PATHF Statutes, Regulations and Tribunal

Posted on September 25, 2012 by Christer Ahl

more competition, better communication and increased discipline are key objectives for the PATHF

During the recent Congress of the PanAmerican Team Handball Federation, some important changes were made in the Statutes and in the Competition Regulations (in addition to the Competition System, as previously reported). Similarly, it was decided to introduce Regulation, including a Disciplinary and Ethics Tribunal.

The key change in the Statutes amounted to a clear separation between the function of the Executive Committee and the Council. The Executive Committee now has only five members and is set up to be able to function in a true executive capacity with frequent meetings and communications, especially regarding operational matters. The Council, which includes the Executive members, 4 Vice-Presidents elected by the four regions, the Representative to the IHF Council, and the Presidents of the Commission for Organizing and Competition and the Commission for Rules and Refereeing. The Council will have more of role in policy matters, and it also ensures a wide representation of all parts of the Continent. In addition, an Office attached to the President, with a General Manager, should be able to ensure a major improvement in communications related to competitions and other operational matters.

The Competition Regulations also were firmed up on some points. It is now clear that the member federations can count on as many as 10 participants in each PanAmerican Championship. (The PanAmerican Games are beyond the control of the PATHF and have their own rules on this point). This means that federations cannot push for a larger number for a specific event, nor do they run the risk that an organizer declines to handle this size. It is a different matter that for the junior and youth categories we might conceivably find that there are sometimes less than 10 teams entered.

Strong emphasis has been added to provisions under which federations register teams for a PanAmerican competition. The deadlines are now firm, and there are strong penalties for late withdrawal or non-appearance, as this generally causes great problems and wasted resources for both organizers and other participants. It was also decided that, in an effort to encourage a broader spectrum of member federations to volunteer as organizers, the organizers will now be able to charge up to US$30 per person and day to cover food and lodging. Previously this was supposed to be covered through the participation fees.

Finally, on the basis of the negative experience with the handling of disciplinary matters in the absence of a solid regulation, and therefore with a risk of inconsistencies in decisions and procedural flaws, it was agreed that the PATHF must establish formal and comprehensive regulations. These will cover violence, misconduct and other offenses related to games and competitions, but also administrative violations in the relations of member federations with the PATHF and regarding their obligations in the area of competition. There will also be a separate segment focusing on ethical conduct and possible violations. The key body in this area is the independent Disciplinary and Ethics Tribunal. During the course of a competition, there will the traditional ‘Disciplinary Committee’ as the first level, typically with a member of the Tribunal serving as ‘Jury’ in the case of appeals. For situations outside competitions, the Tribunal is the first and the last entity to handle reports of violations. Its decisions will then be without scope for appeal.

Why weren’t the U.S. National Teams at the London Olympics?: Part 5: A lack of awareness and marketing: One in a million? The 312 real fans of Team Handball in the U.S.

Posted on September 23, 2012 by John Ryan

Where’s the USA Team Handball fan? (Hint: There’s one in Southern Nevada)

In Part 4, I pointed out that one factor limiting sponsor funding was the reality that there are very few followers of Team Handball in the U.S. In Part 5 I try to explain why there are so few and why this is such a big reason for the sports lack of success. (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3)

Well, pretty much every American who’s ever been involved with the sport knows that it’s a little known sport in this country, but how “little known” is it. Over the years I’ve addressed this from a number of different angles. For the benefit of new readers, however, I’ll rehash the basic issues. First, though, I’ll try to quantify the problem a bit.

Just how lacking is this “lack of awareness?”

Despite some positive inroads and gains over the 25 years or so that I’ve followed the sport, the reality is that the footprint for Team Handball in the U.S. is extremely small. How extremely small? Well, without the benefit of a sophisticated survey it’s pretty tough to definitively qualify the sport’s popularity and awareness quotient. Lacking that survey, I’ve put together some numbers based on personal experience, informed speculation and extrapolation.

Basic Awareness

I’ll define basic awareness as anyone who when asked could give a short simple explanation of the sport. I suspect that if a poll were taken you would get probably around 5% of Americans to pass that basic test. This may seem overly pessimistic to some American Team Handball followers because they’ve preached the gospel to virtually every friend and acquaintance in their life. And as a sports fan you’re also likely hanging out with fellow sports fans who are more likely to pass the basic awareness test. For instance, if you were to conduct a survey at a sports bar you could probably get a 25% response. Ask the right expat community in New York, you might get 75%. But, at a random chruch or a concert hall, you might be lucky to get 1 in a 100. The timing of such a survey would also skew the results. With the Olympics still fresh in more people’s minds, you could maybe bump up the average to 10% or more, but as the Olympics fades into memory the casual fan might forget the few minutes that he perused a couple of years ago while flipping through the channels on his TV.

A necessary diatribe on semantics

There are a number of reasons behind this low awareness quotient, but one of the biggest reasons is the existence of another, unrelated sport sharing the same name, “Handball.” For the benefit of our readers, not living in the U.S, Canada, Ireland and Australia, this other Handball sport can best be described as “racquetball with your hands.” And without question this “Handball” is more well known and popular in these countries. While it’s easy to dismiss this as a minor semantics issue it has undoubtedly hurt the development and marketing of the sport in the U.S. On a basic level it creates a remarkable amount of confusion and always requires a short diatribe to explain the sport.

