Your guess is as good as mine…

And I really do believe that my heading is justified. While I think this is going to be an event where most of the traditional contenders will do well, many of them are in some kind of transition, with the loss of key players or the arrival of a new coach. So I think there could be as many as ten teams having a good chance for a medal, and that you could not really talk about a surprise if any of those ten teams go to the final. But at the same time, I will be a coward and predict that Norway and France will qualify from one half of the draw, while Hungary and Romania are my best bets from the other side.

You have heard me argue that I do not really like the tournament format with four groups of four, where only one team in each group misses out on the main round. Many times this makes for a rather boring first stage in some groups, and it even leaves some room for tactics and manipulations in the third round of the groups, when some teams can afford to speculate about what result suits them best.

But at least I see some intriguing match-ups in each of the groups. While I see Norway as the favorite in group A, I wonder if the home court/crowd advantage can help Serbia overachieve, just like they did on the men’s side. It would also be nice to see if the Czech team could get to the main round, after so many years of weak showings. In group B, I see Denmark-Sweden on the first day as the key game, with a probably edge for the young Danish team. And the loser of this game may find it tough to keep FYRO Macedonia behind them. While I have already said that I see France going through to the final four, mostly on account of their physical style, I do not think they are unbeatable.

Germany’s return to the top level is causing speculation in a positive direction, while I see some experts predicting a decline for Spain this time. I think this leaves some room for an experienced Hungarian team to get off to a good start. Iceland will find it tough to win a game in group D. We have here, like several times in recent years, a Russia-Montenegro encounter; moreover with a new coach for Russia and an interesting psychological situation for Montenegro. Will the Olympic silver now lead to a letdown or will it stimulate them to a further surprise? But I think the time is now right for Romania.

Finally, the EHF has nominated six women’s couples among the twelve referee pairs. There are also six rather experienced men’s couples. In the Olympic Games we often had the sense that several of the men’s couples had major difficulties in finding the right approach to the women’s games. Let us see now if the women’s couples, despite their generally more limited experience, are better at finding the right touch for this women’s event. Good luck to all of them! Our top women’s teams deserve first-class support from the referees.

Old habits and attitudes need to change — also in the IHF !

The EHF, just like FIFA and UEFA in football, allows not just discussions but actual negotiations on these issues with the other stakeholders. By contrast, the IHF has consistently dictated the conditions for player release, compensation and insurance on a ‘take it or leave it’ basis in relation to IHF events such as World Championships. Increasingly, this authoritarian approach has led to great dissatisfaction among the representatives of leagues, clubs and players. It is not seen as an acceptable recognition of the fundamental asset that players and clubs constitute in the world of handball.

Moreover, it fits in with an attitude demonstrated by the IHF in recent attempts to revise the IHF By-Laws, which reflect the apparent desire by the IHF President to impose duties and obligations but deny rights and privileges on the part of the stakeholders in handball. The pivotal role in dealing with this problem is played by the national federations in Europe. Of course, to some extent the federations might be seen as competition for influence with the leagues and clubs, and they may therefore fail to question the obsolete IHF practices. But one would really like to believe that the national federations which, in aggregate, are the ones, who have the formal political influence on the IHF regime, should better understand that the IHF’s position is really untenable.

As an example of the absurd length to which the IHF is prepared to go in order to maintain unilateral control, it should be noted that not just does the IHF refuse to recognize and have a dialog with the FCH; in a clear attempt to ‘divide and conquer’, the IHF has announced to clubs that they must deal with the IHF on an individual basis, because otherwise they cannot even count on the compensation that the IHF arrogantly determines without any form of negotiation. In other words, clubs who would want to stick together and be represented by the FCH in any such meetings will automatically lose the right to compensation. Instead, they would have to tolerate that the IHF hand-picks a small number of national federations and clubs as participants in the meetings where the IHF decisions are conveyed.

Frankly, it is embarrassing to see such methods continue to exist in our sport and, again, it is equally disturbing to see that the national federations do not force the IHF to change its approach.

