t win, at least we’d go down fighting. And even if the trip was embarrassing, we’d still have a very good benchmark as to the status of our rebuilding U.S. team. Not to mention we’d know more about our likely foes for future competitions.

[b]Why this is a big deal[/b]

For anyone wondering why such a fuss about missing this little tournament in the Caribbean try to imagine the U.S. in any other team sport, not even trying to qualify for the World Championships. It’s unimaginable for a sport like basketball or soccer, but I would be surprised if it’s ever been even contemplated in other minor sports like field hockey, water polo or rugby. Seriously, your primary raison d’etre as a sports federation is fielding national teams for the World Championships and the Olympics. And as someone who’s attended the World Championships both as a player and reporter I can attest that it is an event that dwarfs all other Handball events (minus the Olympics, of course) in terms of importance. For me, personally, it was one of the best experiences of my life.

Perhaps there is good justification for this decision. If there is, it needs to be clearly articulated to the membership and more importantly to the players who won’t be given a chance to compete.

Well, 4 days after I critiqued the International Handball Federation’s (IHF) inability to update their webpage for 42 straight days, an article was finally posted on their site. More notably, a few days later an article highlighted the IHF’s need to revamp their web presence.

“Requiring a new face for its Homepage, the IHF has invited the media agency Enfaktor. In a joint meeting Enfaktor will present ideas and solutions for a more progressive web presence.”

According to Enfaktor’s website they’ve helped the IHF manage their web presence during World Championship events. As the IHF website does a pretty good job during those competitions this can only be a good sign.

While Team Handball News does get its share of web traffic emanating from Basel, Switzerland, I wouldn’t even begin to take credit for the decision to improve the website. It was so obviously needed, they had to be getting the same feedback from so many sources that action being taken was only a matter of time.

I would argue, though, that the IHF could save some money if they would just talk to the folks in Vienna that have designed the European Handball Federation (EHF) website. www.eurohandball.com (No doubt, that it was Enfaktor will probably do.) The EHF site is by no means perfect, but it is an order of magnitude better than the IHF and other continental federations. There’s lot of timely articles, information on upcoming events and their web TV platform, ehfTV, www.ehftTV.com is a shining example of what can be done to promote the sport. There are so many Champions League matches available for viewing that I’m still trying to catch up with last weekend’s matches. My only gripe is that while it’s great that the videos are free of charge, the video quality is substandard. I’ve mentioned this to the EHF folks several times and have implored them for a premium option that would provide better video for a price, but so far this has fallen on deaf ears. Ideally, the video quality would match the old HBL.TV www.hbl.tv platform that the German Bundesliga had before they switched to another company and geoblocked most of the world. What is it with these Euro outfits that don’t want to take my money? It’s frustrating, but common sense suggests that I just need to relax and wait. With money involved and other sports showing the way, it’s only a matter of time before my TV dream becomes reality.

THN (1 Oct 09): 42 Days and Counting: IHF misses the boat on self promotion and new media: https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.836
IHF Website (14 Oct 09): Busy days at the IHF Head Office in Basle: http://www.ihf.info/front_content.php?idcat=57&idart=2145
Enfaktor Website: Three World Cups in a Month: http://www.enfaktor.net/nachricht_197_0.php
THN (22 Sep 09) German Bundesliga blocks internet Handball broadcasts to rest of world: https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.827

Following their victories over Finland, Great Britain has been roughed up a bit recently by Austria and France in Group play. Last Wednesday they lost to Austria 30-20 and yesterday they got smoked by France 42-16. Despite the lopsided scores, though, there are some positives that can be taken away. A 10 goal loss on the road in Austria is a measure of respectability. Certainly, there’s no doubt as to which team was better, but a gap of 10 goals often means that a more experienced side capitalized on perhaps 15 errors over the course of a 60 minute game. Undoubtedly the British women can review that game and readily see what improvements are necessary for a better result when the two teams meet again. The French loss, however, doesn’t fall into that category. Anytime you lose by 26 goals it’s more likely a case of total domination in all phase of play. There’s still something to be gained in those sorts of matches, though, as players see firsthand what skills they need to learn.

