The International Hockey Federation announced last week the qualification process for their World Cup events in 2022/23 via the Continental Championships. The qualifiers and the Continental Championships having been impacted by the postponement of the Olympic games.
It was revealed that “an increase of the quota of places available through Continental Championships from 6 (the five Continental Champions + the World Cup hosts) to 11 (including the World Cup hosts).
These were confirmed as follows for the women: Africa 1, Asia 2, Europe 4 (including 2022 FIH Hockey Women’s World Cup hosts The Netherlands and Spain) Oceania 2, and PanAm 2.
For the Men it will be: Africa 1 Asia 3 (including 2023 FIH Hockey Men’s World Cup hosts India), Europe 4, Oceania 2, and PanAm 1.
Naturally when anyone makes a decision of such magnitude there are going to be some people who are happy, and some who are not.
| Men | Top 10 Rankings | Top 15 Rankings | WC Quota Places |
| Asia | 1 | 3 | 3 (incl 1 host) |
| Europe | 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Pan Am | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| Oceania | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Africa | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Women | Top 10 Rankings | Top 15 Rankings | WC Quota Places |
| Asia | 2 | 4 | 2 |
| Europe | 5 | 6 | 4 (incl 2 host) |
| Pan Am | 1 | 3 | 2 |
| Oceania | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Africa | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Of course what does not help is the lack of information on the qualification process for the remaining five places. Four years ago there was the Hockey World League which determined the teams that would qualify based on their world ranking. The Hockey Series Open replaced that, and was thought to be the new path to qualifying, but even before the Olympic qualifiers had been completed a decision was made to cancel this format.
Some have felt that to make such an announcement without revealing the qualification path for those who miss out on the Continental qualification process is disrespectful to those nations. That is of course a discussion to be had by those nations, their players, and fans.
What is frustrating is the constant changing of the process. It would be best for the players fans, coaches, administrators and broadcasters if a qualification process could be chosen, locked into and adhered to for more than one four year cycle. Keep changing the format does the sport no favours.
Of course the biggest issue facing the sport – and they are not alone in this – is do you want the World Cup to be a tournament that sees the best teams competing for the chance to be crowned World Champions? Or do you want it to be a tournament that represents the World in terms of participation? In other words teams from each Confederation are represented at the tournament.
One former FIH staffer who wished their identity to be withheld contacted Not The Footy Show and stated that “the FIH have long argued that the World Cup should be the best teams, and the Olympics a more global event. It seems they have forgotten their own argument, or just don’t know where they stand.”
Football has opted for regional representation from around the globe. However they also chose this path for political as well as commercial reasons, and as a result they also chose to expand the competition. Back in the 1960’s there were 16 teams from four confederations. In the 1970’s it was still 16 teams but now from five Confederations. At the start of the 1980’s the number of teams increased to 24 from now six Confederations. In 1998 the number of teams contesting the finals went up again to 32.
Should hockey be looking to increase the number of teams playing at the World Cup finals?
The problem that the sport faces if it did look to increase the number of teams competing at the World Cup finals would be facilities. In the main the pitch. Having a specialised pitch on which to play the sport throws up the most problems and the most obstacles to a host. Although the drop-in pitch used in the FIH Pro League at The Stoop, by England Hockey offered an alternative.
The next Women’s World Cup is being hosted by the Netherlands and Spain. The Men’s World Cup is being hosted by the state of Odisha in India. Games are due to be played in two cities, Bhubaneswar and most likely Rourkela. So matches in both tournaments are going to be split between two venues. Would this then not have been the perfect time to increase the number of participants at the World Cup Finals?
After all point five of the FIH’s ten year strategy labelled “the Hockey Revolution” states, “We will improve our organisational effectiveness and drive global participation rates up.” Would not growing the World Cup event assist in achieving that goal?
It would surely also go a long way to helping them achieve point three in this strategy. “We will implement a joined-up approach to marketing hockey, its events and its players, using the international hockey community to deliver global marketing and PR campaigns.”
Maybe a leap from 16 to 24 teams would be too big a step, but could the sport have increased the number of places to 20?
An extra team in each of the four pools would surely benefit the sport immensely. It would hopefully give the sport more coverage globally, and also give improving and aspiring nations the chance to compete on the World stage.
Take teams like Scotland and Wales who at the Olympics play under the Great Britain banner, they would give their right arm to compete at a major event in their own right. It would also be a just reward for the work done in both these countries and lift their teams. What is more it could be a real fillip for the sport, as in Football Scotland has failed to qualify for a World Cup Finals since 1998, Wales has only qualified once in 1958! So imagine the national support, coverage and interest that could be garnered with them competing. We saw it at the Women’s World Cup where Ireland women took the sport to the front page of the newspapers. So this approach to growing the sport and its coverage cannot be ignored.
