In several articles over the past year, I have lamented that neither clubs nor federations appear willing to offer much of a forum and opportunity for the elite players to express views or to contribute with ideas. For instance, I have commented on the empty gestures of the ‘Athletes Commissions’ that exist on paper but are not being used as intended.

I have also commented on the tendency that clubs and federations discuss ‘over the heads’ of the players about matters that very directly involve the situation of the players, such as the competition calendar, the release of players from clubs to federations for their national teams, health and insurance matters etc. Of course, it is excellent that these matters are finally being discussed, but not that this happens without the participation of the players.

So I think I have established my credentials as someone who genuinely favors more of a voice for the players. But, it is not only a matter of inviting or not inviting the players, or providing a forum or not doing so, Clearly, the top players are for the most part bright, well-educated adults, who should be able to take the necessary initiatives and exert pressure. They should not be content with being treated as children or unthinking robots.

Leaving aside the potential for players to contribute with constructive ideas regarding the development and management of our sport, about the rules etc., at least one would imagine an urge to have the opportunity to speak up out of self-interest. I have never noticed that the players are so shy and inarticulate that this would be unrealistic…

But perhaps their focus is so narrow that they actually prefer a status quo? Or perhaps their focus is only on earning the maximum amounts here and now, so that longer-term considerations, health risks and a willingness to express a preference for fewer games are unthinkable? Or do the players realize that fewer games would lead to reduced revenues and almost inevitably reduced salaries? Or is it ‘beneath the dignity’ of the elite players to act as ‘workers’ who need to get together and speak up, in the same way as unions or syndicates? (I was almost prepared to use a slogan from Karl Marx as a heading for this article: Players of the world, unite! But I got worried that this would scare people off!)

But seriously, I am now beginning to think that I am wasting my time on arguing in favor of increased opportunities for the players, if the reality is that they prefer to hide and stay quite…. But I surely hope it is not so! Players, please wake up and start looking after your interests!

P.S. I hear now in recent days about some awakening among the Bundesliga players; great! we need a good example for others to follow!

Gerd Butzeck, the Managing Director of Group Club Handball (GCH), gave an interesting interview in handball-world.com recently, touching on a broad spectrum of current issues. http://www.handball-world.com/news-index.php?LID=1&GID=1&auswahl=28020

I find that I very often tend to agree with the views and ideas that Gerd brings out, either as a spokesperson for GCH or as a handball observor. This time I can appreciate most of his points, but there is one area where I am not so sure that he is coming up with the best arguments in order to get opponents or neutral observers on his side.

Gerd Butzeck is commenting at length about the progress the GCH and the broader grouping FCH (Forum for Club Handball) has made, primarily in negotiations with the EHF but gradually perhaps also with the IHF, regarding compensation and insurance issues. ‘Teamhandballnews’ has reported about these developments extensively in the past. Gerd also comments on the burden on the clubs caused by the substantial aggregate amount of time that the top players spend in a year with their respective national teams. This brings the interview to the question of the competition calendar. And this is where I am concerned about some of his statements on the competition calendar, and also about some things he is [u]not[/u] saying.

Quite naturally, as a representative of clubs, he is arguing in favor of a reduction in the number of ‘big events’, meaning the Olympic Games, the two World Championships and the two Continental Championships in each four-year period. He argues for eliminating 1 WC and 1 EC, so that there are only 3 major events ever four years. To me, this seems drastic and sounds like some kind of ‘bargaining position’. But when he comments on the expected reaction to such proposals, he makes an argument that I consider to be both tactically and factually wrong. He essentially says: “it is all about money”. Of course, the TV and advertising revenues for a major championship is a really major consideration. But, especially as someone who is used to looking at these matters from a European perspective, he overlooks other considerations.

[b]Impact for non-European nations[/b]

In Europe there is the Champions League and the other EHF club events, which do not have any serious equivalents in other continents. Similarly, the European Championship, which in Europe is often described as a tougher event than the World Championship, really creates a level of interest in Europe that cannot at all be matched by the championships in the other continents. What the top countries in the other continents really want is the opportunity to compete directly against the European nations. In other words, for all practical purposes non-European nations are already down to three ‘big events’ in each four-year period. They certainly do not want to lose one of those.