Qualifying for Group Play has been a boon for Great Britain by providing them meaningful matches in a structured competition. Friendly matches are nice, but they can’t substitute for qualification matches in terms of intensity. Another added benefit is that they will be perfect benchmarks to measure progress as Great Britain will play each team twice. In addition, there is a five month wait till Great Britain suits up against Iceland on March 31, 2010 and the competition doesn’t finish up until the end of May. With that amount of time in between it will be interesting to see how much they can close the gap that now exists.

More Than the Games: Holmris admits Great Britain were outclassed by France: http://www.morethanthegames.co.uk/handball/176719-holmris-admits-great-britain-were-outclassed-france
British Handball: Euro 2010: GB Women Beaten by Classy France: http://britishhandball.worldhandball.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?menuid=1093&itemid=2358
British Handball: Battling GB go down 30-20 in Austria: http://britishhandball.worldhandball.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?menuid=1093&itemid=2351

THN Commentary (Sep 2006): Is it Better to Get Blown Out or to Just Stay Home?: https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?extend.142

[color=#00ff00]Last September as missives criticizing the new USA Team Handball Federation ratcheted up in the Forum section on our website I commented that I thought folks were jumping the gun a bit too much on a brand new organization. Instead I laid out my expectations for the new Federation https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.595 in a number of areas along with what I considered some reasonable target dates for completion.

Six months later in March of this year, I handed out some Mid-Term grades https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.715 that chastised the new federation on a number of issues. A full year has now passed and I hand out some final grades. Several shortcomings have been corrected, but there’s still room for improvement. For ease of reading, I’ve left the original (Black) and six month report sections (Blue) in place. New text is in Green.[/color]

1) A clear and organized plan for USA club competition. (Target date: December 1, 2008). Successfully completing this goal would be to have a revamped competition rulebook that has been vetted, by and large, by the USA Handball community. This won’t mean that everybody will like everything in the competition rulebook, but it should mean that all the major clubs in the USA find it acceptable. As a minimum, every club should have a clear understanding as to what they need to do in order to participate in the 2009 National Championship Tournament.
[color=#0000ff]Grade: D
A competition rulebook was indeed provided by the target date, but the vetting process was less than satisfactory. An opportunity to comment was provided, but vetting was limited to the staff in the National office. Worse, the rulebook was modified in February and the residency requirement for foreign players were changed without any feedback from the membership. Faced with a protest on the last minute change, USA Team Handball backed down and reverted to the original wording. Finally, plans for teams to qualify were thrown out and teams were simply allowed to enter the National Championship tournament on a first come, first served basis.[/color]
[color=#00ff00]Grade: D
There’s no way to improve upon the mid-term grade for year 1. The good news though is that USA Team Handball appears to have learned from their mistakes as a committee was established and qualification has largely been turned over to the regions.[/color]
2) Announcement of the 2009 National Championship Tournament (Dates and Location) (Target Date: January 30, 2009). Sooner, of course, would be better, but this should allow enough time for teams to make airfare and lodging reservations.
[color=#0000ff]Grade: A
This requirement was clearly met. I should point out though, that the announcement for College Nationals was a little later than the subject date. Enough time to make plans, but I’m sure teams would prefer to have known sooner[/color]
[color=#00ff00]Grade: A
Nothing new to add here.[/color]

3) A well organized and successful National Championship Tournament. There are many elements that go into running a well organized and successful tournament, to include, facilities, the scheduling of games, fan attendance and convenience (lodging and gym location).
[color=#0000ff]Grade: TBD[/color]
[color=#00ff00]As has been addressed previously, https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.745 the originally proposed format for the National Championship was very poorly designed. To the Federation’s credit, they modified the format and the feedback that I’ve received from those attending the tournament has been mostly positive. So an A- or B+ grade on the final execution is offset by a D grade in format/scheduling for an overall C result.[/color]