In a broader context it hampers the “branding” of the sport in the consciousness of Americans. If you consider that companies often spend millions of dollars figuring out what to name a product in the hopes that consumers will remember that product you get a sense that this little semantic problem is really a big one with no simple solution.

Well, theoretically there is a simple solution in that an entirely new name could be christened for the sport. And this has been done halfway in the U.S. with the addition of the “Team” in Team Handball. Unfortunately, this only half solved the problem as the name still causes more confusion then distinction. And other names have been used. In some parts of Canada the sport is referred to as E.T.H. European Team Handball as a further modifier and in Ireland it’s referred to as Olympic Handball. I like the Irish name for it immediate conjures up the Olympic Games, but I’m not so sure as to whether the protective USOC would allow the use of the Olympic name. A more radical solution would be to come up with an entirely new name like Goalball, but then that would create a whole host of new problems like the marketing that would be required. Not to mention the resistance that would surely follow from traditionalists that can stand even the “Team” modifier.

If your sport isn’t on TV it doesn’t matter

Aside from the semantics problems there are a number of other issues related to so few people even knowing the sport exists. As was touched upon previously, the dominance of basketball in the U.S. has made it tougher for a similar indoor sport to gain traction. There is also a tremendous dearth when it comes to stories in the press, which is why it’s always a cause for minor celebration in the USA Team Handball community when some reporter writes a nice story on the sport in a major newspaper. Without question, though, the lack of TV broadcasts is the biggest reason behind the sports low awareness quotient.

During the 2008 and 2012 Olympics I’ve seen the impact of TV first hand as the traffic to our website increases by leaps and bounds. Here’s one anecdote for you. During the MSNBC broadcast of a women’s match between Sweden and Denmark on the first day of the Olympics I watched our current unique visitors jump from 20 to 370 in the space of 15 minutes. So that means that roughly 350 Americans sitting on their couch grabbed their iPad or their laptop and typed “Team Handball” into Google and clicked on the link for Team Handball News. And those are just the individuals with that level of curiosity. Thousands more undoubtedly checked out other websites or simply watched this “new” sport for the first time. And this is on MSNBC, a network that normally shows news that is temporarily hijacked during the Olympics every four years. We could argue about whether the basic awareness of the sport is 2%, 5% or 8%, but I don’t think anyone would argue that broadcasts like this caused this number to jump significant amounts

1 in a million: The need for real fans and real awareness

But, increasing “basic awareness” is just the first battle to be fought. If the sport is to truly grow and develop in this country the sport needs more real fans. And this is where the title of this article comes into play. The number of really devoted fans and athletes of the sport in the U.S. is an incredibly small number. There are a few metrics and anecdotes that bear this out pretty starkly: USA Team Handball membership has hovered around the 300-500 mark for decades. The collegiate championship for several years has featured only 3 or 4 schools. (And often West Point accounts for 2 of the teams.) Tryouts/selections for national teams, particularly at younger levels sometimes involves simply finding any players. Club championships in recent years have become more and more an Expat convention with native born Americans in the minority.

All of these anecdotes lead to my conclusion, that in the U.S. there are maybe around 300 real fans of the sport. Somebody, who when asked, “Hey, what’s your favorite sport?” without hesitation replies Team Handball. As the U.S. population is moving in on the 312 million mark, I’ll put the number at 312, so the devoted few can proudly claim they are 1 in a million.

The impact of this stark reality hardly needs explanation. How can the U.S. expect to field quality teams with such a small talent pool to work with? How can the U.S. attract big sponsorship deals when such a deal results in minimal exposure? As I’ve pointed out in this series the U.S. has a lot of challenges, but this lack of awareness is probably as close as there is to a root problem. If this problem is fixed then more funding and finding/developing better players will become far more easier. Yes, step one is changing 1 in 1,000,000 to 1 in a 100,000 and then 1 in 10,000.

So that quantifies the extent of the problem in terms of awareness. And, of course, it begs the question, why isn’t more being done to fix it. In Part 6, I’ll further address the struggle and challenges involved with with getting the sport on TV more.

VIDEO WEBSTREAMING: Berlin vs. Kiel: Can Berlin end Kiel’s 40 game winning streak?

Posted on September 15, 2012 by John Ryan

Can Sven Soren Christophersen and the Foxes end Kiel’s run?

Courtesy of LAOLA1.TV, Team Handball fans in many parts of the world will have the opportunity to watch Berlin host Kiel in a key early season German Handball Bundesliga (HBL) class. It may be only mid-September, but if last season is any indication of this season Berlin needs a win here if they have any hope of challenging the defending champions. That’s because last season Kiel ran the table, going a perfect 34-0-0 in the HBL

In fact, Kiel hasn’t lost a game in the HBL since a 4 May, 2011, 30-24 loss at Magdeburg; a total of 40 consecutive victories. Sure, they’ve got the best team, but it’s still a remarkable feat in a league which is pretty competitive from top to bottom. If Kiel doesn’t bring its “A” game when they travel on the road, probably about 14 of the other 17 teams in the league are more than capable of sending them home with a loss or a draw.

Can current league leaders, Berlin, end the streak? On Sunday we’ll find out.

Berlin vs. Kiel, Sunday, 16 September (17:30 Central European Time, 11:30 USA Eastern Time)
(Kiel is a 3 goal handicap favorite)

LAOLA1.TV webstream: Link

NOTE: HBL matches at LAOLA1.TV are unfortunately not available “on demand.” If you want to see this match, you’ll need to watch it live.

