Some of you will be surprised to see this heading, but I believe in giving credit where credit is due. I have heard the good news from three totally different sources now so I assume it must be true: following the most recent experimentation at a junior world championship, the IHF President has come to realize that further pursuits of the idea of ‘mixed couples’ in the IHF level refereeing should be stopped. This of course requires an explanation and some background for those who are not ‘insiders’ and experts on this topic.

In the late 1960s, IHF and other handball authorities had come to realize that our sport had developed to the point that, at least at the top level, it was no longer adequate to try to make do with [u]one[/u] referee in a game, even if supplemented by ‘goal judges’ (and, for the international games, also ‘line judges’!). The game had become too fast-moving and too complex, so the observation and decision-making demands had become too much for one lonely referee to handle.

When moving to referee ‘couples’, the IHF and the national federations concluded from the outset that the best approach would be to use ‘fixed’ couples as much as possible, at least at the higher levels. The notion was, and has remained, that the internal consistency and the teamwork would be enhanced if the two referees knew each other quite well, had the opportunity to refine their collaboration on the basis of accumulated experience, and furthermore at the personal level felt like a couple with a sense of mutual support on and off the court. The preparations from one game to the next would of course also be facilitated.

In basketball, things have developed differently. Here, from the lower levels to the top, the focus has been on recruiting and training individual referees, who are then put together in constantly changing couples (and these days, especially at the professional level, in trios). The notion is that the referees should achieve such consistency that they can quickly adjust to different partners every time. Another argument has been that it is easier to avoid ‘getting into a rut,’ if one constantly faces the challenge of working with a new partner.

In handball, at the international level, there have been arguments that ‘fixed’ couples may lead to a situation where some couples tend to consist of one stronger and one weaker member, so that less talented referees can move to the top undeservedly ‘on the coattails’ of a strong partner, while other more talented referees never get their chance. At the IHF level, however, this should not be an issue, as couples with a distinctly weaker member can be detected and either changed or dropped. Conversely, the IHF recruiting policies clearly state that a strong talent from a country where one finds only 1 (or 3 or 5) talented referees, will still be given a chance, so that a talent is not lost just because they cannot conveniently be fit into even pairs from the same country. In other words, individual referees can be nominated and approved, and the IHF will then make the effort to find a suitable partner from another country if need be.

I have to admit that [b]I strongly favor the traditional approach with ‘fixed’ couples[/b], as I find the advantages of this approach to be clearly dominant, and as I see no reason to believe that it is causing us real problems. And I am certainly not ready to believe that the ‘basketball approach’ would serve us better. However, as I have always noted, [b]the debate about the pros and cons of the two systems is perfectly legitimate[/b]! But the reality is that [b]a change of systems would be major and absolutely dramatic undertaking[/b], as it would mean that all handball nations would need to gradually change its approach from bottom to top. Such a decision could not be taken lightly, but [b]only if there was clear evidence that the current system is ‘broken’ and if there were very strong reasons to believe that the opposite system is better [/b]and worth the effort of undertaking the change. No such evidence has been presented!

The IHF President and some of his supporters have insisted in recent years on an experimentation that partly might have been intended to gather such evidence. However, the method used is totally unrealistic or even absurd, as it provides no evidence at all and only runs the risk of causing disasters that are damaging and insulting to the teams affected. I believe most people will easily realize that it makes absolutely no sense, as long as the ‘fixed’ approach is maintained world-wide and the IHF invites referees to its events in the form of well-synchronized couples, when one then proceeds to split up these ‘fixed’ couples into new permutations precisely when they come to show their best at the very highest level, at a World Championship.

So I am very happy if these meaningless experiments have been stopped, and if the focus instead will be on working harder with both the existing IHF top couples and the new recruits, first to strengthen the recruitment criteria and the subsequent performance evaluations for the individuals, and second to take an increasingly tougher line in ensuring that couples do not rise to the top if they contain a distinctly weaker link. But I also keep encouraging the IHF regime, as I have in fact done during many years, to use its clout to convince at least a few major handball countries to be willing to undertake a real experiment with the ‘basketball’ approach, from bottom to top during a period of several years. Then perhaps, enough evidence would emerge for a definitive conclusion to be drawn!