4) An improved website with the following content:
a) A club information page (Target Date: September 19, 2008). This page would include links to websites and Point of Contact information for all clubs in the U.S. You might notice that this target date is only a week away. This, however, should only take a couple of hours and quite frankly it should have been done a month ago.
[color=#0000ff]Grade: B
As I recall it took awhile for this page to get added to the website. http://www.usateamhandball.org/pages/6348 Additionally, this page could use some more graphics such as an interactive map and club logos (where applicable).[/color]

b) Guidance documentation page (Target Date: September 19, 2008). Any overarching documentation (e.g. the by-laws submitted in the UTHF bid; competition rulebook) that highlights how the Federation conducts business should be posted on this page.
[color=#0000ff]Grade: D
The competition rulebook has been posted, but other documentation is clearly lacking. There’s more commentary on this topic in items 12 and 13[/color]

c) Club Resources page (Target Date: October 17, 2008). A “best practices” section of the website that provides information on how to best organize a new club is needed. This section would include Points of Contact for club development and information on how to request funding grants from either USA Team Handball or the USA Team Handball Foundation.
[color=#0000ff]Grade: B
A club handbook has been developed and placed on the website. http://usateamhandball.org.ismmedia.com/ISM3/std-content/repos/Top/CLUB%20START%20UP%20GUIDE.pdf It’s a workable document with some good information in it. However, I’d prefer like to see an interactive page on the website to address club development. Clubs could ask questions like, “What kind of goals should I buy?” and the Q&A would be viewable in a forum like section for other clubs to see.[/color]

d) An online store with discounts for members (Target Date: December 1, 2008). This service would be a welcome addition, especially for new clubs that need to purchase balls and goals.
[color=#0000ff]Grade: C
A bare bones online store has been up on the site for several months. There aren’t very many items available, however, and the functionality isn’t the best. For instance, I was confused as to how to purchase a yearly membership. Expecting to see a discount (price/year) for signing up for more than 1 year, I actually learned through email correspondence that it was actually more expensive to buy a multiple year member membership.[/color]
[color=#00ff00]Grade: A-
Well, it took awhile longer than I would have liked for the website to get up to speed, but it’s really taken shape in the past few months. It’s colorful and loaded with content. There’s still plenty of room for improvement though. I’d like to see a better online store, video content and more frequent postings from teams on trips. The bar will be raised for year 2.[/color]

5) National Board of Directors Fully Identified (Target Date: November 1, 2008): Another hallmark of the new Federation organizational structure is 7 independent Board of Directors with business skills who would contribute $50,000 each to USA Team Handball. The website currently lists only 2 members, Dieter Esch and his business partner, Brad Krassner. Additionally, the new Federation should make clear how it will identify/select other members of the Board, who are not part of the $50,000 club.
[color=#0000ff]Grade: F
The website currently identifies only 3 of the 7 independent members. A Mr. John West has been added in the intervening 6 months since I first wrote this. There is also still no indication as to how these Board Members were or will be selected. The By-Laws that were submitted when the Utah Team Handball Federation (UTHF) indicated that a nomination committee would be formed and that a Board would be selected prior to January 1, 2009. As far as I know there is no actual nomination committee and I would speculate that Pastorino, Esch and Krassner are the individuals actively seeking potential members. The Active Athlete members of the board have been selected via vote, but that is the only positive development that has taken place so far. The Federation website does indicate that the rest of the board members will be named soon. This is good news, but it has taken too long and with no transparency in the process. Hence the failing grade.[/color]
[color=#00ff00]See comments in 6) below[/color]