Currently in the Men’s World Rankings Wales are 17th and Scotland 18th. In the Women’s rankings Scotland are 22nd and Wales 26th, but what an incentive it would be to both teams.
When one looks at what was announced and the allocation of places, many eyebrows were raised, and many developing nations shoulders must have sagged, as the opportunity for them to make the World Cup suddenly became a great deal harder. Was this protectionism? Was it politicking, in order to win much needed votes at the next election? Was the decision made with the Hockey revolution, and the ten year strategy to grow the game front and central?
On what basis was this decision made? Was it based on appeasing the member nations in each Confederation? It is interesting to break these numbers down. What is incredible is how sporting bodies opt to recognise what the UN regard as “Territories,” as “nations.” The UN now regards Hong Kong and Macau as being a part of China, which is of course is a very hot topic in those two places. Most sporting bodies still view them as seperate nations. The UN does not recognise Taiwan as a nation. While Palestine is only given observer status at the UN along with the Holy See which holds sovereignty over the state of Vatican City.
| Organisation | Europe | Africa | Asia | Americas | Oceania | Members |
| United Nations | 51* | 54 | 48 | 35 | 14 | 202 |
| IOC** | 53 | 54 | 43 | 40 | 16 | 206 |
| FIH | 44 | 24 | 31 | 29 | 8 | 136 |
| FIFA | 55 | 54 | 46 | 45 | 11 | 211 |
*Countries and Integrated States, **National Olympic Committees
Looking at this table, Europe makes up 32% of the FIH’s member nations, Asia has 22%, Pan America 21%, Africa 17% and Oceania just 5%. So has the allocation of places via the Continental Championships reflected these figures? In some cases they do, but in others they don’t, so we have an inconsistent message and one that is hard to explain. Certainly Pan America would seem to be extremely hard done by.
To add to the confusion if it was done on the World Rankings of teams how can the fact that Pan Am women get more quota spots than Pan Am men, even though their rankings are lower? In Asia there are more women’s teams in the top 10, and top 13 for that matter than their male counterparts yet they get less quota places than the men, why is that?
As the former FIH staffer that contacted Not The Footy Show asked, if the FIH really want the best teams playing at the World Cup “why do Asian men get more quota places ahead of Pan Am, when Pan Am have 2 teams in the top 10 in the world?”
If this is a commercial decision, then be up front and declare it.
What the figures above do show is a very strong neglect for Africa. It is very sad that less than half the number of nations recognised by the UN in Africa are members of the FIH. Does this highlight an area where the organisation needs to focus its attention when it comes to development? In Oceania there are only just over 50% of the nations that are members of the FIH, which strengthens the argument that Oceania should become a part of Asia.
In the last three World Cup events for men and women only five teams outside the top 12 and top 16 have qualified. In the men China were ranked 17th and qualified for the 16 team 2018 event, and in 2010 Argentina (14) and South Africa (13) qualified for the 12 team event. In the Women’s event in 2018 Italy (17) qualified for the 16 team event and in 2010 India who were ranked 13th made the 12 team tournament. In 2014 no teams outside the top 12 qualified in either event.
Assuming that the top sixteen ranked teams will be the ones to qualify for the two tournaments that would currently result in the following number of men’s teams from each Confederation: seven from Europe, two from Oceania, three from Asia one from Africa and two from Pan America.
In the women’s tournament it would see the following: six from Europe, two from Oceania, three from Pan America and four from Asia and one from Africa.
To many what was announced is not going to help grow the game, certainly not in Pan America, Africa or Oceania. If it was about growing the game it would probably have made more sense for the Women’s World Cup to be hosted in Asia rather than the men’s. As the region has more women’s teams in the top 16.
One wonders how what has been announced falls in with the ten year strategy and the “Hockey Revolution.” It smacks more of a peace pact than a revolution, where each Confederation was trading for the best deal that they could get, and ensuring they have representation.
An expanded tournament with 20 teams, which could be easily accommodated with two cities playing host in each competition, would give those outside the top 16 an opportunity to shine and would appear to meet the Revolution’s objectives best.
Unfortunately as we have witnessed in Rugby Union, those teams currently at the top don’t want that. Hence why in that sport the Pacific Island nations have never been given more opportunities.
In the two Hockey World Cups in 2018, we saw China almost cause an upset after drawing with Ireland and England in India in the men’s competition. While Italy forced their way into the crossover matches following a victory over China and a draw with Korea, in the Women’s event. Despite the fans wanting to see this, with funding often based on where a nation finishes at such a tournament, Politics comes into play. The top sides will never want to risk an upset; even more so with the new World Ranking points system.
