Mubarak and Blatter: unfortunate choices as role models for the IHF

My colleague John Ryan admits that he does not follow football very closely, so he may have missed much of the commotion leading up to the recent FIFA Election Congress, last year’s decision to award Russia and Qatar the rights to organize the 2018 and 2022 World Championships, and the last 30 years of constant accusations or rumors of rampant corruption.   So John is prepared to declare the IHF Champion of corruption and mismanagement.  I disagree:  FIFA is in a class by itself!  But our readers should feel free to weigh in with their opinions on this sordid comparison.

I have done my share of reporting about IHF power abuse and corruption, so I will only quickly remind about some of the stories here without repeating any details.  In 2008, the IHF President personally figured in a ‘less than flattering way’ in terms of personal involvement in the match fixing in the Asian qualifications for the Olympics.  Last year, media reported about a personal contract for the President to the tune of 600.000 Euro, in return for the awarding of the TV rights contract to Sportfive at the time.  Soon thereafter, persistent rumors were heard about illegitimate procedures regarding the awarding of the subsequent TV rights contract to UFA.  IOC President Rogge was reported to be less than pleased.

Then came the easy decision by the IHF Council to change the President’s status, from that of an elected official serving as a volunteer, to that of a full-time paid IHF employee at a salary in the order of US$ 500.000.  Neatly, this coincided with a proposal for the Council members to have their own remuneration quadrupled or more.  The two very competent office managers, the Head of Sports and the Head of Administration, were eased out and replaced by President himself and his long-time crony and compatriot as the persons running the IHF Office and supervising all activities.

First proposed for the postponed 2010 Congress and then again for the recent 2011 Congress, came a set of proposals for By-Law changes that would have legitimized a major power grab for the IHF and the President personally, at the expense of handball’s global stakeholders.  Fortunately, and almost surprisingly, there were enough alert Congress participants who saw through this attempt and managed to put a stop to it.  Virtually unchecked decision-making authority and control over the financial transactions would otherwise have been the result.  I understand John Ryan, if he feels that this list from just the last few years is ‘impressive’ enough to make the IHF a strong contender…

When looking at the record of FIFA one must backtrack a bit and provide some background.  Former President Havelange came into power in 1974, essentially through the ‘machinations’ of the then Adidas boss Horst Dassler, who was using his position in the world of sports business.  Dassler later also got his protégé Sepp Blatter into FIFA as the Secretary General.  Blatter soon began to cast his eyes on the presidency, and it became apparent that he had acquired the necessary ‘business acumen’ to achieve that promotion.  In the meantime, the sports marketing firm started by Dassler, ISL, had gained prominence, and it became a ‘helpful partner’ to FIFA, especially in the context of selling the TV rights for the World Cup.

Later on, in a major bankruptcy scandal and court case, it became clear that ISL, apart from getting commissions on contracts for TV and marketing rights, apparently had served as the middleman in the handling of bribes from deal makers around the world to senior FIFA officials to the tune of 140 million SwFrs.  While the IHF TV rights for a 4-year period of World Championships currently are in the order of US$ 80 million, the FIFA TV rights went from about US$1.2 billion in 2002 and 2006 to about 2.5 billion in 2010.  Other marketing rights were worth around US$ 1 billion.  So it is not surprising if the remunerations for a much larger group of FIFA executives dwarf those of the IHF Council members, and if the ‘expense accounts’ and outright bribes add up to rather astronomical amounts.  And of course, the President has an essentially unlimited account to spread around in continental and national federations for them to use for special projects…  But do not get the impression that the enormous revenue mainly goes to development in poor countries;  about half of the US$ 1.5 billion net profit from the 2010 World Cup was set aside for FIFA’s own administrative and operational expenses.  A nice state of affairs for an organization that Is legally recognized as a charity(!) and insists on total tax exemption wherever it organizes a World Cup.

Naturally, it is not surprising if virtually every member for a key position in FIFA is able to bring accusations against rivals and their supporters.  It is likely to be a hard job in FIFA circles to figure out who are the ones who do not have a skeleton in the closet.    And of course, the best chances of staying one step ahead in the FIFA power struggle is to make use of the various resources that come with the presidency and to hold on to that position. So the one person who seemed to be a plausible opponent in Blatter’s bid for re-election, Bin Hammam from Qatar, found himself being forced to withdraw and face a suspension at the last moment, following indications that money in support of his candidacy might been thrown around a bit too openly.  Remarkably, it also caused another notorious executive, Jack Warner from Concacaf to be caught up in the same affair, an amusing fate for someone always known as a Blatter crony.  There was then worldwide pressure for FIFA to postpone the election but, needless say, Blatter wanted none of that.  In a bizarre ‘press conference’ he dismissed any notion of a crisis.