In recent time I have followed with interest the initiative of USA Team Handball to have the issue of splitting up the PanAmerican Team Handball Federation (PATHF) put on the table. For many reasons, I think this is a good initiative, so my comments below are not intended to provide arguments against it, or even to make me the ‘devil’s advocate’ on this issue. Rather, I am more inclined to point out the complexities of the issue and how difficult it is likely to be to achieve success.

First I should emphasize that there is no such thing as a standardized definition of the concept of a continent in the world of sports. For instance, the International Olympic Committee does not insist that all sports use the same definition. It is really up to each international federation to decide what suits its circumstances. Just as an example, Kazakhstan is in Asia as far as handball is concerned, while it is part of Europe in soccer. Another example is Australia, which in most sports is the ‘superpower’ of the otherwise modest Oceania continent but in soccer has been allowed to join Asia. In fact, they have recently qualified as an Asian representative for the 2010 World Cup in soccer.

So while one might try to point to soccer and the CONCACAF vs. CONMEBOL configuration as an argument, as this ‘splits off’ 10 South American countries from the rest of the Panamerican continent, it does not really show that this approach is more ‘correct’ than the PATHF concept that covers the whole continent in one entity. It merely shows that such a model seems viable, even if the parallels are not so strong. First, CONCACAF came about not as a breakaway from the rest of the continent but as an amalgamation of a previously existing North American federation and a Central American/Caribbean federation almost 50 years ago. Moreover, CONCACAF has 35 member countries, not counting some French and Dutch territories. So it is really a strong grouping with long traditions.

What would then be the practical advantages of a change? It is then necessary to look a bit at the history and the politics of handball in our continent. Briefly put, the early influence came from Europe and was primarily affecting countries such as the U.S, Canada, Mexico and Argentina. Much of the early influence was German. Spain did not become a handball power until relatively recently, so there was no Spanish impetus, as is otherwise often the case in Latin America. Brazil and Cuba gradually became continental powers, but were not part of the picture in the early going. So the influence of the U.S. on continental matters was quite strong, both politically and on the court, with perennially good chances to qualify for World Championships and the Olympics.

Gradually, however, the Northern dominance came to an end, as USA and Canada were unable to build much on their early advantages, while at the same time the major sports countries Argentina and Brazil made rapid progress. Suddenly the power base has shifted, and the new leaders do not hesitate to reap the benefits. While they are ‘politically correct’ in expressing the hope that the U.S. will regain its former status, they do not exactly mind that the competition for the World Championship slots is weaker. Moreover, both the resource distribution and the allocation of events are now de facto in the hands of people who mainly look after their own interests and do not care to give the Northern countries a break. Costly travel is only one of the many disadvantages in this scenario. Unfortunately, there is no reason to believe that the traditional ‘North-South tensions’ will give way to a new situation where the re-emergence of U.S. handball is strongly supported within the continent.

But how would then the rest of the handball world and the IHF react to the idea of a split? Right now the IHF has a ‘neat’ and easy situation with three continents (Africa, Asia and Panamerica) having basically equal status and equal rights as regards slots in the World Championship qualifications and the representation in the IHF Council. A split would complicate matters considerably, and none of the other continents (incl. Europe) would accept that Panamerica got a better deal through a split than it currently has. So it is unclear what each of the two parts of a split continent could count on. Moreover, serious talks about a split in Panamerica might raise similar issues in the Asian continent, where East and West do not live very happily together. (This is a mild understatement if one remembers the perennial scandals in the Asian qualifying for IHF events). This is not the kind of chain reaction and resulting complications that the IHF would relish.

The reactions within PanAmerica are also uncertain. Argentina and Brazil may be less affected, at least as long as Canada and the U.S. are not so competitive, but while that is the case, there may still be some prestige involved in leading a continent where one can beat up on the Northern rivals. The rest of South America would clearly feel very threatened. They are now part of the race for a third Panamerican slot, but would there even be a chance for them after a split? Being beaten by Argentina and Brazil in fruitless efforts every time would not be a thrill. Where the interests and loyalties might lie among the Central Americans and the Caribbeans is less clear. With the exception of some of the Caribbean islands, they are all Latin American, of course. But the practical implications may be more important. A good competition structure, with less expensive travel, within a North/Central/Caribbean setting may seem enticing as it could help the progress of all the countries. In the end, much may depend on the IHF reactions and the potential status and opportunities for a new grouping.