As stated when such announcements are made they are never going to make everybody happy, but if it is explained as to how such decisions are reached you can often appease those who are disgruntled. With what was announced it is very hard to fathom out on what basis the decision was made. It does not tie in with World Rankings, neither in some cases does it tie in with member representation. So was this purely a commercial decision, or was it one to keep the stronger nations happy? Or was it based on the fact that a qualification format has yet to be announced along with dates when all of the remaining 125 member nations will have the opportunity to play off for the last five places at the World Cup?
Simon, Thank you for your lengthy comment. Clearly you are following the machinations of the FIH closely.
First up with regards to an International Calendar I agree. Can you believe this was promised at the launch of the Hockey Revolution and is still not in place? That was one of the key goals, and you would think one of the easiest to implement.
These are indeed unfortunate times in relation to the publicity surrounding the President of the FIH. It comes as no surprise that he would plead his innocence, but if as you quoted “For me, it’s only hockey, and I don’t see beyond that. And that’s where I need to remain focused and do and concentrate. For me, it’s hockey, hockey, hockey, and that’s it” is indeed his true mantra he needs to consider the damage that this current situation is causing the game. Maybe he should take leave until it is resolved? Certainly the Executive Board cannot sit on their hands for too long or the damage could be irreparable.
Again as you say strange that his Life membership is not mentioned on his IOC profile when he lists his “Awards and Distinctions.”
No one can argue that the President has always been very hands on in India and is seen pitch side and with a walkie talkie in hand. This was an issue raised on The Reverse Stick podcast by David Balbirnie.
The FIH Integrity Code would appear to be a redundant document and those on the panel far from pro-active in safeguarding the Integrity of the game. As for the Governance Panel this consists of five individuals along with the CEO and President, two of whom are FIH Board members. One of whom reports to the Chair of the Governance Panel who President the Confederation he is the CEO of! Also on the Panel are the CEO and President. Certainly the structure of this is questionable.
These are times where as you say an overhaul is needed, but who will stand up and demand it and put in place structures that avoid the situations the game is finding itself facing at the present time?
Thank you again for airing your views.
Ashley,
Another great and timely piece, thank you for raising these matters for the hockey world to openly view and consider.
It appears at this point the hockey community has much to consider, and in doing so has the opportunity to save the sport and direct it towards a sustainable future, or continue to be impotent in their actions and remain at the mercy of those in ‘power’.
The fact Asia men have three quota positions, and the women only two, given current rankings is un-defensible. Pan Am the same. On the surface you could argue that it’s just another not so subtle way of FIH giving Pakistan every opportunity to be at the World Cup. Though interestingly, in his early June 2020 twitter posts, the coach of the Japanese men’s team appears grateful to the CEO of Asia Hockey / FIH Board member for there being three positions available – is this an apparent breach of the FIH Integrity Code? More to come on that. Perhaps if there was a more consistent and reputable annual international competition calendar, then such confusion would not exist.
It has been hard to avoid the recent media activity regarding the FIH President, and his validity in both this role, and the role of Indian Olympic Association (IOA) President, which is understood to be directly influential on his IOC position.
The media today is reporting a response from Mr. Batra to the IOC stating he retained his Life Membership of Hockey India (HI), as implied relevancy to be present at the IOA elections. This is contrary to the HI letter circulating in the media, dated 17-11-2017 that lists him as a HI Board Member. To confuse matters further, on his IOC profile (https://www.olympic.org/mr-narinder-dhruv-batra) does not state or recognise his HI Life Membership. One would think that an honor as such would be promoted accordingly. Or will we see this amended in a matter of days?
The murkiness of the details surrounding the above matters make you wish you could hear the full story and truths as to what deals were made, and have since soured, that have led to questions being raised. Are we to believe that the IOA amended their rules for the December 2017 vote to allow Executive Members from the 2012-2014 and 2014–2017 period to run for Presidents, whereas their charter only permits Executive Members of the immediate term to run. The Hindustan Times, on December 12, 2017, states that Mr. Batra was the IOA Vice President from 2012 to 2014. It further states the IOC had declared the election null and void as the IOA had not adhered to the Olympic Charter, following which the IOA was suspended. It’s noted on December 13 2017, that the Times of India state that the Delhi High Court refused to interfere with the IOA elections. That article goes on to state that in 2014 – 2017 he was an associate member of the Executive Council (not a full member), though at some stage resigned from this post. Further digging would no doubt create more confusion, but is redundant in the absence of an understanding of the initial agreements made. Though it is hard to believe that the IOA will recognise representation from an election and period of the time that the IOC declared null and void and imposed sanctions.