6) First National Board of Directors Meeting (Target Date: January 5, 2009).
[color=#0000ff]Grade: F
The first Board Meeting has now been called for 31 March, but it’s way overdue and it’s simply not appropriate for a Sports Federation to have operated this long without a Board of Directors (BoD) meeting. The BoD is supposed to provide direction and guidance for the management staff. Without that direction, the Federation may or may not be headed in the right direction. Bottom line: without an active BoD, the Federation has not been following its own by-laws and the spirit of its own proposal bid to bring in independent directors with business acumen.[/color]
[color=#00ff00]My stated criteria for 5) and 6) were very time specific and if I were to solely focus on meeting the dates (which were not made) the grades would continued to be failing. Instead I will provide an overall performance grade.
Grade: C
This overall grade is a tale of two semesters with the first semester being a rather slow start and the 2nd semester coming on pretty strong. There are a lot of initiatives that have been started by the Board, and in particular, the Chairman, Dieter Esch, who has been very active with his efforts to engage multiple handball entities in other countries. My biggest issue which I will address later in this assessment, however, is the lack of information being provided in terms of overall plan/vision.[/color]

7) Senior Men’s National Team Program Plan (Target Date: March 1, 2009). A well thought out plan on how the U.S. will organize and prepare the Men’s National Team needs to be clearly articulated. Such a plan should clearly identify strategies for player identification and development, training and competition schedules. A key element of this plan will also be a decision on whether to develop players in the U.S. or whether to foster opportunities for players to be placed on European club rosters.
[color=#0000ff]Grade: C
For all I know a plan has been developed. Certainly, there have been a number of tryouts and athlete identification camps. It has not been articulated, however, how those athletes will be trained and how Team USA will prepare for international competition. Several of the athletes identified at these camps also appear to be college graduates. Past experience has shown that molding inexperienced handball newcomers in the 22-26 age range into world class players is problematic in that those athletes tend to leave the program prior to fully developing as players. The Men’s team will travel to Puerto Rico in 8 months for the PATHF Div 1 Championships. What’s the plan, Stan?[/color]
[color=#00ff00]Grade: D
A year out now, there’s a fair amount of activity with player tryouts and player pools being announced. One can make inferences from these events as to what the overall plan is, but without actually seeing it’s hard to put all the pieces together. Maybe there is an actual plan with clearly defined objectives and metrics to track progress, but if there is one, it hasn’t been provided to the membership. Keep in mind this grade is not reflective of the programs that have been rolled out in the last few months. They look like good programs. This failing grade is simply reflective of the fact that there is no plan being shared with the dues paying members of USA Team Handball. The PATHF Div 1 Championships are now only a month away. How is that team going to be picked? What kind of training camp are they going to have? What’s the plan for 2012 qualification and development through 2016? Etc, etc. [/color]

8 ) Senior Women’s National Team Program Plan (Target Date: March 1, 2009). As with the Men, a well defined plan is needed. Additionally, if the Women, participate in the PATHF Div 1 Championships later this year a near term interim plan should also be developed.
[color=#0000ff]Grade: C
Again, for all I know a plan has been developed and the same concerns in regards to training athletes and preparing for international competition needs to be addressed. To the Federation’s credit, they did field a team at the PATHF Div 1 Championships. Some have criticized that move as a waste of resources and feel vindicated by the very poor showing of the women’s team. I was disappointed and surprised by the results, but support the concept of Team USA ALWAYS fielding a team for WC or Olympic qualification. Say what you want about the poor results, they should help inform USA Team Handball on where the program currently stands and how far it needs to go.[/color]
[color=#00ff00]Grade: D (See the comments regarding the Men’s plan as to why)[/color]

9) Youth and Junior Team Program Plans (Target Date: March 1, 2009). These plans will need to mesh with the Senior Team Plans. They will also require a substantial amount of thought as the U.S. has very few players in these age categories and limited resources to support their rapid development.
[color=#0000ff]Grade: C
Again, many of the same issues discussed with the men’s and women’s teams also apply. In addition, the youth and junior team program plans will require some “outside the box” thinking to be successful. Some player identification camps have been identified, but the overall plan has not been articulated. Additionally, resources are being spent on an under 23 team. While this may align with our collegiate programs international competitions are focused on under 21 and under 19 programs.[/color]
[color=#00ff00]Grade: C
Again, the problem here is simply the lack of a plan being shared with the membership. With youth teams actually touring clearly a lot has been accomplished in a short period of time. We’ve even got U18s training in Iceland for an extended time. I wouldn’t have thought that possible in less than a year.[/color]