New competition/qualifying system in PanAmerica

Posted on September 12, 2012 by Christer Ahl

for the entire group to improve and succeed: the stronger ones need to help the others to join them at the top!

One of the main topics during the PATHF Congress was the discussion of a new system for the qualifying to the PanAmerican Championships in the different categories (men, women, juniors and youth). If one goes back to the ‘old days’ it was simpler. There were essentially only five member nations down in the ‘cone’ of South America, the Central America rarely participated outside their region, Mexico and Puerto Rico were regulars, with Cuba joining on a capricious basis, and then we had USA and Canada before Greenland joined the fun. So a major qualification system was not really needed, and the main Championship was THE regular competition.

But now the irony is that there are more interested participants and nevertheless less competition opportunities for them. Most of the other South Americans have become active, the Dominican Republic is a force to be reckoned with, and the Central Americans want to measure themselves against their more advanced colleagues. However, the size of the continent and the lack of resources on the part of most federations create a dilemma. If you need to travel from North to South in the qualifying process and are successful, then you soon need the money to travel again to the main Championship, perhaps again in the South. So imagine that you then try to go back to government, sponsors and player families and find the money if you actually get a slot in the World Championship in another continent!

For some short period, the idea was to create a ‘second division’, as a way of eliminating qualification tournaments. This meant that the only duplication of events was for those who moved up from one level to the next for the coming year. But this concept did not work out, because it put teams from all over the continent together in the ‘second division’, and who would find it easy to obtain the funding for long-distance travel in something that was not even a meaningful Championship.

So in connection with Mario Moccia taking over as a President, the emerging new proposal was now to return to a regional qualifying concept, BUT with the difference that the focus should not just be on the qualifying but on what the regional events could –and needed to – do in terms of ‘forcing’ more regular competition among neighbors, especially among those of approximately equal strength. There was general agreement that such tournaments, which might also spur additional competition in between the qualifying events, are absolutely necessary to raise the standards for both individual countries and the continent as a whole. With rare exceptions, the ‘number 3 and 4’ teams from the continent have been doing very poorly when getting their opportunities in various World Championships, and no clear trend for improvements has been seen.

So the idea now is that 10 teams should be allowed for each PanAmerican Championship, assuming of course that in the younger age groups you actually get that many teams interested in participating. The slots should then be distributed in a standardized way among three regions: the South, where Chile and Uruguay have been responsible for much of the progress in recent time, would get FIVE slots. This means that the ‘big four’ (ARG, BRA, CHI, URU) would often qualify but that there would always be room for at least one team from among the newer ones, where for instance Venezuela has come on strong. ONE slot would be set aside, as some kind of development tool or motivation, for the six Central American countries to fight about in their regional events, as they would otherwise never have much of a chance to get to the Championship.

This leaves FOUR slots for a rather evenly matched group of seven member federations: CAN, GRL and USA from the North, and CUB, DOM, MEX and PUR from the Caribbean. So the three North teams now have to ‘mix it up’ with some other teams instead of just doing the qualifying among themselves. This could be a really interesting group, often with a real struggle to avoid being left out from the subsequent championship. Much will depend on the resources that GRL and CUB may or may not have in order to participate in the lower age groups, for GRL due to travel expenses and for CUB due to internal politics. I suspect all these 7 member federations are a bit apprehensive about the implications of this approach. It really makes them have to weigh the advantages of more frequent and intensive competition against the risks that too many of the others will turn out to be stronger.

It should be noted that the system above applies only to the process leading to the PanAmerican Championships; the system for the quadrennial PanAmerican GAMES, which is controlled by the continent’s Olympic organizations and not by PATHF, remains unaffected, and only eight teams will qualify for the men’s and women’s competitions in Toronto 2015.
Finally, increased competition of good quality and between teams of about equal strength sounds really exciting. But this will highlight another current weakness: the standard and the quantity of the top level referees in the continent have gone downhill in recent time. So as there now will suddenly be increased demands, there is a major challenge for the new Referee Chief, Salvio Sedrez, to move quickly to strengthen the troops. On the other hand, for the longer term, if one has some patience, the intensified competition level should also in itself help improve the refereeing, as it provides the necessary basis for growth.

Harmony and revitalization in the PanAmerican Congress

Posted on September 10, 2012 by Christer Ahl

Important new developments in a united PanAmerican Team Handball Federation

During the weekend, PATHF organized the combination of an Extraordinary Congress and a Regular Congress in Panama City. The event was attended by 23 of the 26 PATHF member federations. This included nine of the ten from South America, all the six Central American members, five from the Caribbean region (CUB, DOM,HAI, MEX and PUR) and then the Northern trio Canada, Greenland and USA.

The proceedings were characterized by harmony and a good meeting of minds on all the major issues. This was particularly remarkable inasmuch as the agenda included the revision of the Statutes, the Competition Regulations, and the introduction of a first-ever regulation for a Disciplinary and Ethics Tribunal. I will come back to these issues in a separate article.

But, apart from the elections, the ‘hot topic’ was the revamping of the overall competition structure, especially as regards the system for qualifying to the different categories of PanAmerican Championships. The reality has been that only a small proportion of the PATHF federations have participated regularly in the Championships or in the qualifying leading up to them. Clearly, an effort needs to be made to encourage or ‘force’ more competition, especially on a regional basis among teams of relatively equal strength. This is the key to raising the level across the continent. I will came back to the details of the new system in a couple of days.