Moving forward to 2018 and the revised FIH Statutes regarding President eligibility etc.…
The FIH website indicates new statutes were in effect from November 3 2018. Though the new wording of clause 7.2, and timing of it, appears to do little to extinguish all conflict. Anyone who has attended an FIH competition in India would know of Mr. Batra’s affinity with a walkie talkie, connecting him to the NA event management group. In reviewing many of the Hockey India Newsletters, https://www.hockeyindia.org/about-hi/newsletters, specifically editions 27, 32 & 38, numerous photos are evident with Mr. Batra and walkie talkie in hand or at close proximity. Edition 38 is from the 2018 World Cup, post the introduction of the new statutes, and one could allege that this does not represent a change in conduct that moves away from the ‘President have no direct or indirect involvement in the day to day operations of an NA or CF’.
Once elected FIH President, Mr. Batra has stated that he resigned from his post as HI President late 2016 to avoid any conflict of interest. Though the images from the above newsletters 32 (2017 WLF) and 38 could allege that a complete separation has not occurred. Is it to be believed that Mr. Batra was influential in Odisha being awarded the 2017 World League Finals, and the 2018 World Cup, and the 2023 World Cup? Will they also host the 2021 Junior World Cup that has been awarded to India? The application submissions and award dates of such events would be interesting to see.
To add even further confusion to the matter is the interview with Mr. Batra on YouTube, with a round table of journalists after his election as FIH President in 2016. To quote; “The only thing I know is hockey, I never tried to go for Indian Olympic Presidentship, I could have been two years back. For me, it’s only hockey, and I don’t see beyond that. And that’s where I need to remain focused and do and concentrate. For me, it’s hockey, hockey, hockey, and that’s it”. Further on the interview he states that “Me and the new CEO will not let you down and will not let hockey down on the revenue part, you can be rest assured, give us some time, you’ll be rest assured, the revenues will go up, no question”.
It appears the iron clad commitment to hockey lasted but one year. It then moved to the IOA, as the vehicle to the IOC, and now a full IOC member. Well done hockey, you’ve been played. Not only do you rank at the bottom of your President’s priorities, you still have to go there to play major events. Not to say you weren’t warned….
As with all over recent years with FIH, all this raises is questions. Statutes clause 7.1 (b) members of the EB (except CF Presidents) shall hold such office in their personal capacity and not as representatives of any member or any other organisation’. Do the general principles of the FIH Integrity Code have any validity here? 10.1.1 FIH Officials owe a duty of undivided loyalty to the FIH……. 10.1.2 An FIH Official must not (directly or indirectly) use his position or activities with the FIH to advance his personal interests….. 10.1.4 Each FIH Official must avoid any situation involving or that could lead to actual or potential present or future conflicts between personal interests and official duty. Finally, 7.1…..each covered person must conduct himself….with the highest ethical standards of integrity and transparency. He must avoid any conflict that is inconsistent with or that undermines in any way the objectives of this Integrity Code. Also, how does 13.1 An FIH Official shall not take or omit to take any action in furtherance of an offer, payment, promise to pay..…or otherwise to secure any improper advantage, relate to the new FIH guidelines for flight and accommodation payment at Congress?
It can’t be ignored that a review of InsideThe Games twitter feed highlights Mr. Batra’s support for the Tokyo Games to go ahead in 2021, just days after the IOC executive team stated the same. And the day following his support for this, he promoted India’s desire to bid for the 2032 Games, and other Olympic events. His silence on more recent comments re the reports of the Tokyo Games can also not be ignored.
These are timely questions for the FIH Board. With a delayed Congress, the opportunity exists to take the lead and re-write the Statutes that prevent such a perceived conflict to exist. It would be believed that this would make the current Executive Board nervous and reluctant to do so, given the allegation of agreements that have been made to ensure voting alliances. Should the hockey community fail to stand up and address the very unfortunate image that now exists, then who knows where it will end up once the term dates and interest of the current executive group expires.
S
Thank you John for your comment. To me the 20 team option makes sense.
If you are right re the Confederation heads maybe they should have submitted proposals and an independent committee made the decision?
Love the reference to Fun Boy Three, have to admit I had to listen to it again via YouTube.
Another great read. You are not alone in trying to fathom out how those in power came to such a conclusion.
First of all let me say I love your idea of expanding the competition to 20 teams! That would make a huge difference to those teams outside the top 15.
Secondly, the Executive Board cannot see beyond India. They have been blinded by Dr Batra’s promises, and the supposed money that was to flow into the game from there. Their lack of vision and know-how has taken the game backwards.
This is purely about self preservation, with all of the Confederations heads more concerned about saving their positions and all the freebies and world travel that flows their way.
As you said how are the majority of sides going to have a chance of qualifying? Sure there will be the Continental Championships, but how will teams qualify for other events that will decide the final five places? Surely this should have been decided before the extra places at the Continental championships?
In the words of 80’s band Fun Boy Three, the lunatics have taken over the asylum!