10) Fully Staffed Regions (Target Date: January 5, 2009). A hallmark of the new Federation organizational structure is their plan to have a dedicated Regional Director and Coach for each of the 5 regions. I would expect that personnel will actually start to be hired and identified in the near future. And I would expect the regional staffs to have a very active and hands on role in helping new clubs to get on their feet and in organizing regional competition.
[color=#0000ff]Grade: C
The regions have not been 100% staffed, but a lot of people have been hired. From website reports they appear to be getting involved with their region’s development and organization. Could they be doing more? Sure, but there are some inherent challenges with the geographic size of the United States and the limited resources of USA Team Handball. I was never convinced that this organizational structure made sense with the current Handball demographics of the U.S. I also won’t be surprised if there is a significant reorganization at some point in the future.[/color]
[color=#00ff00]See comments in 11) below [/color]

11) Regional Board or Directors Fully Identified (Target Date: September 1, 2009). As with the National Boards, I would expect Directors to be identified in the coming months. As the Regional staffs have not been identified yet, however, this will take some time. Additionally, it may be challenging to come up with Regional Board Members due to the financial requirements.
[color=#0000ff]Grade: TBD[/color]
[color=#00ff00]I won’t give a grade on Regional Directors but will provide a few observations. Quite frankly, it’s hard to grade regional performance for many of the same reasons it’s hard to quantify successful grassroots efforts. https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.797
There are some metrics that could be tracked, though, like numbers of clubs, new members, new clinics conducted, etc. Anecdotally, there are signs that things are taking shape, but it’s tough to fully assess. As I mentioned before, I’m somewhat of a skeptic in terms of the regional concept due to the geographical challenges and limited resources. It also hasn’t been fully implemented as the Midwest and Northeast regions are without Regional directors and coaches, the Southeast has no coach, and there has been very little news in regards to regional boards. Resource wise, somehow the new Federation is employing what appears to be 10 full time staffers and 3 volunteers. This might seem like a small staff for an established sport federation, but it is practically a miracle to Handball veterans that remember a much leaner 3 man staff covering the whole country. Either these folks are working for peanuts or the Federation has quietly done an incredible job in the fundraising department.[/color]

12) Interim Over Arching Guidance Documentation (Target Date: September 19, 2008). To the casual observer, the new Federation appears to be currently operating with no formal written by-laws. By-laws were submitted during the certification process, but I suspect that these by-laws are not being followed to the letter. It should be clear to the USA Handball Community what “rules of the road” are being used to guide the new Federation. Simply posting the UTHF Bid by-laws would be a start, along with a general statement of accountability. Right now my assumption (in the absence of a Board of Directors) is that Dieter Esch is calling the shots, but that GM Steve Pastorino has been given a significant amount of latitude to do what he thinks best. This is to be expected in a start-up situation, but that construct should transition as soon as possible to a more formalized structure.

[color=#0000ff]Grade: F
Six months later this documentation and/or guidance has still not been developed. The UTHF Bid by-laws -link- have not been posted on the Federation website nor is there any other statement of accountability. A precursory look at several other Federation websites shows that most of them post their By-Laws for everyone to see. (For more on this topic see #13 below)[/color]
[color=#00ff00]See comments in 13) below [/color]