For the moment, I will just comment on the election results. The big change was that, after 16 years, there was a consensus that new leadership through a new President was needed, and the unanimous choice was the former Vice President Mario Moccia (ARG). In this team on the Executive Committee, we also have Julio Noveri (URU) as 1st Vice President and Rafael Sepulveda (PUR) as 2nd VP with special responsibilities for development. Hector Fernandez (CHI) moved over to the position of Secretary, making room for Carlos Ferrea (ARG) as Treasurer. Mario Garcia de la Torre (MEX) remains as Representative to the IHF.

The Council has six additional members, including four Regional Vice Presidents: Brian Hayes (CAN – North), Jose Duval (DOM – Caribbean), Carlos Morales (GUA – Central) and Geraldo Paniagua (PAR-South). The two other members are Carlos Gonzales (CUB – Pres. of the Competition Committee and Salvio Sedrez (BRA – Pres. of the Referees Committee).

A new important arrangement is the establishment of an Office with a General Manager function connected to the President; this will be occupied by Miguel Zaworotny (ARG). Finally, the brand new, independent Tribunal for Disciplinary and Ethics matters also had a President named. My ‘modesty’ prevents me from indicating who was placed in that position…

Qatari Sports Paper criticizes local clubs for mercenary squads at IHF Super Cup

Posted on September 7, 2012 by John Ryan

Doha Stadium Plus makes a strong case for local development

Hats off to the Doha Stadium Plus, a sports website and weekly based in Doha, Qatar. In a well written commentary and editorial, they take on local clubs, Al Sadd and El Jaish for fielding squads largely composed of European professionals. No need to rehash the articles in detail; Here are the links:

Doha Stadium Plus (5 Sep 2012): Commentary by Aju George Chris: Is Super Globe a Vanity Fair?

Doha Stadium Plus (5 Sep 2012): Editorial from the Editor in Chief, Dr Ahmed Al Mohannadi: Let’s bide our time and develop own champions

I must admit that my impression of Qatar was that is was an autocratic Arab state where the press toes the line and doesn’t critique the established sporting organizations. These articles blow that impression out of the water and make a strong case for Qatar to work harder to develop local talent. All the more relevant as there are rumors of even the national team getting stocked with mercenaries in preparation for the 2015 World Championships which will be hosted by Qatar.

AUDIO: Handball Talk (Episode 7) Olympics Wrap Up

Posted on September 6, 2012 by John Ryan

London hands over the Olympic Flag to the IOC.

John Ryan and Christer Ahl discuss a potpourri of Olympics Handball topics to include some top level analysis of the Women’s and Men’s competition, the competition format, NBC’s TV/Web production and the earlier podcast interview with the U.S. 1972 Olympic team. The podcast also includes a brief discussion on the recent IHF Super Cup in Qatar.

Apropos the Olympics – Part 10 (final): An overall impression

Posted on September 5, 2012 by Christer Ahl

The London Games were in the Closing Ceremony declared “happy and glorious”, and this was illustrated already in the Opening Ceremony through the image of a ‘happy and glorious’ Queen!

It would be silly to think that Olympic organizers simply are self-less ‘philanthropists’, who go to the effort and expense of organizing the Games just for the sake of the athletes, visitors and TV audiences. Of course they believe that, in one way or the other, it is going to be so beneficial to them that they will turn out to be justified in having made the sacrifices. Their precise motivation may differ from one occasion to another. For instance, much was made of China’s determination to show the world four years ago that they had ‘arrived’ on the world scene in a major way. But that, I believe, is to some extent always part of the picture. The British government clearly made statements somewhat along the same lines. Being able to organize the Olympics in a competent and friendly manner is always going to be a matter of prestige.

And as I see it, as long as we want the Olympic tradition to continue, we should be grateful that there are countries and cities who are willing and able to help us keep it going. It is a totally different matter that some organizers will obviously miscalculate, in their belief that it will all be worth it. Beyond the prestige, there has to be a more tangible, longer-term benefit. Showing off a host city as a place that deserves a major increase in its ability to attract tourists is one calculation. Making a case for being a modern, strong and reliable business partner is another one. Those potential gains are always hard to pin down, but the sense it that reputation of Britain and London surely got a valuable boost.

Therefore, it tends to be more common to point to the benefits for the country’s and the city’s own population. This typically includes the notion that a major redevelopment of a previously lagging part of the city will always be worthwhile. One hopes that this will come true in the long run, because the initial, inevitable upheaval may seem more like a negative to some, even if the approach in London may have been much more considerate than the seemingly ruthless one in Beijing. The construction of new stadiums and arenas is a more double-edged issue. While to some extent new facilities may in fact become useful additions for the locals, more and more the concern has been that the Olympic Games tend to leave behind ‘white elephants’ that will never again be fully utilized. But London seems to have found a good approach, with a clear plan for ‘recycling’ (with Rio 2016 as the beneficiary) or remodeling into more usable facilities.

During the Closing Ceremony, IOC President Rogge referred to the London games as “happy and glorious”. Organizers always hold their collective breath at that moment, hoping for an expression of high praise. Now that, for the first time in a very long while I was not present myself, I still came away with a sense that ‘happy’ was a very appropriate label. The atmosphere around the events and in London seemed to match that. And many of the potential problems that had been discussed in advance did not materialize. There was no crime wave, let alone any hints of the Games being a target for terrorism. Traffic is inevitably going to be a cause for complaints, but how could it not be, considering the huge number of visitors who are not used to finding their way in London. And even the weather cooperated, which may be the most remarkable achievement for a place like London.

