The Qualification Conundrum

Sometimes sport can make you sad. It makes you wonder how something that was intended to be so simple, so pure and so free from politics, greed and corruption has lost its way.

The Olympic Games is still the pinnacle event for many sports. However its relevance and importance to many of public has diminished since the turn of this century. Some of this has to do with the sports now included, as well as the increase in events in some sports, and the glut of medals now available, which undermines the achievements of past winners. Which is sad in itself but in no way the fault of the athletes.

Every four years the various international sporting bodies submit qualifying routes to the Olympic Games which are then approved by the IOC. Those bodies are then left to implement that qualification process. For many individual sports this is far easier than team sports, as qualifying times or scores are their measure for qualification.

At the weekend Field Hockey – as it is known in the Olympics – finished its confederation qualification process. Yet while no doubt those teams who have booked their place in Tokyo are celebrating, and so they should, there are many involved in the sport who have been saddened by what they have witnessed, and wonder what has gone wrong, and when did it start to go wrong.

The thing that has been so sad is the lack of uniformity when it has come to qualification. Asia and the Pan American nations qualified via the Asian Games and the Pan American Games. Immediately there was controversy as Japan, the Olympic host nation won both the men’s and Women’s gold medals in Jakarta in 2018. As hosts they had already qualified. The spot for Asia did not go to the teams that they beat in the final. That appeared the logical outcome, but was not the rule outlined prior the start of the Games. The place that was up for grabs for the Asian teams went back to the International Hockey Federation and the final qualification process.

In Europe, with so many Hockey nations competing for that elusive Olympic berth all appeared to go according to plan. However with Scotland and Wales improving their position as Hockey playing nations some questioned how, when the Home Countries compete as Great Britain at the Olympic Games, they could compete independently in a tournament, where an Olympic qualification spot was available. Did that deprive other nations with aspirations the chance to play? It did not ultimately have an impact, as none of those nations won that Olympic spot, these went to Belgium in the Men’s competition and the Netherlands in the Women’s competition.

Another debate has been sparked on the back of the European Championships, fans of Scottish and Welsh Hockey now believe that they should have greater representation in the Great Britain in team. Which is understandable when their teams have had success and are developing players playing for top clubs in Europe. Yet with England hockey running the Olympic program it is understandable that they would want the squad to hold more English players. One feels stormy waters may be on the horizon.

The African tournament was to be held along a similar format to that of Asia, Pan America and Europe, but the last minute withdrawal of teams meant the tournament had to be restructured. So some will argue that the intent was there for uniformity, however how and why can teams pull out days before the start of a such a tournament?

In the end rather than having teams placed in pools, and the top teams progressing to the semi finals they resorted to a League ladder, The teams that topped the League qualified for Tokyo, these were South Africa in both the Men’s and Women’s tournaments.

Four years ago despite qualifying, the South African Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee opted not to send their teams to Rio. With the Men’s team having met the requirement of making the final of the Hockey Series Finals that they participated in, it is understood that they will be permitted to attend the Olympics in Tokyo. The women’s team did not make the final, and many believe that SASCOC will again prevent them attending. As this was a stipulated requirement as SASCOC do not recognise the standard of the Confederation Championships. Hopefully the International Hockey Federation are already applying pressure on the IOC to in turn make South Africa send their women’s team, as they have met the qualification requirement approved by the IOC.

The Oceania Championships were completed this weekend. This was yet another differently structured tournament. The two strongest nations in the region, Australia and New Zealand simply playing the best of three games, the winners booking their place in Tokyo.

How can qualification for such a prestigious event, an event the Hockey community regards as the pinnacle in their sport end up being so different for all those participating?

Not only that, but the coverage of these events has been more than a little varied, some was good, some was bad and some simply did not exist. Several years ago the FIH had started down a path where the game was branded similarly across the globe and it reflected a professionalism that had been lacking. Suddenly people were starting to take the game seriously as not only a sport, but also a sport with entertainment value.

These Confederation Championships have sadly set the game back a number of years, undoing much of the great work that had been done. There was no coverage whatsoever of the Pan American Championships, while all bar the Asian Games failed to be aired on television and were only live-streamed.

Many will say any coverage is better than none. Which is a valid point, but such coverage is unlikely to grow the sport. Even if the sport is only going to be shown on-line there has to be uniformity. There is today an expectation from many that live streaming will be of an equal quality to that of a full-blown television production, it rarely is, unless a proper television crew is indeed producing it. In a nutshell you get what you pay for. Sadly some of the coverage was a poor reflection on the game. This was not showcasing the sport at the highest level. This did not reflect the sacrifices made by many in the teams heading to the Olympic Games. It was the equivalent of putting a Rolex or Cartier watch in a blister pack.

Today, those teams who failed to qualify via these championships will find out their fate as the draw is made for the last round of Olympic qualifiers. Yet already this too has been compromised. Egypt announcing that they have withdrawn from the qualifiers as the cost of travelling to either the Netherlands, India or Germany is not viable when weighed up against the team’s chances of gaining an aggregate victory over two games and qualifying. The fear is once the draw is completed other teams may also reach a similar decision. Which can only be detrimental to the sport as a whole and effect the integrity of the tournament in Tokyo. It could also possibly impact the sport’s future as an Olympic sport post Paris in 2024.

How can what should be a straightforward process have thrown up so many issues? The IOC gives the sport USD15million over four years to promote and grow the game as an Olympic sport. Surely a percentage of this money should be set aside to manage and run the events leading to the qualification for the Olympics? Money set aside to ensure that those wishing to participate can participate, as after all is not the Olympic Spirit supposed to be about “mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play?”

Fo the good of the sport whatever has happened this year must be reviewed and revisited to ensure that moving forward the qualification process is a level playing field for all, that the rules of qualification are uniform, along with the coverage of those events.

S