Election Learnings

A week ago the International Hockey Federation held its Congress where it elected a new President and new Executive Board members.

The election for President of the world body was expected to be a close run thing, after Europe’s Marc Coudron had only lost to Narinder Batra by 63 votes to 61 in May last year. This time he would run against Macau’s Pakistan-born Tayyab Ikram, the CEO of the Asian Hockey Federation. Of the 126 votes cast Mr Ikram won by a large margin of 79 votes to 47. Three nations that were online at the time opted not to vote.

Regrettably, these votes despite being cast by representatives of the member nations remain a secret, despite members of those various nations believing that they have a right to know how their delegate voted. So it makes it hard to see where Mr Coudron lost votes from the election held in 2021. (Is it Time For No More Secrets?)

What does appear clear is that just as there was in football there is a backlash within the sport against the European nations. Some journalists made this election a battle between the European colonisers and the nations that they colonised, who are now looking to assert their independence. Some articles, probably deliberately, implied that that those based in Europe were still trying to exert influence over them.

Clearly there is an issue in this regard, whether it is true or even just a perception. What it does mean is that the pressure is even greater on the new President to deliver. Just as there was on his predecessor Mr Narinder Batra.

Mr Batra stated when he was first elected stated that he intended to “expand” the boundaries of the game, he said “we can’t restrict ourselves to top 10 or top 12,” Yet the implementation of the Pro League saw just that, and less competition and opportunity for the nations outside that group. He said that Hockey must support its member nations, that he would grow the television audience. His resignation meant that he was never able to see those promises through. However, clearly the member nations wanted more inclusion and support from the World’s governing body.

Mr Ikram is going to have to move fast to implement some of his election promises as he only has a two-year term, the remainder of Mr Batra’s elected term before he is up for re-election.

One thing that will be very interesting is whether he opts to follow a move that is beginning to gather momentum in Lausanne, where many of the Olympic sports are based, which is to take away voting rights or executive board positions from the head’s of Confederations.

Many sports have experienced these Confederations influencing voting on individuals and issues by having their members vote en bloc. (Something’s Gotta Give.) While on occasion this may be reasonable on some issues, many feel that this power is being misused, and are therefore looking to restore a voice to the individual member nations.

At the online Congress there was also an election for Executive Board members.

This writer has aired his views on many occasions that hockey in particular holds itself back by only appointing people from within the sport to the Executive Board. Each member nation has the opportunity to nominate a candidate, but for some reason all repeatedly look to nominate someone from within the sport, rather than an expert from outside the sport, who may bring a level of expertise the sport is lacking and some fresh ideas. Sadly 2022 was more of the same. While there were many candidates who have done good things for hockey there were none to get excited about.

Having sat through the presentations by the six male and three female nominees it was hard to be inspired.

Here was a group of people looking to be elected to the world body, the highest peak of administration in the game, and the quality of their presentations lacked the polish or professionalism to inspire.

Over the past week Not The Footy Show asked two people from outside the sport to view these presentations and give feedback. One was an individual who is involved in Government recruitment here in Australia, the other in recruitment in the corporate world.

What was worrying was that both of these individuals were extremely negative towards the presentations. One stated that all would not have been considered for a position with them, while the other said only one candidate would have been given a second interview with them. What does this say about the professionalism within the sport and what the sport believes is acceptable?

The reasons that both gave for rejecting the applications were similar. One stated “these were just audio versions of Linked-In.” They accused the nominees of “simply reading their CV’s.” The telling comment was “they all failed to clearly demonstrate how their experience could be applied to hockey.” Another piece of feedback along the same lines was “they could not convey what they could do, or wanted to achieve for hockey with the skills and experience they had.”

Maybe this comes down to communication, for the key aspect of communication is not what you say or write, but whether those who are reading or listening understand your message. Judging by the voting the candidates will no doubt claim that they clearly achieved that goal, as they garnered the votes to be elected.

The individual that made that last comment went on to state that while not knowing the sport they believed that “the dynamics of hockey would be very different to the business world” They also said that they had “concerns based on the presentations that these individuals could not demonstrate that they understood the complexity or the challenges of World Hockey.” In essence they said that the without demonstrating an understanding of the issues facing the game, they were unable to clearly communicate how their experiences would enable them to address these issues.

The individual from a Government background recognised that all opted to throw in buzzwords, Governance, Integrity, Transparency and they also said ‘fiscal strength’ was used. They went on to say that when addressing these issues it was all about them, and not about how they were going to address the issues themselves. What they needed to do was explain what they were going to do about them and when. In what timeframe were they going to attack these challenges, and improve the current perceptions of the sport and its governance?

It was interesting that both picked up on how each candidate talked at length about the roles that they currently have. Both asked if it was a requirement that if elected they would have to relinquish these roles. The reason for the question they stated was that if they continue in these roles how much time are they going to have to dedicate to World Hockey? “If they are serious about wanting to carry out a vital role on a global scale, and are championing integrity and change surely they should step aside from these other roles to give their all to the whole game?” was one question asked.

At the end of the day it is up to those elected to represent the member nations to ask the appropriate questions prior to voting. How many actually did? Moving forward if the game wants to achieve the right outcomes surely those standing for election should not simply be making statements. They should be explaining how the knowledge and experience they have gained can be used to address key issues facing the sport at that time.

When one looks at the current make up of the FIH Executive Board all of the elected members currently hold positions within national associations bar one; they hold a role with they Confederation. Should they now step aside from these roles? Will anybody ask them to do so? Does holding both positions have an impact on either role?