Side by side, for now, but perhaps one day the star gets moved!?

However, one should keep in mind that this referendum does not in any way guarantee that statehood is just around the corner. Many Puerto Ricans would see statehood as something that would help the local economy, as it would undoubtedly make them ‘takers’, to use the terminology that came up in the recent U.S. election, meaning that they could expect economic benefits that would exceed their aggregate federal tax burden. But this may be precisely what would make the members of the U.S. Congress hesitate about voting with the two-thirds majority in favor, in this precarious moment for the U.S economy. The initiative would have to come from President Obama, who has generally spoken favorably about statehood, but also for him would it be a big step to take up this initiative right now.

So it may be a bit premature to discuss statehood despite the results of the Puerto Rican referendum. But it may still be fun and thought-provoking what it could mean in an admittedly peripheral area, namely the impact on the state of handball if Puerto Rico were to become fully integrated with the rest of the U.S.! Puerto Rico has participated independently in handball as in all other sports with national teams, and they have their own sports structure and Olympic Committee. In some sports the Puerto Ricans would be ‘dwarfed’ in the case of an integration, but that would not be the case in handball.

While traditionally U.S.A. had the upper hand, this is typically not the case today. Despite its relatively much smaller population, but to some extent due to the advantages of its ‘compact and manageable’ size, Puerto Rican handball has been holding its own in comparison with U.S.A handball in PanAmerican competition. Their federation has been well-organized and has had substantial clout in their Olympic Committee. They have had good coaches (sometimes with Cuban support) and astute administrators. They have good, dedicated handball facilities, and their youth program has been impressive in relation to its size. And they have an IHF referee couple, which is more than USA handball can boast with at this point in time. So quite conceivably, the Puerto Rican handball could become ‘the tail wagging the dog’ as the expression goes.

In other words, it could become a rather interesting debate about how integration would influence the development of handball over the short term and for the longer term! Clearly, there would be a sudden influx of good quality players, although the integration would not necessarily be an easy one. This could lead to a sudden boost in the context of the competitiveness of the national teams at different levels. But what would it mean for the longer term? Would it serve to encourage the growth of handball in the other 50 states or would it perhaps in some way cause handball to become even more of a ‘niche’ sport? And what about development in Puerto Rico when moving from being a country with a proud national team of its own to being a component of USA handball and its national teams? Is it conceivable that some of the excitement around handball in Puerto Rico could diminish rather than being enhanced? (This is of course a broader question that would affect all types of sports).

In the U.S., we have often debated whether it would be more realistic to ‘jump start’ handball development by concentrating mostly on a few geographic areas rather than focusing on nationwide growth all at once. With the addition of a 51st state, it seems that this issue would be given a sudden, practical test. It would also be interesting to see what the reactions would be among our Caribbean and Central American neighbors. They would obviously have reason to speculate about the impact of joint U.S./Puerto Rican resources on the opportunity to be successful in advancing from the region in qualifying events for PanAmerican Championships and beyond.

Given that the statehood question is not likely to have an imminent resolution, I will put on the brakes on my speculation at this point. The scenario may never come about, or it may be something for a distant future when the circumstances may have changed substantially. But apart from intriguing speculation, it just might suggest to us that it would be prudent to do some modest amount of preparatory thinking about the implications, just in case…. And it is also interesting to see that, at this very moment, there is some excitement about the notion of the possible independence of Catalonia from Spain, precisely as it pertains to sports, given the dominant role of FC Barcelona in football, handball and other sports and the large number of individual star athletes from the region!

Michael V. Knudsen of Flensburg and Denmark; who or what prevents him from playing in the World Championship?

But now we have had a sudden signal that clubs and players may become fed up with the status quo and the lack of serious action on the part of those who have the main role in determining the calendar and thus the workload. With two different versions being presented, it became clear that Michael Knudsen from Flensburg and Denmark had been ruled out from participation in the World Championship next January. It had nothing to do with injuries. Rather, it was suggested (supposedly according to statements from Knudsen) that Flensburg had forced him to accept such a clause as a condition for having his contract extended. By contrast, Flensburg insisted that the decision was really initiated by the wishes of the player himself.