Going back to what I said before, it seems more of a concern that the Olympic Games have become a rather overwhelming affair for both host country and host city. So instead of demanding perfection and complaining when we do not get it, we should be appreciative when someone manages to pull it off in an efficient and attractive manner. But one wonders, particularly given the tendency that nobody wants to come across as being less impressive than a predecessor, how realistic it is going to be to find willing and successful organizers in the future, notwithstanding the prestige involved. What countries will be willing to take the risk, and what cities will have the infrastructure and resources to make it work? Of course, some countries may have the political situation and the attitude that ‘the end justifies the means’ and that the will of the people matters less. But it would be sad and dangerous to see such a trend develop, so the question is: what could and should be done to bring the Games down to a scale that would make the demands on an organizer more reasonable!? The options of reserving the opportunity for a handful of locations or else encouraging potential hosts for whom the effort and expense would be unconscionable, seem equally undesirable.

AUDIO: Interview with Ben Teitelbaum: Co-Director of Team Handball Documentary, “Home Court”

Posted on September 3, 2012 by John Ryan

New York City Team Handball Club players pose with their latest national title trophy in Times Square

A new documentary focused on the current U.S. Club National Champions, the New York City Team Handball Club, is in the final stages of editing. The film focuses on the multi-cultural aspects of the team which includes expats from all over the world. In this 30 minute interview, Co-Director, Ben Teitelbaum discusses the film and its genesis.

New York Times (1 Sep 2012): Unified, in America, by an International Sport

“Home Court” Official Website: http://handballfilm.com/

New York City Team Handball Club Website: http://newyorkcityteamhandball.com/

THN Commentary from 2009 on Team Handball Related Movies: https://teamhandballnews.com/2009/12/in-search-of-a-handball-invictus/

Why Weren’t the U.S. National Teams at the London Olympics?: Part 4: A lack of funding: Where are the sponsors and donors?

Posted on September 2, 2012 by John Ryan

If only it were so easy to get substantial funding from these sources.

In part 3, I provided an overview of USA Team Handball’s funding since 1993 and some background as to why the USOC has decreased funding since the 96 Olympics. Continuing with the theme of funding sources, in this part I look at why the sport hasn’t received much in terms of funding from sponsors and donors. (Links to Part 1, Part 2)

Sponsors: As the concept of a “sponsor” might mean different things to different people, I’ll define it as any company that contributes funding to USA Team Handball for the promotion of their product. (Note: This is significantly different from the concept of a donor (discussed later) for which there is nothing expected in kind.)

Companies with Handball Specific Products: There are a number of products that are directly related to the sport of Team Handball. The obvious products include balls, goals, nets, flooring, shoes and stickum. Companies with make these products have an incentive to sponsor USA Team Handball since the use and promotion of these products by the Federation is pretty much guaranteed to reach almost everyone in the U.S. that would consider buying these products. Over the years, USA Team Handball had had a number of sponsorship agreements with companies that make these products, but I don’t have access to the documentation which shows how substantial these agreements were. In recent years, USA Team Handball did score a $50,000 sponsorship deal with SnapSports (a maker of floor courts), but I wouldn’t be surprised, however, if in most instances the primary benefit was simply equipment being provided for national team use. (Side note: Another item, worthy of a lengthy discussion are TV rights and that will be covered in the next installment.)

So, first the good news: USA Team Handball can pitch to these potential advertisers its phenomenal market reach. Seriously, if you advertise on USA Team Handball’s webpage, you are probably going to reach nearly 100% of the U.S. Handball market. But, now the bad news: The number behind that 100% is probably in the neighborhood of around 500 people. If these companies do the math, and they generally have people that really do the math (if they want to stay in business), this means that the dollar figures behind these sponsorships isn’t going to currently amount to much.

Companies with Sports Related Products: There are a number of sports related products not specific to Team Handball that also might find merit with a sponsorship relationship with USA Team Handball. The most obvious item is team uniforms, but other items such as protective undergarments could come into play. These sponsors, however, are also pretty aware of the relatively few numbers they will reach through USA Team Handball. USA Team Handball has generally been pretty successful in finding a uniform sponsor, although it’s not clear how much funding these deals brought in. If the U.S. could find more success on the court and qualify for the World Championships and convince a U.S. network to air a few national team matches the uniform contract would certainly increase in value.

Companies with Generic Products: There’s nothing to prevent Coca-Cola, Chevrolet, or some other random company from joining the USA Team Handball sponsorship family. Well, nothing other than the same argument: They’d be paying to reach only a few potential customers. Still, despite this USA Team Handball has had some success in this area in the past. If companies with Team Handball specific products have taken a pass on advertising with USA Team Handball, you might wonder why on Earth some other random company would give it a go?

The answer generally falls into a couple of categories. First, some companies want to get aligned with the Olympic movement in any way possible and USA Team Handball can provide an entrée for doing so. The most striking example was a substantial sponsorship (reportedly around $1M) from the Weather Channel during the 96 Olympics timeframe. I don’t the full specifics of how this came to pass, but I suspect that the Weather Channel, based in Atlanta, wanted to join the Olympic family and was either coaxed or steered in USA Team Handball’s direction. I’ll never forget the bizarre juxtaposition of seeing USA Team Handball promotional ads being aired in between weather forecasts and contemplating just how many people watching even knew what they were seeing. Unfortunately, enticing these companies usually requires being in the Olympics which has proven problematic in recent years.