For many in the old guard of hockey, for the stronger established nations, these will be nervous times, as of the top ten ranked teams in both men’s and women’s world hockey there is now only one elected executive board member. That is the Netherlands Erik Cornelissen whose place will be up for election at the next Congress in 2024. The Netherlands have three representatives of the board but he is the only one elected. The others are Rogier Hofman who is the Athletes representative, and Marijke Fleuren as the President of the European Hockey Federation.

Other top ten nations are represented by Confederation heads, but those individuals are there to represent their region not the country that they come from. So those nations have no true representation.

Looking at the nations now represented on the board by elected members with the exception of Cornelissen, two nations ranked from 10-20 in the men’s game, one from 20-30, one from 30-40, two from 40-50 and one from 70-80 in terms of the World rankings. In the women’s game there is one team from 10-20, three from 20-30, one from 30-40, one from 40-50 and one from 70-80.

It would be interesting to find out how many of the world’s hockey players are made up of the players in these countries, to assess the proportional representation of those making the decisions. Unfortunately a search of the FIH website and even their own sites does not reveal participation numbers in these nations.

The election of these board members would tend to say that the lesser nations have spoken. They want a bigger slice of the International pie. So now it is vital that those elected deliver a competition schedule that gives them more involvement. That they find funding to enable them to play more games, and therefore have the opportunity not only to gain more experience and improve, but also to climb the world rankings. Which is a reason why World Rankings points cannot be awarded for every international game played.

As has been highlighted previously, and by many in the sport, in order to improve at international level you need a strong domestic product to under-pin those teams. So will we see the FIH helping nations create national competitions?

Excluding the heads of Confederations, and the newly elected President, – who incidentally represents Macau ranked 76 in the world in the men, and whose women do not have an FIH ranking, – the top tier nations are represented by 12% of the elected members, and are very much in the minority.

Mr Ikram has represented Macau on the Executive Board for a number of years, and they are a member of the FIH. So everything is above board.

However one has to question the membership of Macau, and whether the FIH is looking to operate along similar lines as FIFA. Who determines a nation when it comes to membership of the FIH? FIFA has more member nations than the United Nations. Macau is not a nation. It is not recognised as such by the United Nations. Macau’s official status is defined as the ‘Macao Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China (MSAR).’ It is a city, and a special administrative region of China. So what is the future of Macau?

The FIH statutes state in section 2 regarding Members: “membership of the FIH is open to one National Association (or “NA”) for each Country.”

Section 2.3 subsection b goes on to state: “It must claim the exclusive right to govern both men’s and women’s Hockey in its Country, i.e., it must not recognise any other body’s claim to govern either men’s or women’s Hockey in its Country (other than by exercise of powers delegated to that other body by the NA).”

As a “region” of the People’s Republic of China surely whether Macau likes it or not, it and Hong Kong, under FIH regulations must fall under the control of China? .

We digress, what the election has clearly shown is that Europe has some serious fence-mending to do in the world of hockey. They now only have two elected members on the Executive Board and despite running candidates for the Presidency in the last three Presidential elections have lost all three.

Is it time for changes in personnel, or changes in approach and attitude? Clearly Europe has alienated many in hockey across the globe.

There are also warning signs for Oceania. Is this smallest confederation which houses one of the most successful hockey teams in the past 40 years still relevant? It has next to no voice at international level, and understandably there is resentment that a region of only eight member nations has its own qualifying tournaments. Australia and New Zealand are ranked inside the top ten, the remaining six nations are all ranked above 50 in the men’s teams and above 43 in the women’s game.

With many Australian sporting teams now participating in Asia is it time that Oceania was absorbed into Asia? That Asia create two divisions with promotion and relegation so that there is an incentive for the second tier nations to improve. Come the Asian Games, which is a qualifier for the Olympic Games, instead of having just the Gold medallist win an Olympic berth maybe with Oceania being part of Asia both finalists could progress to the Olympic Games?

There is no doubt that there would be huge sponsorship benefits for all, as Asia is the main trading partner of Australia and New Zealand.

There is a major issue that needs to be addressed following this Congress, one that if it is not faced head on could end up causing the sport grave problems. Following the threat to its Olympic inclusion the Confederations were told to go out and increase the membership of the FIH. This was something that many did. The problem is that some new member nations paid no membership fees to the FIH while others paid a nominal fee far below that which is paid by the top tier nations. This disparity cannot continue, there must be a universal fee, or no fee for all. You cannot have a system where one member is paying thousands of dollars and another is paying nothing, but both have the same voting rights. The same argument has been raised in terms of the countries with large participation numbers and those with low playing numbers again having equal voting rights.

Whether the sport likes it or not the top tier nations are the ones who generate the most income. They have the players that the second and third tier nations look up to and aspire to be. If you cut them off then the whole blood supply of the game is in jeopardy. Many will argue that these nations have created this situation by their self interest and neglect of the game as a whole, something exacerbated by the Pro League, but now they have next to no representation in the the running of the game, yet they have the most skin in the game. They have the most to lose; but ultimately the sport will lose if they are shut out. So this is a genuine problem that needs to be addressed and quickly.

The FIH announced a projected profit for the first time with the Pro League at the end of the 2022/23 edition. What good is that if all of the participating nations are still losing hundreds of thousands of dollars participating? Any profit made should be split between the participating nations, as they are the ones who have generated that income, and they are the ones haemorrhaging because of it. Also, was not the intent of the Pro League to see the players being paid to play, so that hockey could be a career?

Those elected should be congratulated for putting their hand up to take on the responsibility of taking the game forward to Paris 2024, the centenary of the FIH, and beyond. Whether they are able to use the skills that they promoted they had to address the complex challenges that hockey presents at this time remains to be seen. Certainly their work will be cut out for them, and hopefully they will soon realise that, and step aside from their national positions and focus purely on what is required at International level, for the good of the game on a global scale, rather than just a local one.