13) Finalized Over Arching Guidance (Target Date: February 2, 2009). Step 1 for the new board should be to approve new bylaws for the Federation. It should be clear to everyone what the roles and responsibilities are for Board Directors, Committee Members and Staff. Additionally, members at all levels should understand how they can influence and participate in the process.
[color=#0000ff]Grade: F
As far as I know there are no new bylaws being developed. And if by some chance they were being developed, it clearly isn’t being done with any transparency as I and other members of the USA Handball community are unaware of it. In essence, USA Team Handball is currently being run independently without any formal input or accountability to its members. Say what you want about the previous incarnation of USA Team Handball and its dysfunctionality, but there were committees and board members that were accountable to the membership. It was also often messy and in the end self-destructing. Because of that self-destruction, I thought that it made sense to give the new regime considerable leeway to clean up the ashes and rebuild the Federation with minimal interference. That time has now past in my opinion. It’s high time for more transparency and a clear understanding of how the outside business people are going to work with the USA Handball Community at large. And the key words are “work with”. USA Team Handball is a non-profit, amateur sports federation. It is not a for profit sports franchise (Real Salt Lake) or a modeling company (Wilhelmina) and that means there is accountability to that nebulous Handball Community. I am not calling for a return to the old way of doing business as clearly that was not working. All I’m saying is that the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction.[/color]
[color=#00ff00]The original criteria were date specific, so there’s no way the Federation can improve upon the failing mid-term grade. The new by-laws were published not long after the mid-term report. http://www.usateamhandball.org/assets/documents/attached_file/filename/11807/USATH_Bylaws_Ratified_3-31-09.pdf
Unfortunately, they did not clear up the concept of “at-large” members. These members have no “independent” requirement and depending on how you read the old by-laws and even some parts of the new by-laws it was strongly implied that there would be a membership vote to select these two “at large” members. As currently structured the Board is very independent and top heavy with newcomers to USA Team Handball or even to the sport of Team Handball. Of course, a strong case can be made that this is a good thing based on the dysfunctional board that was previously voted in by the membership. I would argue, though, that 2 members elected by the membership with a good understanding of the past would have had a useful minority role on this new board.

Additionally, the Board should consider the establishment of a Congress or some other entity composed largely of members from the “Handball Community” that could wield some level of influence with the Board. The Board would still maintain ultimate authority, but a Congress would give them a venue to get constructive input to their plans, as well as an opportunity to sell the community on their activities. Right now, my perception is that everything is pretty much being dictated to the membership and even if everything is 100% in the right direction, it’s somewhat human nature to react against a one way flow over which you have no influence. A Congress or some other entity would mitigate that and who knows they might even have some good ideas.[/color]

14) Strategic Plan (Target Date: March 20, 2009). The strategic plan would be a top to bottom plan that identifies the goals for USA Team Handball and how it plans to achieves those goals. This is something that should be developed with at large membership input, but may very well also require outside the box thinking.
[color=#0000ff]Grade: F
As far as I know, such a Strategic Plan has already been developed. But, if it has been developed it’s been done in-house without much membership input. So the negative grade is for 1) either not having a plan or 2) not sharing it with anyone.[/color]
[color=#00ff00]Christer Ahl wrote a commentary a while back taking the IHF to task for a lack of strategic direction. https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.812 The thrust of this was the need to clearly define the overall goals and objectives before tackling what programs and processes need to be put in place to meet them. I maintain that the same is true for USA Team Handball. Perhaps the Board of Director’s and staff at USA Team Handball has already crafted and approved a plan. If so, it’s time to share that plan with the members. Even better, it would be wise to seek input from its dues paying members, some of whom have devoted large chunks of their life to the sport, on what should be in that plan. For a model as to how membership could provide input we could look to USA Table Tennis, which recently posted this notice in regards to their strategic planning: http://www.usatt.org/ceo/0909.shtml[/color]

