Brazilian goalkeeper Barbara Arenhart was almost unbeatable today, but perhaps Denmark will get the chance for revenge in a semifinal!?

It is discouraging to see that, year after year, we cannot find any newcomers from outside Europe among the top teams. Brazil, Angola and Korea are there, and Japan also qualified for the ’round of 16; simply because there were no more than 12 European participants. We now hear rumors that the budget of the International Handball Federation (IHF) could expect a major increase, due to very favorable TV rights contract with Al-Jazeera. Let us hope that finally this will ‘force’ the IHF to spend a more appropriate amount of resources on helping the federations which perennially seem to be next in line to move up and compete with the Europeans. Yes, the newest and weakest federations must also get more help, but for the sake of the image and credibility of handball as a global sport, the priority must be to expand rapidly the ‘middle class’.

We now had a situation where 13 games were won by a margin of at least 20 goals and another 14 games were won by 10 to 19 goals. This should not happen in an elite event. The average goal difference in a game was just about 11 goals! We saw results such as 51-20, 44-21 (twice) and 40-6. And we had a half-time result of 14-0, when the Paraguay team was held scoreless for 32 minutes by their Spanish opponents. By contrast, there were no ties, and only four games (out of 60) were decided by a one-goal margin.

But it could be argued that among the top four teams in each group, there was some excitement in the fight regarding the internal ranking, which determines the likely strength of the opponents in the ’round of 16′ and the path towards the medals. In Group A, France came out ahead, after probably having worried about each of their three pursuers. Montenegro has not shown the same positive spirit as when they won EURO2012, but they managed to come in second. Korea seems far from their old level of medal contenders. In Group B, the top three positions were settled in the very last group game, where Brazil shocked Denmark by grabbing a large early lead which they managed to maintain until the end. This meant that the Serbian hosts got the second place, while Denmark amazingly had to accept third place.

Group C went to the favorites from Norway, followed by Spain, Poland and Angola, even though the Norwegians never looked really convincing so far. In Group D, it was probably a surprise to some that an injury-plagued Germany would manage to beat all the three European opponents. But those teams generally seemed weaker than expected, and especially Hungary was a disappointing shadow of what they have shown during many years now. One gets the impression that it is difficult for many of the European teams to be in top form for a championship every year. Integrating new players and coping with injuries makes it tough.

This leaves us with the following match-ups for the ’round of 16′: in the top half we have Brazil-Netherlands, with the winner playing the winner of Spain-Hungary in the quarterfinal; similarly we have the pairings Denmark-Montenegro and Germany-Angola. In the bottom half, we have first Serbia-Korea and next to them Norway-Czech Republic; in the final quarter of the draw that leaves us with Romania-Poland and France-Japan. About half of these match-ups really would seem to suggest intensive battles. The old Olympic finalists from Denmark and Korea will have to watch out for the local favorites from Montenegro and Serbia. But I will now be brave and predict that in the semifinals we will have a revenge opportunity between Brazil and Denmark and then a repetition of the 2011 final between Norway and France. What Is your prediction?

This is the kind of disgraceful situation that is inappropriately turned into a joke.

Readers of my articles in recent years know that I am often praising the European Handball Federation (EHF) for organizing and running its business and its events in a professional manner, sometimes in contrast with what can be seen from the International Handball Federation (IHF).  But you will then also have noticed that, on several occasions, I have seen clear reasons to criticize the EHF severely, typically regarding issues involving inappropriate distortions of the global playing rules or poor handling of situations where punishment of actions by players and coaches has been required.

One example is the EHF practice to go against the rules and give out automatic suspensions in situations where referees have given a disqualification (‘red card’) under the provision of the rules where they alone have the right decide that the infraction falls into a category for which NO further punishment is warranted.   Another example is the feeble handing of grotesque cases of misbehavior of coaches, where the image of the EHF and of our sport is at stake, but where the EHF has found some excuse for letting the culprit escape with essentially a ‘slap on wrist’.  Examples are the action of the Hypo manager Prokop who entered the court to stop a counterattack for the opponents, and the Serbian coach who held on to the shirt of a player on the opposing team on the court in a game in the 2012 European Championship.  The latter situation was quite inappropriately turned into some kind of joke.

