Hot on the heels of a year in which there seemed to be a World Cup every month, 2023 will open the new year with the FIH Men’s Hockey World Cup, being hosted by India.
This will be the 15th edition of the World Cup since the inaugural event back in 1971. Similar to the FIFA World Cup the winners are limited to a very select group. In football eight nations have lifted the World Cup in 22 tournaments. In hockey just six nations have claimed the biggest prize.
In football 19 nations have hosted the World Cup since 1930. Only France, Italy, Mexico and Germany have hosted two tournaments. When it comes to Germany it was in fact West Germany that hosted the 1974 event and a united Germany in 2006. While in 1986 Mexico found itself hosting the tournament for a second time because the original host Colombia was facing economic challenges and had to withdraw. Wanting to keep the event in the Americas, Mexico stepped in.
In Hockey nine nations have hosted the World Cup event. The Netherlands, which is a hotbed for the sport in Europe has played host three times and will host again in 2026 along with Belgium. The spiritual home of hockey India, will be host again in 2023 for the fourth time and third time in the past four events.
The decision to return to India in 2023, when the last tournament was also hosted by India was believed to have been based on the promise of more revenue for the game’s governing body. In fact at the time that the host nations were announced the CEO of the FIH Thierry Weil pretty much confirmed this in a FIH press release which quoted him as saying, “Since the primary mission of FIH is to grow the sport worldwide – which of course requires to make investments -, the income-generation potential of each bid has played an important role in the decision.”
For some strange reason Hockey despite being a fast, exciting and skilful game has for decades struggled to attract the money that many other team sports attract.
Take for example the recent FIFA World Cup in Qatar, the revenue generated by that event ensured that FIFA could pay each of the 32 teams that qualified for the World Cup Finals USD9Million plus a further USD1.5million to help them prepare for the tournament. Every team that progressed from their pool saw that figure go up.
In Rugby Union the larger established nations receive bonuses from their own Associations based on their success at their tournament, while the lower ranked nations receive financial assistance from World Rugby to be able to attend and participate.
In 2019 the NZ Herald reported that New Zealand’s players were due to receive NZD$150,000 (AUD138,000) each if they could defend their title. England’s players who defeated them in the semi final received a bonus as a group of just over £1.2m (AUD2.1m) for that result and would have received £2.5m (AUD4.3m) if they had beaten South Africa in the final.
For most of the players at the Hockey World Cup there will be no such windfall. For these men who are to all intents and purposes amateurs will receive next to no financial reward. For many their reward will be one of personal achievement and triumph. The right to be named a world champion. In many cases the only spin off will be that that their Government will continue to lend financial support to their high performance program.
While essentially a sport still locked into the amateur era, or at best semi-professional era, this is not the case for all. India’s players have already been promised INR 25 lakh (AUD43,000) each for a gold medal-winning performance. They will receive INR 15 lakh for silver (AUD 26,000) and INR 10 Lakh (AUD 17,500) for bronze. This is fantastic for the players, and no one would begrudge them benefitting from that success.
However, there is something wrong when one of the 16 teams participating in the tournament, albeit for the first time, Wales, is having to fundraise simply to cover the cost of the team attending the tournament. It was back in 1973 that Australia had to withdraw from the event due to a lack of funds. Fifty years later it would appear that the sport has not progressed too far, in ensuring that those teams who have earned the right to participate receive funding to ensure that they can attend the World Cup finals once they have qualified.
While some in Australia may be patting themselves on the back and saying look at us now as the World’s number one side heading into the tournament, take a glance at those players selected for the Australian Indoor Hockey World Cup taking place in South Africa at the start of February, and you will find that these players are in the same boat as the Welsh, and having to fundraise to participate.
In 2018 Australia’s in their fifth indoor World Cup appearance recorded their best ever finish of fourth. Their female counterparts are also competing for the 6th time and looking to climb the ladder and better two sixth place finishes.
So why is a sport that is so dynamic, so skilful, and so exciting struggling to reward those who play it at the highest level, athletes who are a true credit to the sport and their nations?
We have quoted the words of former Australian umpire Stan Imer that he wrote back in July 1963 many times, but regrettably they still ring true 60 years later. He wrote, “the game must be made less technical and easier to follow.” In fact he went on to write, knowing that people would say don’t fiddle with the rules, “Isn’t the present state of affairs the result of merely “fiddling” with the rules year in year out – with never once a serious review of the whole character of the rules and the game?”