The news caused an outrage in Denmark, because Knudsen is a key player. It was also noted, on the one hand, that such a contract clause is not permitted under IHF regulations and, on the other hand, Knudsen was criticized for showing up at a Danish training camp if he was not going to be a team member in January. It would not be the first time that a player had been formally prevented from his/her club to participate in a World Championship. But it could really trigger a major debate about who has the prerogatives, the club or the national federation. It should be recognized that the players are really caught in between. They do not want to be forced to abandon their national team, if they do not have their own reasons for staying out. But, of course, they do not want to spoil the relations with their employer, the club, so it would always be possible to come up with a plausible explanation that nobody could formally criticize.

Essentially the issue is linked to two basic conflicts: first, it has been argued for a long time that it is just too much to have more than one major international championship per year. So in a sense it is the participation of handball in the Olympic Games that becomes the trigger. But as nobody suggests that this should be changed, then it is the pattern of having either a World Championship or a European Championship every year that is the crux. Compromises have been sought but with no result so far. The EHF does not really want to budge, and the IHF must protect the interests of all the other continents. The second issue is that, added together, games in the national leagues, the EHF Champions League and for the national teams simply add up to being a bit too much. (When one talks about the national team, this includes not just the Championships but the qualifying events leading up to them).

Martin Heuberger, the men’s national team coach in Germany, suggested recently that it would be fair and necessary to ‘shave off’ some portion of each of the three workloads. Of course, one could suggest that the top nations could have their burden reduced by entering at a later stage in the qualifying events, as compared with the model that is being played precisely this weekend. And, as I have done before, one could argue that the current Champions League model causes too many ‘unnecessary’ games for the participants. Or one could suggest, as Heuberger did, that the number of teams in the German Bundesliga should be reduced. Every year, essentially the same teams gain the top positions and then also play in the Champions League or the EHF Cup, while several other teams are clearly at a lower level. But Heuberger got the reaction from his own Federation that “it would really be difficult to deprive some teams of the chance to play in Bundesliga, and even the top teams want the extra income from a couple of additional home games”. Clearly, one could argue ‘forever’ how the reduction should best be achieved.

But the reality that most people overlook, when they propose one solution or the other as ‘the obvious one’, is that the situation is far from similar in all the top handball countries in Europe. The one thing that most of them have in common is that they attach a lot of importance to their national team, but even that may vary from country to country. In some countries there is relatively more interest in the EHF Champions League, and handball fans rally around the team that represents their country. But so far, it is much more common that the fans really care about their own club and everything else becomes secondary. However, that is very much related to the third dimension: many countries have a national league that, year after year, creates a strong interest on account of many evenly matched teams. But other countries, even some of the very best, have only one or possibly two dominating teams, so the league becomes unimportant. And then we have the unique case of Germany, who ‘has it all’. The Bundesliga has strong traditions, also among the smaller clubs, the national team is a matter of real pride, and they have at least six-seven teams in the EHF competitions.

So one of the reasons for reluctance in other countries to change things is that they primarily see the problem as one that is caused by the German situation. This has been quite clear from media comments and views expressed by fans. They are upset if a German club ‘interferes’ with the participation of a player on the national team in country X. And they do not have much sympathy for the ‘dilemma of the German clubs’. On the contrary, it reminds them that Bundesliga dilutes the quality of the leagues in many other countries. Perhaps the most interesting and astute comment I saw in recent time was along the following lines: ‘the problem is caused by Germany, where they have teams and players for an absolute elite league but still insist on adding many comparatively mediocre clubs that really belong in a lower league’. I can appreciate these arguments; and at least the strong divergence of views within Europe (and even more if one adds the top other countries in other continents) will make it really tough for the IHF and the EHF to achieve serious change.