However, during the early stages of the 2013-14 season, the focus has been much more on the effect of questionable refereeing in the men’s and women’s Champions League and most recently in EHF Cup matches.  There has been an abundance of games, especially in the men’s Champions League, where the referees have been unable to control to action sufficiently and where cynical players have ‘taken matters into their own hands’.  As a result, many games have more resembled wrestling, rugby or American football, with players in piles on the floor and with a generally unpleasant atmosphere.  Of course, this reality does not remain a secret, as the EHF-TV webcasts make the scenes available to handball fans around the globe.    In some cases, the issue has been more an apparently deviation from the expectation of equal treatment of both teams, as instead one team, typically the home team, has been getting unwarranted favors.

And the problems have not been limited to the men’s Champions League.  Very recently, a key game, Baia Mare-Thuringer, in the preliminary groups on the women’s side led to strong reaction both from the losing team and from web viewers.  The refereeing was grossly one-sided, as a serious video analysis will easily confirm.  Regrettably, the coach from the losing team was unable to refrain from accusations about bribery.  This is a serious statement which cannot be permitted unless there is clear evidence.  So now the EHF has to investigate both the refereeing and the rash words by the coach.   And as a culmination, we just had the Zomimak-Aarhus game in the men’s EHF Cup, where incompetent referees allowed a level of outright violence that does not belong on a handball court.  A Youtube video clip from this game has caused very negative propaganda worldwide.

It is clear that the EHF competition system is so large that the supply of competent referees may not quite match the demands.  In comparison with the IHF and its handful of World Championships each year, the EHF must rely on a much larger pool, which includes older referees who were not able to qualify for the IHF level, referees discarded by the IHF, and young new EHF referees without much experience.  But I have enough experience from referee nominations and enough up-to-date knowledge of the top referees used by the EHF (in part by following most of the Champions League games on the internet), so I can firmly state that the EHF should be able to do a MUCH better job of matching the available referees with the demands of the games in the different competitions.  I can only speculate about the motivations for what is taking place, but I would label many of the nominations for the Champions League careless, cynical or experimental.

Even worse, a careful analysis makes you wonder about the presence of ‘geopolitical’ considerations, which sometimes seem to outweigh concerns about quality.  Certain referees and referees from certain regions get puzzling assignments where they are ‘in over their heads’ or cannot resist the pressures from spectators, and certain teams seem to get ‘strange’ nominations.   It makes you wonder both about the role of the entire Referee Committee in this regard, and the existence of ‘checks and balances’.  And it gives the impression that, just as in the case of legal procedures (where a ‘hands off’ approach may be more understandable and appropriate), the EHF top management in the case of the management of the refereeing carelessly turns a blind eye to what is happening.   Clearly, the impact is much too important both for the image of the EHF and for our sport overall.

In these circumstances, it is not surprising that it is being rumored that the IHF has found it appropriate to introduce a special effort to monitor and support the IHF referees throughout the year in their performances in their own respective continents.  This has been a shortcoming over many years, especially as new recruits at the IHF level tend be younger and less experienced than in the past, so it is a topic that I myself tried to pursue during my IHF period.  And it is now becoming more realistic, as the IHF Referee Committee is monitoring many continental events outside Europe and as it is possible to follow the top European events through web streaming and video.  The IHF referees benefit from educational efforts and close supervision during the course of World Championships, but they need, and deserve, more continuous and systematic support.  The IHF deserves credit for recognizing that.

The stadium in Sao Paulo was badly damaged irecently in a deadly accident during the final stages of construction

The two most sought after sports events in the world are the Olympic Games and the World Cup in football.   Brazil will host the World Cup next year (so the draw for the groups took place yesterday) and then the summer Olympics in 2016.   Clearly there are many reasons why countries go after these events: the prestige of being able to handle the event, the world-wide publicity and the hope for longer-term tourism revenues, and the domestic PR value and possible boost for the national economy.  But when countries bid for these events, it is not uncommon to downplay the risks and the negative aspects, and many bidders do not care about the public opinion.