To go back to where I started, while it may turn out that the obstacles are insurmountable, there is really not much to lose by trying. Some Panamerican countries could possibly be offended by it, but let’s face it: they are never going to love us that much in any case… Moreover, it may actually be helpful if U.S. handball shows in this way that it does mean business! And the potential gains, in the case of success, are real enough that the effort clearly is worthwhile. So let’s get the ball rolling!

It is almost too tempting to become ironic and lighthearted about an issue that may be quite important, if one realizes that one has absolutely no influence on the matter and that, even worse, there can be no expectation that it will be decided in a fair, rational, and transparent manner. So, even if right now, less than 3 weeks before the day of reckoning, there are many who nervously ponder the chances of Chicago to land the 2016 Olympics, I hope I am forgiven if I am slightly cynical about the whole process.

My reaction is triggered by the many ‘interesting’ comments in the media about the (final?) decision by President Obama to send the First Lady to the IOC Congress instead of going himself. The comments are interesting in two ways: first in the sense that they involve an amusing speculation as to which member of this couple would have the best chances of having a positive impact, and second because they reveal some rather naïve or ignorant ideas about the decision-making by the IOC members.

It seems that some people believe that the decision-making process is entirely rational (sort of: ‘may be the best city win’, whatever ‘best’ happens to mean), while others hint at an awareness that other ‘arguments’ may be more important. I don’t want to get into a lot of examples here from the very nasty history of IOC’s host city selections. Instead I would recommend that you read at least one of the very articulate and revealing books by Andrew Jennings about such matters. But it is quite clear that the greed and vanity of some IOC members has always played an important role over the years.

So it is quite conceivable that the presence or absence or President Obama could be a factor, not because he would be able to use his eloquence or because it would somehow show that the weight of the entire U.S. government is behind the Chicago bid, but because it just might be taken as a snub by some voters that the President sent his wife, in the full knowledge that the King of Spain, the Crown Prince of Japan, and the President of Brazil will be present. Yes, those IOC members are used to being treated as the equals of kings and presidents, so they are not easy to please.

But international politics may matter more after all. At the beginning of the year, it may have been seen as a foregone conclusion that it would be a big plus for Chicago to have Obama as the new U.S. President. Where it now stands may be less clear. But the status of the U.S. in the minds of those who vote has many more dimensions. Money is a key factor in many ways, and the yield from the Olympics, including sponsor contracts and television deals is high on the list. Traditional political and cultural ties are also vital. For, instance, it seems like a certainty that Madrid and Rio will pool their resources and their votes as soon as it is clear that one of them is out of the running.

Of course, questions have also continued to be raised: is it really such a good thing if Chicago wins!? The tax payers of Chicago and Illinois may be less than sure about that. But if you look at it selfishly as a sports fan, and particularly a fanatic in a small sport such as handball, it seems you must argue that ‘there is everything to gain, nothing to lose’. I guess it would (quite hypothetically) be even better to have a handball World Championship on U.S soil as a PR weapon, as an Olympic handball tournament is more likely to ‘disappear’ within the overall event. But certainly it could provide a boost for handball (and other sports that are similarly situated on the U.S. sports scene) that one would hope might be better utilized than what seems to have been the case after 1984 in Los Angeles and 1996 in Atlanta.

I will finish on that note for the moment, in the expectation that John Ryan will write something less ‘ironic and light-hearted’ on the topic, either before or after October 2. But, just for the sake of ‘full disclosure’, I feel obliged to reveal my biases: unbeknownst to most of my handball friends in the U.S. and around the world, I have roots in Chicago!!! Yes, I am a native of Sweden, but it so happens that my mother’s father was born in Chicago in the late 1890s, before his parents moved back with him to Sweden. So would it not be great to have the 2016 handball tournament take place in Andersonville… (although that is not quite what the Chicago proposal suggests).