Having spoken to people who have watched the sport on television during the Olympic Games and World Cups nearly all back up Imer’s comments saying that they admire the athleticism, but do not understand the rules.
Unfortunately, the constant tinkering of the rules each year has now led to players, coaches and umpires all at odds in regard to the interpretation of some of the rules, so what chance the fans? Having witnessed two international coaches in discussion with an international umpire regarding a passage of play and all three stating that they had been given a different interpretation as to how the rule should be umpired, one realises just how bad the situation has become.
One feels for the umpires as ultimately they are the ones who have to make the call in a game, and they are the ones who face the brunt of criticism if they are deemed to have interpreted the rule incorrectly. This is where they need a leader who stands for all of them and guides them as to exactly how the rules are to be interpreted.
In discussion with one International umpire who wholeheartedly agreed that the rules of the sport were far too ambiguous, and left to the umpire’s interpretation, they said something that intrigued me. It also made me think that they had far too much time on their hands! They told me that in the most recent edition of the FIH Rules of Hockey the word “Not” was used over 100 times in 65 pages.
They were being generous when they said 65 pages as page 8 is the list of the Rules Committee, and pages 9-11 are a list of terminology used in the sport. There are even a few pages which are taken up purely by illustrations, so we are looking at around 60 pages.
Did I believe that “not” would be used over 100 times? No. Did I decide to check this fact? Yes.
By my reckoning the word “Not” is used 114 times; I may well have missed the odd one. There are also a number of other negative words used regularly such as “cannot.”
As this individual went on to explain this has an incredibly negative impact on those reading the rules. It is like constantly telling a child that they cannot do something. They too advocated that the rules needed a complete review and to be re-written in a simpler and more positive way. Something Stan Imer was advocating 60 years ago! The question now is the same as it was then, is anyone listening?
As the World Cup gets under way it is important to remember that these officials are not professionals. Sure they aim to be professional in every aspect of their duties, but it is not their full time job. In fact looking at the roster for the World Cup Not The Footy Show believes that only one umpire works in a hockey umpiring environment in a full-time paid capacity.
These officials are the best of those who have made themselves available for selection. They are certainly not doing it for the money, as they are paid a pittance. It is believed that they receive a USD$60 per diem and USD100 on a match day. (Since publishing this NTFS has been advised that the $100 is for Pro League games. At the World Cup the pay is only USD$60 on a match day). Some officials in local sporting competitions around the world receive more than this for officiating.
The World Cup will undoubtedly be a successful event. India knows how to put on an event to remember. For many of the players it will be the highlight of their careers. The crowds will no doubt flock to the two venues, as they love their hockey, and they will create an atmosphere that is unique to the game, and unique to India.
What will the non-hockey fans make of it all? Will they be able to understand what they are watching and why teams are penalised? One feels that a great opportunity to showcase the game and pull in new fans has been missed yet again, as the sport continues to leave far too many rules down to an individual umpire’s interpretation.
Hopefully, we will not see any key moments in the tournament determined by an interpretation of the rules, and that the official who takes a stand is not vilified for having the courage to stand by what they believe to be right.
For the game to reach its full potential surely it has a duty to make the game more appealing to the average sports fan? If so, then surely the rules need to be as Stan Imer wrote “made less technical,” which in turn would make it “easier to follow?”
The FIH Pro League was supposed to be a game-changer, but with a format change every year in its three years of operation, and the crowds failing to fill the venues along with a dwindling television audience has it delivered what it was supposed to? Maybe the problem is not the competition and the issue is in fact a far simpler one. That to make the game more appealing to a wider audience it does not need more fixtures, which are ultimately costing the associations involved vast sums of money, all it needs to do is review the rules, and make them far simpler and less interpretive.
At the end of the piece that Imer wrote back in 1963 the last paragraph reads as follows:
“Change never comes from the top; it must come from pressure from grass roots. If we are happy and content to have most hockey played in back paddocks, to finance inter-state matches out of our own pockets, to do without International visits because we have no money, obviously nothing need be changed. If, on the other hand we do need spectators at local matches, at inter-state matches and at international matches, because spectators mean interest and they mean publicity, and they mean money in the coffers, our attitudes must change.”