The reality is also that both events have taken on such proportions, due to the ‘ratcheting effect’ that flows from the desire to outdo previous organizers, the selfish demands of FIFA and IOC, and the sense that only a really spectacular event will create the PR effect that was sought.  This means that not many countries have the resources and infrastructure to handle the burden, and some of those who do find it better to decline the opportunity.  At the same time, it has become a matter of prestige for both IOC and FIFA to award the events to continents and regions which, for obvious reasons, have not had the opportunity before.   This means that the need for major construction efforts in a difficult setting is becoming more common.

If then, like in the case of the World Cup, Brazil makes it a matter of prestige to spread the event to many more locations than is strictly necessary, and to include places that seem rather farfetched choices, such as Manaus in the Amazonas and Cuiaba near the Bolivian border, then that seems to be asking for trouble.  Several completely new stadiums had to be constructed, whereas others amount to complete renovations of old structures.   All the stadiums were supposed to be finished this month to provide some margin, but clearly this is not going to happen.  Several have work left for the next few months, and the stadium in Sao Paulo, the Itaquerao, which is supposed to host the opening match, is of course now giving special reasons for concern after the deadly accident just a couple of weeks ago,

There is a race against the clock also as regards the arenas for the 2016 Olympics. The IOC is undertaking frequent inspections, and it has been a roller-coaster of gloomy predictions and more upbeat reports of good progress.  There are concerns about many aspects of the infrastructure, such as the roads and the public transit, the scarcity of hotel accommodations, and environmental aspects.  Worries about revenues from key sponsorships and the possibly of interference through public protests also remain.  The IOC President is expected to show up and apply pressure in the next few weeks.

During the ‘Play the Game’ conference, senior Brazilian officials attempted to provide a sense of reassurance.  What had especially raised questions among media and sports officials around the world was the increasing sense that large segments of the public in a football-crazy and sports-minded country such as Brazil had taken to the streets in often violent manifestations against the public expenditure, initially on the World Cup.  In a country where there are widespread and deeply rooted concerns about poverty, public health, the failures of the educational system and the many shortcomings in the investments for basic infrastructure, there are many who doubt the wisdom of the massive one-time investments in sports facilities and directly related projects.  “The country just cannot afford it, the priorities are all wrong, and there will never be a real return on these investments” is the basic complaint.

The Communications Director for the World Cup, Saint-Clair Milesi, tried to paint a different picture.  He emphasized that the infrastructure improvements will be helpful also for the general public, even though massive road and telecommunications projects in the jungle and in the wetlands might seem to be something very different from a more systematic effort focusing on where the most acute needs exist.  Milesi also noted that the public expenditure is surpassed by private investments that otherwise might not be forthcoming.  And the representative from the Comptroller General in Brazil pointed to the savings that his office had been able to achieve in the contracting, and he noted that many projects had actually come in under budget.   But such stories appear to do very little to appease the opposition, and it remains to be seen whether the final construction stages, and then the actual events, will avoid becoming a catalyst for social unrest and massive protests.

IGC Chair Mark Pieth and FIFA’s Walter de Gregorio duing the debate at ‘Play the Game’

During the conference in Aarhus which I attended a month ago, not surprisingly the reform process at FIFA was prominent on the agenda.  It was the topic for a major plenary session and it caused several additional debates.  As I noted in a couple of my own interventions, what happens in FIFA is extremely important well beyond the world of football.  It is the dominating sport in the world, with more media exposure and supporter interest than any other sport, and there are vast amounts of money involved, both in the major international events and at the national level.

So the problems with corruption and terrible mismanagement of the operations and the vast resources of FIFA constitute a concern for the image of all sports and serve as a bad example and an excuse for many other sports, such as handball.  It is disgraceful to hear the IHF president proudly talk about Sepp Blatter as a role model.  Many of the perennial problems with FIFA involve abuse of power and bribery at a personal level among its top figures.  The biggest scandal involved the FIFA marketing partner ISL, through which millions of dollars were paid in bribes to senior officials in FIFA (and the IOC).  Former FIFA President Havelange, and Executive members Teixeira, Leoz and Hayatou were among the main recipients of illicit payments.  President Blatter has somehow managed to ensure a lack of evidence against him.