15) Marketing Plan (Target Date: January 5, 2008). The new Federation has indicated that they will expend significant resources in this area. I don’t expect for them to provide the members at large a detailed copy of their marketing strategy, but I would like to see regular reports highlighting current ongoing efforts in this area. My metric for success in this area will be successfully getting Handball on TV in the U.S.
[color=#0000ff]Grade: B
The 2009 World Championships were on TV in the United States for the first time this past January. Granted, it was Web TV (ESPN360) and only available in a sliver of the American market, but this was still great news. The new Federation has also kept everyone informed of new sponsors such as Grundfos and SnapSports. Would I like to see more sponsors and ESPN prime time telecasts? Sure, but the trend is in the right direction.[/color]
[color=#00ff00]Grade: B
I’ll keep the grade the same for now. But, the bar will be raised for next year.[/color]

16) Fundraising. This is without a doubt the big kahuna, in that sustained success hinges on creating sufficient income to meet expenses. With the dramatic increase in paid staff (when compared to the previous Federation), as well as plans to field youth and junior teams there’s simply no way for the numbers to add up without significant new funding streams being developed. The metric for success in this area will be an Income side of the balance sheet showing significantly more $ than that of the $300,000 – 500,000 budgets common in the waning years of the previous Federation. I won’t expect the Federation to provide detailed information, but as a non-profit, top level budget numbers should be available for public review. Additionally, it will become readily apparent that there is a cash flow problem if there are staff cutbacks and/or the USA fails to send teams to International competitions.
[color=#0000ff]Grade: TBD/Unknown
Putting a grade on fundraising is difficult without seeing some budget numbers. Since this was written in September, the financial crisis also should temper everyone’s critique of this critical area. Finding sponsors to shell out money for an unknown sport is challenging enough in a flush economy. Getting them to fork over money at the same time they’re laying workers off might well be impossible. Additionally, some wealthy individuals with money to burn 6 months ago may have seen their net worth’s decline by 40%. Suddenly, a contribution to USA Team Handball is competing not only against other good causes, but against dwindling retirement and college education plans. So far the Federation appears to be weathering the financial storm as there have been no staff cutbacks and a team is still being sent on tour to Europe this summer.[/color]
[color=#00ff00]Grade: TBD/Unknown
I’m looking forward to seeing the first year financial statement for the Federation. They stopped hiring staff, but no one has been laid off. Additionally, the trips planned for the summer took place and more are planned, so it looks like the storm has been weathered pretty well. Much better than I would have thought. I also hope that the financial statements provided by the Federation clearly show where large chunks of income are coming from so that we can compare performance in this area from year to year.[/color]

[color=#0000ff]So, that’s it in a nutshell. Of course, the folks in Salt Lake City don’t take orders from me, so I’m not expecting them to jump all over my metrics. But hey, as soon as I send my $60 in for membership, there’s got to be some degree of accountability. And if my patience wears thin 6 months from now, it shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone.

Well, as you can see by this fairly negative review, my patience indeed is starting to wear thin, particularly in the areas of governance and planning. In my opinion, there’s been more than enough time to straighten up the Federation’s basic organization structure and to start articulating the Master Plan that will lead Team Handball in the USA out of the wilderness.

But, while my patience is wearing thin, I still have some left in the tank. The Federation is making progress in some areas, even if it’s not as much as I and others would like to see. Next week, the Board of Directors will also be meeting for the first time, and in all likelihood, these and other issues will be discussed in detail. If the Board of Directors functions like it’s supposed to, they could very well jump start the Federation with some good top level guidance and direction.

So, I’ve said my piece for now and I’ll be waiting to see how the Board of Directors takes charge. My hunch (hope) is that there could very well be a flurry of activity and increased levels of transparency in the next few months. Stay tuned[/color].

[color=#00ff00]Six months later, I’m pleased to state, unequivocally, that there truly has been a flurry of activity. Things are clearly headed in the right direction even if there is a long way to go.

I’m less pleased, however, with the lack of transparency. If you didn’t already notice the recurring theme for this year 1 report card is, “Where’s the plan, Stan?” It’s one thing to have a general goal to improve the state of Team Handball in the U.S. It’s another thing entirely to have several specific sub-goals to make that overall goal happen. And with each of those sub-goals clearly identified with detailed plans and benchmarks to track their progress.