[b]Loss of propaganda value[/b]

Moreover, for these countries, and also for many European countries, money is not the only concern. The ‘propaganda’ value of the ‘big events’ is enormous, especially of course if one manages to qualify for participation, but also as a spectator and TV event. It is fair to say that the entire handball family, including the clubs, benefit from this. So I understand Gerd Butzeck’s objectives, but be careful with the arguments used and the arguments overlooked!

[b]Not all club matches are of the highest value either[/b]

Also, I hope the objective of the discussions regarding the competition calendar is not just about a shift in the balance between clubs and federations, but also about the health and well-being of the players. But even though Gerd represents club interests, I think he would sound more credible on this point if he occasionally pointed out that the clubs themselves waste the energy and the health of the players on games that are useless, except in one respect: ‘it is all about the money’ that they bring into the coffers of the clubs.

Finally, I have had a dialog with Gerd Butzeck over the years about different competition formats that would lessen the impact that major competition have on the big teams and the top players. I hope he will pursue this aspect also.

I commented recently about the main conclusions from the IHF Forum regarding rules and refereeing. As I noted, it was generally felt that there is no need for major rules changes at this time, in order to make our handball more attractive. Indeed, the recommendations were more focused on trying to support the task of the referees through strengthened education and other means, something with which I agree fully.

Having scanned the handball media to look for reactions to the conclusions from the IHF Forum, I find only a modest number of comments, which may not be so surprising, considering that there were no earth-shattering proposals. However, the intention to investigate the scope for utilization of video reviews seems to gain general support, although with some words of caution. Some commentators note that we must take care to put limitations on any video review policy, so that it does not get the unintended and unwanted effect of interrupting the flow of the game through lengthy interruptions. Drawing on my experience with video review in the NBA, NHL and NFL here in USA, I can well understand and agree with those concerns.

Other comments involve the general dilemma of having different rules or regulations at different levels; clearly, video review is only feasible in games at those levels where TV broadcasting brings the availability of adequate camera coverage. So video review could never be part of the general rules for handball; it could only be part of the regulations for specific competitions. But this is a broader issue, because I have also noticed comments to the effect that one could have several ideas for changes in the rules, if one could have separate rules for the top level and for handball in general. However, as the commentators themselves note, this is generally not a good situation. We want to have clarity and consistency on the basis of uniform rules.

Of course, aspects that do not directly affect how the game is being played in a technical/practical sense could be a different matter, such as the length of the intermission, the tie-breaking procedures, the number of players used etc. But we have seen recent examples of how also such modifications can cause confusion. The IHF recently announced that, while the playing rules allow only up to 14 players in a game, the IHF would allow 16 players in World Championships and would support similar exceptions in high-level continental events. The rationale is that a World Championship may involve an intensive schedule with up to ten games in three weeks for a team, so it would then make sense to reduce the pressure by allowing all the 16 players on the squad to be used in each game. The same rationale would apply for instance in the European Championship tournament for national teams.

However, the EHF somehow also decided that the exception with 16 players should also be permitted in Champions League matches for clubs, even though this does not involve a tournament with a concentrated schedule. Apparently this created some confusion for other EHF competitions, because very quickly it happened that a team in one of the other club competitions also thought they could use 16, prompting a formal protest from the opponents. http://www.handball-planet.com/2010/10/hc-meshkov-brest-fined-5000-e/ And suddenly there were also doubts about what was the situation in the upcoming qualification games for the European Championships… These games are of course not played in a tournament format, so the initial rationale does not apply, but they are in a sense a part of the Championship. In the end, the EHF had to decide to allow 16 also here. http://www.eurohandball.com/article/13425 All this seems to confirm that any deviation from full uniformity can have its drawbacks and needs to be introduced more cautiously and with a clear logic.