In separate scandals related to the election of the FIFA Executive Committee and the bidding for the hosting of the World Cup, two other top figures Bin Hammam and Warner got caught more recently.  But the corruption is much more widespread, and the far from democratic election procedures and the bribery-prone processes for the selection of World Cup hosts were always based on shady practices.  The sudden idea of selection hosts for 2018 and 2022 at the same time caused the culmination of shenanigans and accusations.  When Qatar and Russia, whose resources seemed to be as unlimited as their ambitions, came out as the winners ahead of the favored candidates, then ‘all hell broke loose’.  And the notion of playing a World Championship in the heat of the summer was perhaps the real trigger for suspicions and protests.

So in 2011, FIFA found it necessary to establish, with great fanfare, a temporary Independent Governance Committee (IGC) to oversee the creation of a framework for good governance and controls.  Some recommendations were already accepted at the FIFA Congresses in 2012 and 2013, and others are supposedly planned to follow.  But the whole process has been controversial and the sincerity has been questioned.  An intended key player, Transparency International, bailed out from the process almost at the outset, because they did not want to risk their reputation by ‘being involved in a process lacking in credibility’.  The Chair of ICG, Mark Pieth, was initially enthusiastic and optimistic, but when he now spoke at ‘Play the Game’, just before his affiliation with FIFA is ending, he sounded rather more frustrated and said that ‘he had overestimated FIFA’s will for change’!

So what has then been achieved so far?  A Code of Ethics and a supposedly independent Ethics Committee, with separate investigatory and adjudicatory chambers, have been established.  The structure and resources are in place, and FIFA wants to note that the first investigations of misconduct have already been concluded with sanctions as a result.  But the true power and real independence can only be assessed over the longer term.  A revised Audit & Compliance Committee is now in place, with an experienced outsider in charge, and a confidential reporting mechanism (‘whistleblower hotline’) has been activated.    Integrity checks for key officials have been approved.  Apart from these structural aspects, FIFA also emphasizes that, for the first time, a woman has been elected (and two more women have been ‘co-opted’) to the Executive Committee.  But observers note that, on a scale from 0 to 100, these measures only bring FIFA to about 50-55 in terms of overall good governance practices.  Even if all the ICG recommendations one day were to be implemented, it would only bring FIFA to mediocre level of 70, i.e., just short of the rating for the IOC, not exactly a model of excellence in this respect…

Among the many ICG recommendations which have not been implemented, one could mention term limits for the Executive, a committee with external participation that would overlook FIFA compensation practices, salary disclosure, adoption of best-practice anti-corruption standards, guidelines for avoiding conflicts of interest, financial disclosures at all levels of FIFA and its members organizations, transparency in investigatory processes, and adoption of democratic procedures in FIFA election processes.  These are of course rather fundamental aspects of good governance, and the observed reluctance among FIFA Executives, and particularly Blatter himself, to move ahead on these fronts is quite telling.  Where does this then leave us, in an organization that remains under the firm control of a very tight ‘old boys’ network’ and with a president who does not wish to deny his interest in running for re-election yet again in 2015?

With the ICG recommendations left in the hands of these persons, who have shown no genuine interest in affecting major change, in reducing their personal enrichment, or in shedding light on past problems, how optimistic can one be!?   There are many ‘skeletons in the closet’, for instance from the ISL scandal, and many FIFA Executives are likely to be desperate to keep the lid on.  In fact, one of the main objections from Transparency International was precisely FIFA’s refusal to investigate unresolved problems from the past.  Even the FIFA Communications Director, Walter de Gregorio, who was present in Aarhus and had a hard time in putting the right spin on matters from a FIFA perspective, admitted that “FIFA made a lot of mistakes in the past”.  Can the reform process really be credible, if the decision-makers refuse to own up to these mistakes?