In recent months, FIFA has also been plagued by suspicions and accusations that the Executive Committee’s voting last December regarding the hosting of the 2018 and 2022 World Cups may not have been above board.  Of course, some of the ‘dirt’ may have something to do with sore losers.  But the choice of Russia and Qatar as hosts will, almost by definition, bring up speculation that money or some other form of coercion may have played a role.  And several FIFA executives remain suspended after the discovery of clear evidence that bribes were solicited and/or received.  Some of those who lost out to Qatar in the bid for 2022 seem to feel some renewed hope, but it is difficult to prejudge if something as drastic as a new vote will be found to be justified.  At least it has caused a change for 2026 and onwards, in the sense that the entire FIFA congress will do the voting.

All in all, one could say that the amount of money involved in the legitimate and not so legitimate business transactions regarding FIFA are at a level almost beyond the imagination of the world of handball.  The complete cynicism surrounding the FIFA operations is also much more deep-rooted.  People shrug and talk about the ‘cost of doing business’.  Moreover, the big money, and the amount of PR and prestige involved in a football World Cup, inevitable bring in the really big names also in government circles.  Another major difference from the IHF situation, where the power abuse and soliciting of votes and favors is less overt and involves fewer people, is that in FIFA the corruption really seems to permeate the entire organization.  The IHF President does not conceal that the FIFA President is a close friend and role model, but I think he will have to admit to playing in a smaller league.

But the bottom line is that both organizations, each at their level, are affected by mismanagement and corruption to an extent that simply should not be tolerated.  So the question is what can be done.  FIFA’s Blatter perennially tries to convince the world, every time he has been re-elected, that FIFA will be able to get back on track on its own and through his leadership….  The latest gimmick for convincing people is to appoint a ‘solution committee’.  To lend credibility, Blatter seems to have in mind appointing Henry Kissinger, a known football fan, as the person in charge.  (After having once spent some time discussing handball rules with Kissinger at the Olympics, I know he also has a familiarity with handball, so perhaps he could do double duty…).

More seriously, I am more prepared to pick up on statement from IOC’s veteran and ‘truth sayer’ Richard Pound.  He commented in public last week that perhaps it would be time for the decent and dissatisfied football nations to withdraw from FIFA and establish an alternative.  As he noted, this has been done successfully before in other sports.  He really felt that the reputation of FIFA and of football as a sport was being damaged and that something needs to be done.  As is known, IOC does not interfere in such matters but expects the global family in each sport to clean up its own act.  And then it is up to IOC to recognize which is the entity that deserves to represent and manage the sport in an honest, democratic and effective manner.  Perhaps something to consider for those handball countries who really are the drivers, developers and revenue creators in our sport!

Is IHF President Moustafa really polishing diamonds?

It might feel like the moment to celebrate, when the IHF President failed to gain approval for his attempt to legalize the autocracy he is so desperately seeking.  But I hope there will be reason to celebrate after the election Congress in 2013.  In the meantime, I simply want to thank those Congress delegates who realized how dangerous and inappropriate most of the By Law proposals were, and then had the good judgment and courage to vote against them.

The President, who undoubtedly had expected to be able to celebrate at this point, instead mumbled about “IHF still being in the middle of the road and having a long way to go”, a rather amazing statement from someone so supremely confident in his own views and methods”.  The IHF web site had previously reported his comments at the opening of the Congress: “handball is like a diamond, we only need to polish it to turn it into a brilliant”.  Well, he is in fact right in comparing our sport with a diamond, but regrettably he understands as little about doing the right things with handball as he appears to know about diamonds!

Turning a diamond into a brilliant is a long and difficult process that requires a true expert.  The process of blocking and faceting the stone can be compared with the need for setting goals and strategies for developing and managing world handball, something that the President has sadly failed to understand.  Instead we are running the risk that with his lack of skills he will be chopping the diamond into small pieces while taking his own cut.  And the marketing and selling of the jewel is also something best left for a real and honest expert.  After all, we are not dealing with cheap jewelry in a bazaar.