The second category generally requires someone in the company having an affinity to Team Handball. How else to explain USA Team Handball’s current sponsorship from Grundfos, one of the world’s leading manufacturers of water pumps? This Danish company clearly has an affinity to the sport because the likelihood of a USA Team Handball follower also having a need of a water pump is probably pretty small. In many respects, the distinction between this sort of sponsor and a straight up donor is pretty negligible.

Donors: If a sponsor provides money with the intent of promoting their product, a donor is someone or some company providing money with no real expectation of profit or promotion. Donors support a charity, a movement, or a sports federation because they believe in the cause. I don’t know how much money has been donated over the years, but I suspect that with the exception of Dieter Esch’s fairly recent generosity it hasn’t amounted to a whole lot.

Much like a presidential campaign there’s two ways to accumulate significant funding from donations. You can either get a few people to contribute a lot or you can get a lot of people to contribute a little.

The millionaire donor: During the Olympics, sports columnist Jack McCallum whimsically suggested that some altruistic millionaire should take it upon himself to fund USA Team Handball.

Not the first time somebody has come up with that idea as it is the simple solution to the big funding problem. It seems somewhat silly, but it is at least conceivable. After all, a lot of millionaires have purchased sports franchises and then bought players to win regardless of how much it costs their bottom line. The team becomes essentially a toy for them in the big scheme of things. And even outside of professional sports, Paul Allen of Microsoft fame and T Boone Pickens have respectively, turned the Oregon and Oklahoma State NCAA Football teams into top programs.

From that perspective why not spend money turning around an Olympic sport? The funny thing is, is this is sort of what happened to USA Team Handball on a smaller scale when Dieter Esch bankrolled the Federation from 2008-2010. I say, “sort of” because Mr. Esch’s generosity had its limits, somewhere perhaps between $500K and $1M. While his generosity was substantial, we would need Mark Cuban dollars for a full and complete turnaround. And while I wouldn’t count on this happening, if there ever is someone with idle cash and a love for the sport, I sure hope USA Team Handball is ready to pounce with a pitch that will close the deal.

In the mean time, USA Team Handball could still make inroads with more donors being willing to contribute substantial, but still sizable donations. Indeed this was the strategy behind the $50K cost for a Board of Director’s seat that Mr. Esch implemented. And this was how Grundfos was brought into the fold. Problem is, though, that more companies and businesses did not follow suit. This could have been a salesmanship problem, but perhaps it’s more of a product problem.

Salesmanship Problem or a Product Problem?

One of the things that I’ve found amusing in online forums or in postgame discussions at the bar are critical comments directed at USA Team Handball for not raising more funds and/or being content to live off the USOC. As if incompetence and laziness were the only things keeping us from going out in to the backyard to pick corporate checks off the fundraising tree.

I don’t have full insight into how much effort USA Team Handball put into fundraising over the years, but it clearly appears to have been a priority of the last GM and Board President. Unfortunately, while they made good progress in establishing relationships with several European entities significant funding streams didn’t materialize. Maybe they were simply bad salesmen, but I would assess their lack of success more to the bitter truth that there is little present value with the product of USA Team Handball.

It’s true that there are some incredible salesmen that can seemingly sale anything to anyone. But in the midst of a struggling world economy even the Billy Mays of the world are going to come up short if the product doesn’t cut it.

So, given this currently reality how can we convince potential donors and sponsors to step forward and provide more funding to USA Team Handball? Two answers:

1) Sell the future. While the present value of USA Team Handball is paltry, the potential future value is exceedingly bright. A nation of 308 Million people and only around 500 dedicated followers? A sport tailor made for Americans? For a long time sponsors and donors couldn’t see that potential future or thought it was a pipedream, but a number of developments have occurred in recent years to start turning some heads. (To be discussed in the next installment)

In order to sell that future, however, USA Team Handball is going to have to convince the sponsors, donor and international partners that a clear plan is in place to make that future happen.

2) Improve the current product. Of course, this is obvious, but it’s important to note that is not necessarily fully aligned with National Team performance. No, the goal here is to improve the product from the viewpoint of potential sponsors and donors. This means a number of things, but more than anything it means turning 500 dedicated followers into 5,000 and then 50,000 and then more.

So that wraps up the discussion on sponsor and donors. In part 5, I further elaborate on some of the reasons the sport of handball is so little known in the U.S.

Apropos the Olympics – Part 9: The refereeing in handball brings more concerns than reassurance

Posted on August 31, 2012 by Christer Ahl

British referees Battlett and Stokes had a game during the Olympic tournament

In two pre-Olympic articles, I commented on refereeing. First I noted that the group of referees nominated for London was almost completely lacking in Olympic experience, and then I previewed the issues and instructions that would need to be discussed with the Olympic handball referees to get them to maintain a correct and uniform line. It now seems inevitable that I offer some comments on my observations and evaluation.

Although I watched, through high-quality TV broadcasts or live streaming, 49 complete games and 15 at least half games (making me miss only 12 games of 76), which provides me with a very solid basis, it is of course conceivable that the official IHF evaluation will differ somewhat from my own informal effort. But I am reassured to know that the IHF Referee Commission, strongly supported by the Coaching and Methods Commission, has collected a wealth of information to be able to come up with a solid analysis in due course.