The most glaring example of this shortcoming is probably in regards to the U.S. National Team programs with conflicting underlying messages being sent out in regards to youth teams and senior teams. In other words, does the focus on youth teams (rightly or wrongly) mean that 2012 Olympic qualification is being put to the side? What does that mean to a 25 year old handball player who might be a little long in the tooth in 2016 or even 2020? Or taking the other viewpoint, why spend any resources on 25 year old players if they’re not going to be around when we are truly serious about qualifying? There are sensitivities involved here, but it should be possible to clearly state what the goals are and how it’s planned to achieve them.

General Manager, Steve Pastorino, has indicated that an edited version of their High Performance Plan submitted to the USOC will be posted on their website once funding has been approved. Hopefully, this will clear up some questions. Right now without any goals or objectives laid out its wide open to interpretation as to how we’re doing. Blind supporters might be happy with any progress, even if it is woefully marginal while naysayers will probably complain that we still haven’t won a World Championship yet. All, I’m asking is that USA Team Handball starts to lay out its own plan with benchmarks. That way everyone can get on board with executing the plan. And at the end of the year we can all see what’s working and what’s not. And then USA Team Handball can issue a report which assesses the year in review and goals for the next season. (Better them than me!)[/color]

There’s been a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking as to why Chicago was booted unceremoniously in the first round of voting in the race to host the 2016 Olympics. Nearly everyone had predicted and eventual Rio – Chicago showdown, but there were at least a few articles that mentioned that Chicago had to be wary of early round voting. And post mortem, several pundits and IOC members have hinted that Chicago’s demise was due to Asian solidarity to prevent a first round exit for Tokyo. And as told to the Chicago Tribune one of Chicago’s lobbyists hinted that it was specifically Arab support to their Asian colleagues:

“Luciano Barra of Italy, one of the lobbyists working for Chicago, said those who shifted to Tokyo may have included Arab members from countries belonging to the Asian Olympic group who wanted to show regional solidarity.”

Wait a second? You might have thought that the East Asians and the Arab states didn’t get along. Certainly, in Handball that’s true. After all, the Asian Handball Federation, Kuwaiti Sheikh Ahmed Al-Fahad al-Sabah, was the man on the other line talking to Dr Moustafa when it was decided that the Jordanian officials would be a better pair to officiate the infamous Korean-Kuwait Olympic qualification match. And after that there were calls from the Japanese and the Koreans to consider starting a new federation for East Asia. But while the discord continued from the Koreans the Japanese rancor became subdued. And even more startling the Japanese decided that Sheikh Al-Sabah’s role was worthy of an honorary doctorate degree for fair play. All seemingly bizarre, except for the fact that Al-Sabah is also the President of the Olympic Council of Asia and one of the very important 106 IOC delegates.

One can imagine the discussions that took place in the Japanese inner sports management circles. Handball is not a very important sport there and they most definitely wanted the Olympics. If not in 2016, then perhaps in 2020. Handball fair play protestations were pushed to the side in deference to their Olympic bid. And a year later it appears to have paid off with the Sheikh delivering the votes to Tokyo, with the consequence of Chicago being tossed out early.

The fact that Sheikh Al-Sabah can play such an important role in the Olympic movement while nary a word is said of his involvement in the Olympic Qualification scandal speaks volumes about the IOC and the need for an independent anti-corruption agency. If being selected host city means placating likes of Al-Sabah, perhaps Chicago will need to get Northwestern ready to start handing out the honorary doctorates if they want to get selected for 2020.

Chicago Tribune: Chicago 2016 team: Was it misled or did it miscount?: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-08-olympics-chicago-hersh-oct08,0,882158.column
IHF Website: AHF President Sheikh Ahmed Al-Fahad al-Sabah receives doctorate from Nippon Sports Science University of Tokyo: http://www.ihf.info/front_content.php?idcat=228&idart=1600
THN Commentary: AHF President honored for promoting fair play?: https://teamhandballnews.com/news.php?item.633