I have talked with several people who attended the Congress, and the chaos they describe actually makes it sound more like a bazaar.  The President, in his efforts to prioritize personal loyalty, is no longer surrounded by senior IHF employees and other persons who have the competence to manage a Congress, to run a Federation and, for example, to handle a complex document such as the By-Laws.  So the question is how long this state of affairs will be allowed to continue.  For how long will a well-paid and scared group of loyalists be able to resist the pressures of the decent and serious members of the handball family who are beginning to realize that it has gone too far, down the wrong road!?

It is not enough to protest and resist.  As has been seen on the political scene in a number of countries in recent months, it is important that better suited leaders are prepared to step forward, ready to take on important responsibilities and able to lead strongly in a better direction.  Two years, until the next election Congress, may seem like a long time.  But the moment to begin the planning and collaborating is now!

And it is equally important to ensure that the ways of the President are carefully scrutinized in the meantime.  The tendency to act as if the inappropriate By-Laws were already in place had clearly been noticed.  And it is difficult to believe that these tendencies will disappear unless they are checked and stopped.  But by whom!?  Well, most of the income of the IHF is generated, directly or indirectly, by a relatively limited number of countries, federations, leagues, clubs and players, who surely do not want the results of their efforts and talents squandered, instead of being put to use for global handball development in a systematic, efficient and fair manner.

P.S.  If you wonder about the choice of image above this article:  well, apart from the link to diamonds, it is all a question of percentages.   Like getting a sufficient share of the votes to defeat By-Law proposals and getting enough to win an election; but it is also a question of where does the revenue go:  to genuine development efforts, to effective promotion of handball, or into compensation for a select group of officials!?

Following my article a few days ago about the serious problems in the proposed IHF By-Laws, which are being placed in front of the IHF Congress delegates this coming week, I have received several questions along the lines:  but how can it be that such terrible proposals seem likely to be accepted by the Congress?  And similarly, how can it be that there is an increasingly lack of patience and acceptance for the Mubaraks of this world, and yet someone acting in the same autocratic and outdated manner continues to be tolerated as a head of an international federation?

There are several explanations, mostly variations on the same theme:  it is possible for an organization to be democratic on paper but autocratic in reality.  Especially, if a large proportion of those who are entitled to vote are far removed from the inner circles and systematically kept uninformed about how the organization is managed and what it is NOT achieving.  Those voters can then be made to think that there is no need for change!

It has to be recognized that, outside Europe, handball is largely a new and rather unknown sport, being developed locally by people who have limited understanding for the history and the potential of handball, and also generally have a modest understanding of sports politics and international affairs.  Only about a dozen of the more than 110 non-European member federations could be seen as strong and well-developed by global standards.  Their representatives do not know more about the IHF rulers than they see in very limited media reports or by attending IHF congresses.  Moreover, as they have their travel to the Congress paid or subsidized by the IHF, this also encourages a sense of loyalty or obligation.

It would not have to be like this.  The IHF has continental federations, which are potentially in a position to have a very positive influence on their respective member countries.  But instead of educating and integrating their voting members, ensuring an unbiased understanding  of the issues that are being voted on, these continental entities and their elected bosses tend to act just as autocratically as the IHF regime, controlling and further isolating the individual members.  They have enough clout to be able to direct the votes of huge blocks of votes from their continents, on the basis of the false assumption that they act in everyone’s best interest.

But the problem is that often these continental ‘middle men’ are acting or directing more on the basis of their personal interests than for the benefit of the individual member countries.  While part of this tendency could be ascribed to human nature, it is exacerbated by the need for these continental bosses to stay on the good side of the IHF regime.  Their positions are very well remunerated, in fact quite excessively so, and there many advantages inherent in remaining appointed to these positions, such as comfortable attendance at major events, a modest workload and quite a bit of prestige.  In short, they cannot really ‘afford’ to lose their positions, so they are under considerable pressure to bring in the votes.

It is also worth pointing out that the continent of Europe is not without blame in this discussion.  A few days ago, I mentioned about the ‘realistic’ but very cynical decision of the European Handball Federation to refrain from opposing By-Law proposals which they fully recognize are very bad for the world of handball.  Similarly, some of the stronger member nations in Europe, whose traditions and knowledge of international handball easily enable them to distinguish between right and wrong, meekly stay on the side line, or even support the IHF regime, for selfish reasons or for fear of retribution.

In summary, it should not be surprising that conspicuously bad proposals can find support, even if they require the votes of a majority among some 160 countries.