I noted in my article about the nominated group of referees that this is group that I have reason to trust as a serious and honest team, who will do their utmost to handle the games with integrity and to protect their own reputation as unbiased officials. Nothing that I saw from London makes me modify that evaluation in the slightest. To the extent that, in some games, the refereeing may have given the impression of being a bit lop-sided, it was more a result of an inability to recognize, in that particular game, that one of the two teams was much more cynical than the other, in terms of acting outside the rules. And if they did not get caught, some unfairness may have been created.

From a technical standpoint, it was clear that the areas of emphasis, which the referees heard about from the IHF before the start of the event, and which were basically also the ones that I commented on a month ago, were indeed the ones creating the main challenges during the Olympics. This is obviously not because the referees ‘refused to listen’; it simply confirms that there are some specific aspects of the game that always tend to be the more difficult ones and that, despite the reminder and the support from the IHF, these will still be the ones that cause problems and lead to criticism.

It may be frustrating to point it out, but the key issue was most likely the frequently shifting line in individual punishments. There were tendencies to differences between referee couples, but also for the same couple from one game to the next. Even more awkwardly, there was a general trend towards more leniency as we moved toward the later stages of the event and, similarly, the referees sometimes became too soft and ‘diplomatic’ during the critical final stage of a game. Also, direct 2-minute suspensions and direct ‘red cards’ were used too sparingly.

In many games it seemed that the players on the offense could do nothing wrong, as almost all the decisions went against the defenders. And unfortunately, this did not quite match the reality, so it led instead to an escalation of the methods by the desperate defenders. But in individual games, it was suddenly turned around so that all the attention seemed to be on infringements by the attackers. Of course, this tended to cause confusion.

As so often in the past, many of the problem situations occurred around the 6-meter line. Often this was in the sense that a ‘wrestling’ or ‘shoving’ match was taking place, without any action from the referees. And another issue involved the well-known trend of ‘detecting’ defenders inside the goal-area and awarding a 7-meter-throw, even when this was not really the situation. It would be a major break-through if, one day, one could get a consistently more accurate observation by the referees about this.

And the final realization was that too many of our top referees are not used to, and comfortable with, refereeing women’s matches. So precisely in the Olympic Games, which is the only time when we have simultaneous men’s and women’s competition, it was noticeable that the judgment of body contact in the women’s games often was flawed or at least inconsistent.

This year’s Olympic handball tournaments may not have been of the absolute top level that one might have hoped. But the speed, dynamics and physicality were nevertheless sufficient to make observers begin to wonder if we have reached the stage where it is beyond the capacity of TWO pairs of eyes to register everything that is happening on the court. Or alternatively, what are the scientific methods that have not yet been tried, in the area of helping the referees to maintain the concentration, focus, recognition and interpretation that is needed?

More generally, most of the referees in London will also by appearing in the Men’s World Championship in just five months time. On the basis of the observations now made, will the IHF, in collaboration with the continental federations, be able to apply the resources needed to follow these referees in the meantime, offering feedback, mentoring and practical advice? As I have commented, these referees are not ‘beginners’, but they also are not ‘ready’ in the sense that can be left to their own devices. They constitute a key resource for our elite handball, who need and deserve constant support and nurturing!

Apropos the Olympics – Part 8: Tired of hearing about ‘the best of all times’

Posted on August 29, 2012 by Christer Ahl

so what does a medal tell you?

Already during the two Olympic weeks, but even more after the completion of the event, there has been an absolute hysteria around the discussion about ‘the best Olympic athlete of all times’. What caused this particular focus was of course the ability of Michael Phelps to add to his medal collection so that he has now, after three Olympic Games, 18 gold medals and four ‘lesser’ ones. This is obviously much more than anyone else gained throughout a career.

This causes some people to proclaim that the mere numbers make it obvious that Phelps is the best athlete who has ever existed. Let me say that I happily recognize his great achievements, his efforts, and his ability to persist over a considerable period of time. But in my opinion, ANY attempts to use medal counts, or any other method, to try to establish who is the best ever, are completely flawed and really undesirable. I know that it is in the human nature to want to make such comparisons and proclamation, so nothing I say will put a stop to it, but I still want to make my arguments.

I have some appreciation for the desire to make comparison over time within one and the same sport. For instance, who is the best handball player ever? And I understand that it is both tempting and interesting to compare performances in different sports and then try to establish who has made the greatest accomplishments, whose achievement requires the broadest skill set, the strongest talent, or the greatest effort. But for me personally, it is a rather futile exercise, in part because most of us understand too little about each event to be able to compare, and mainly because there are no meaningful criteria by which comparisons across sports can be made.

Presumably that is part of the reason why it is so tempting, and so supposedly convincing, to use medal counts as a basis. But it should be rather obvious that this does not tell us a lot. What is the real reason that Phelps can win so many medals; is it really that he is superior to a boxer, runner, rower, shooter, wrestler or fencer? Well, of course not! Even after I leave out the team sports, it is clear that most other athletes have only ONE chance to win a medal, while a few have a realistic opportunity to win two or more.