The World Cup in India is likely to be played in front of sell-out crowds which could distort the truth of the issue, in terms of the support the game is receiving. India will benefit for exactly the reasons that Imer stated. They will receive the publicity and the money in the coffers, some of which will be paid to the FIH, but where will it leave the game as a whole? Will that all flow on to other nations around the globe and allow the FIH to fulfil its primary mission to grow the sport?
More importantly though will the event grow hockey’s following and have more people understanding what a great spectacle this sport can be?
Martin, Thank you once again for taking the time to comment.
I think the key issue here is they need and overhaul so that we can achieve as you said consistency.
Again as mentioned those involved in tinkering in the past should be kept as far away as possible and fresh individuals need to be brought in. I believe people with experience in umpiring on the pitch and on video, Players, past players, coaches and past coaches as well as broadcasters.
To answer your question “Is anyone listening?” The answer is no, at least no one with the authority to act to prevent those without authority from constantly changing the Rules. There are actually few official changes made each year, that is change proposed by the FIH Rules Committee and approved by the FIH Executive. which is the only way in which Rule is supposed to be changed.
Interpretation is a bug-bear because some of the Rules require that there be intention to foul for there to be a foul – for example,the ball raised with a hit other than when taking a shot at goal from within the opponent’s circle.
Then we have the published UMB – the Umpire Manager’s Briefing for Umpires at International Tournaments – which is produced by the FIH Umpires Committee and in places contradicts what is printed in the official Rules Committee produced Rules of Hockey.
The Royal Dutch Hockey Board in 2018 sent a letter to all their umpires informing them that legitimate evasive action would no longer be applied to defenders on the goal-line during a penalty corner. LEA is a key definition of a dangerously played ball. The instruction is illegal, not least because the RNHB do not have the authority to make Rule changes (no National Association does), but the FIH, who were made aware of the matter in 2018 and have twice been written to since, to inquire what action has been taken about it, have done nothing at all to rectify the situation. The Netherlands is indeed a powerhouse of European hockey.
‘Simplfied’ is not quite the right word to describe what needs to be done; the FIH have been telling us regularly for more than thirty years that the Rules have been ”simplified and clarified’ but there is precious little evidence of that having happened. Recent changes to the Free Hit Rule and to Rule 9.10 which concerns the falling ball (being received) have made these conflicted or proposterous or both. The Rules need to be made consistent and they need to use more objective criteria then subjective judgements.
The statement that there has been no overall rewrite of the Rules is actually untrue there was a very comprehensive combing through in 1995/6 and there was a complete rewrite in 2004 when the Rule book was reformatted (to A6 page size) the result was the deletion of all Rules Interpretation and Advice to umpires previously in sections at the back of the rule-book. I regard that rewrite as an act of vandalism, which resulted in a ‘skeleton’ of what had been presented previously.
One of the major problems is trying to rewrite Rules using the input of the same people who have been responsible for producing and administering the Rules as they are now. As Einstein observed you cannot solve a problem using the same thinking that was used to create it.
Another problem is power. Frankly, the top officials Umpire Managers and Umpire Coaches want to decide themselves what the Rules are, they are even reluctant to share the content of the verbal briefings given to tournament umpires at the commencement of FIH Tournaments. This was illustrated very well in 2008 during the Beijing Olympics when an Australian commentator unwittingly let ‘the cat out of the bag’ by declaring during commentary of a match between Germany and China, what he had heard from an umpire briefing i.e. that an on target shot at the goal (i.e. a hit raised at a player from close range) could not be considered dangerous play simply because it was a shot at the goal. Did the FIH step in and clear up this obvious contradiction of the “Emphasis on safety”? Did they hell. Senior Umpires actually doubled down on this ‘modern’ approach and elements of it were still present in the FIH Umpire Briefing Video produced for the Rio Olympics in 2016.
I have been writing about the Rules of Hockey for thirty years. The suggestions for the introduction of the self-pass and the direct lifting of a free ball with any stroke except a hit (I refer to a free ball and not a free hit to avoid the contradiction the ball may be raised from a free hit with any stroke except a hit). But these days I can’t even get the FIH Rules Committee to rename a Free Hit a Free Ball and I watch in dismay of the mess that has been made of the self-pass – with a raft of completely unnecessary 5m requirements and restrictions, which must be gobbledygook to anyone not long familiar with hockey