About a year ago, I wrote several articles taking issue with the overall trend and many specific provisions in the IHF By-Law proposals that had been developed for approval at a Congress that in the end had to be cancelled due to the ash cloud that the ‘Viking Gods’ spread over much of Europe.  When the IHF is now making a second attempt in Morocco next week, it is disturbing to see that neither the IHF regime, nor those who opposed the proposals a year ago, have seen fit to cause some of the most obvious improvements to be made.

Last year, there was a major battle between the IHF and EHF over both principles and details.   Representatives of many member countries chimed in.  There was some sense that perhaps the IHF would back off.  But at this time it is clear that, after one specific concession regarding the rights to qualification events for World Championships and Olympic games, the EHF has indicated a readiness to ‘swallow’ the rest without a fight.  I am prepared to conclude that this must be a tactical move, where the EHF recognizes the reality that they do not have the votes in the IHF Congress or the IHF Council and cannot do much more to influence other voters.  In those circumstances, a continued battle might have negative repercussions.

This turnaround has caused an angry mood in a number of national federations in Europe, but there is not likely to be sufficient momentum for successful action.  Moreover, the reality is that in many other federations voting at the Congress, there is very limited information about the relevant issues.  So personally, I am also inclined to be pessimistic at this stage, but I will nevertheless provide below an overview of the major concerns with the IHF proposals.  In doing so, I will focus more on principles and trends than on details.

But first I want to note the problem that the IHF has jumped into a focus on By-Laws, which is essentially a set of regulations regarding structure, decision-making processes and distribution of power, without bothering to focus on what appropriately should first be done.  During my 32 years in the IHF, I kept wishing that there would emerge a widespread realization that an organization like the IHF desperately needs to have strong and clear goals and objectives, from which flow the strategies and methods by which the IHF would then pursue its goals.  (Of course, such goals and strategies would thereafter be reviewed and updated on a regular basis). But such an exercise has never taken place.  And it is indeed inappropriate to undertake a major effort to revise structures and processes in a vacuum, without knowing clearly what goals and strategies they are supposed to support.

One illustration of this problem is that the IHF’s main group of working-level entities, the Commissions, has essentially been left untouched in the By-Law Proposals.  Here it is proposed that the ‘one size fits all’ approach will be maintained, despite the major differences in functions and tasks.  Some have minor ‘backroom’ functions, while others have major operational responsibilities and even personnel management functions which are fundamental to IHF events.  But their roles and their size/staffing have not even been considered, in part because of the missing focus on tangible objectives and strategies.

Instead, the main focus of the proposed changes is on a totally outdated and inappropriate trend of shifting power from all other stakeholders to the IHF. The IHF has always used a ‘top down’ style, but now there is a strengthening of this undemocratic approach, with a focus on the rights and privileges of the IHF and the duties and obligations of the continental and national federations.  This is supplemented by admonitions that these federations and other stakeholders, such as coaches, referees, officials, players and staff must be ‘respectful and cooperative’, above all complying with IHF regulations and decisions.  But there is essentially nothing said about what the IHF undertakes to do for the other stakeholders, except the decision-making of course…

One particular concern is the role of the Council.   Ideally this should be a key decision-making body on a continuous basis, both on general policy issues and on major financial issues.  Of course it should also have a major role in developing goals and strategies.  But the proposal is for the Council to continue to have a rather vague or obscure role, at the mercy of the President and totally overshadowed by him and the Executive Committee.  Moreover, the Executive Committee should really be the Council’s executive arm, answerable to the Council.  But instead it is becoming more and more independent from the Council, acting mainly under the President’s personal supervision.

Within the overall trend of consolidating more influence and decision-making authority inside the IHF, there is also a move towards more personal power and autonomy for the President.  Much of this has already been going on outside the By-Laws, but now it is being explicitly authorized. This would in any circumstances be undesirable and contrary to the best interests of any international organization that wants to reflect modern management principles and the increased degree of participation that is being sought around the world.  But it is particularly inappropriate and dangerous at a time when the President has recently become a full-time official, constantly involved in all activities at Headquarters, and when the manager at headquarters is a long-time subordinate of the President.  Moreover, it is being proposed that the Secretary General position be eliminated, and although the Treasurer position is retained, the control over all financial transactions is now explicitly proposed to be moved to the President personally.  In other words, all ‘checks and balances’ are being completely eliminated.

Accordingly, all participants at the upcoming Congress are urged to vote against the proposals and to argue strongly among their colleagues for a united front against autocracy and centralization!