In some sports you have different distances or variations that require such similar skill sets that it is realistic to be a multiple medal winner. A runner or kayaker could combine two distances, a tennis or badminton player could win in singles and doubles, and in some individual sports there is a separate medal chance for teams, simply by aggregating the results of individuals. (This latter approach is in my opinion unfortunate, as it goes against the spirit of the Olympic Charter which de-emphasizes such aggregating of results by nation).

Then of course you have a few sports that are designed to be testing the capacity to handle totally different activities, viz., decathlon/heptathlon, modern pentathlon and triathlon. I think it is a good illustration that even the most outstanding participant in decathlon never really has the skills to compete for the medals in one of the ten individual events. To my mind, such versatile athlete would have every reason to wonder why it is possible for others, such as Phelps, to use a much narrower set of skills to win a multitude of medals.

Put differently, again without taking issue with the achievements of Phelps, his ability to win so many medals really speaks more about a clearly inappropriate generosity in the number of very similar medal events in swimming. The ability to win medals in different styles plus in individual medley suggests that there is clear an excess of events, and if you then add the relays it really has gone too far. To start with, one could surely eliminate one distance for each of three ‘special’ strokes and individual medley and two of the distances for freestyle, without creating any unfairness for the participants, if one compares with other sports. And two forms of relays seems to be at least one too many.

The IOC is generally striving to modernize the Olympic Games by inserting new sports, and the efforts and experiments in the Youth Olympic Games seem to be a step in the right direction. Apart from the apparent excesses in swimming, there are other team competitions in individual sports that add very little (except space for additional participants) and there are entire sports that are no longer as ‘modern’ as even their explicit names suggest. As I was noting in an earlier article, a major purpose of the Olympic Games is to be a source of INSPIRATION. But this means that, to get the attention of younger generations, the program of the Games has be constantly renewed, so the IOC would be wise to speed up this effort. And this cannot happen unless some cuts in the current program are made!

Apropos the Olympics – Part 7: The British deserve the blame!

Posted on August 27, 2012 by Christer Ahl

their gift to mankind...

In connection with their hosting of the Olympic Games, the British have been very quick and proud to use a lot of media articles to proclaim that they are the ones who ‘invented’ a large proportion of the sports in the Games and a whole lot of other sports as well. The lists vary from source to source, but they often include sports which some other countries have been in the habit of claiming as theirs.

Most people are ready to accept that soccer/football originated in Britain, but the lists generally also tend to include archery, badminton, boxing, field hockey, rowing, sailing, swimming, table tennis, tennis, track & field and water polo. If you disagree, please do not blame me; I am just passing on the consensus of British media! Of course, they also want to take credit for some (currently) non-Olympic sports, such as cricket, croquet, golf, rugby and squash. I think they probably also have the rights to some other strange things such as netball.

But they are quite prepared to accept that, by contrast, other countries deserve the credit for a small number of Olympic events, such as the U.S. inventions of basketball, volleyball and triathlon. Similarly, they are willing to admit that the Germans seem to be the ones who started gymnastics. And in some footnotes there are references to the competing claims for the obscure sport of handball from Denmark and Germany. The British seem quite content not to have anything do with that ‘un-British activity’.

And yes, this confirms what I have always noted, both in conversations with British friends and with people from around the ‘Anglo part’ of various continents: it is really the ‘fault’ of the British that our revered handball has had such a scattered emergence around the globe. In Africa, for instance, it is very clear that North Africa and some francophone countries on the West Coast keep dominating, together with the special case of Angola. By contrast, I remember asking government officials about handball during visits to Kenya and Ghana, former British colonies, and I was met by a blank stare.

The same fate was generally bestowed upon Commonwealth nations in Asia, so this is why handball has always had this awkwardly polarized situation in Asia, with strongholds around the Persian Gulf and in China, Japan, and Korea. India is only recently beginning to participate in handball, but at a very modest level. Similarly, the Australians were, and mainly remain, handball novices when they were hosting the Olympic Games in the year 2000.

Another interesting twist involves the French overseas ‘regions’ of Guadeloupe, Martinique and Reunion, which you could say have amounted to ‘secret weapons’ for France in the international competition, producing world-class talents such as retired stars Richardson and Abati, together with current top players Dinart, Narcisse and Sorhaindo. I bet the British team would not have minded having some reinforcements like that on their team in the London Olympics.

The early starters in PanAmerica were Canada and USA in the north and Mexico and Argentina in Latin America. But this certainly had nothing to do with a British (or Spanish) influence. Migration and contacts related to specific ethnic groups provide more of an explanation. As I noted in one of my recent articles, the lack of immigrants from regions with handball background to this day remains a handicap for handball in the U.S., compared with the steady and natural inflow of newcomers who have grown up with soccer. So when we ponder this reality, let us remember that, essentially, the blame for handball’s difficulties in the U.S. really lies with the British and their lack of appreciation for handball…

As a ‘footnote’, while it has been very nice to see the enthusiasm of British spectators for a sport which has no background in their country, and while the preparations and competitive spirit of the British handball teams were admirable, there are already signs that handball in Britain may not be able to count on a sustained boost in the aftermath of the Olympic Games. Quite surprisingly, it was already reported shortly before the start of the Olympics that the participation of the British women’s team in the upcoming World Championship qualifying had been cancelled. And now we are finding media reports to the effect that the government is already bringing the British handballers down to earth after their Olympic excitement. Much in line with the situation in the U.S., the government has declared that funding will only be provided for sports with genuine chances for an Olympic medal!!!