On the 18th of May 1860 the United States Republicans voted after a third ballot for Abraham Lincoln to be their Presidential candidate; he would go on to become the United States 16thPresident.
The favourite in the Republican election for the presidential tilt had been William Seward, but Lincoln’s victory had blindsided him and his supporters. It was dubbed “the night of a thousand knives.”
At the International Hockey Federation’s Congress held in Dubai in 2016 Dr. Narinder Batra was elected the sporting organization’s first Asian President in an election dubbed by a few who knew their history as the “night of a thousand hockey sticks.”
Why?
The reason is simple; this is alleged to have been one of the incentives given by those lobbying on his behalf to the lesser hockey nations for their vote. Other alleged incentives were funding support for their hockey programs; support that they should have been receiving anyway in a bid to grow the game.
Immediately after his election and the announcement that the 2018 Congress would be held in Delhi, India, Dr. Batra’s home city and at a hotel that his family had interests in. Dr. Batra returned to the stage and announced, “What we intend to do in India is that we are going to offer all member countries, when I say all I mean all 139 country members two rooms, one double and one single as complimentary full board. Which means including breakfast, lunch and dinner along with four pieces of laundry each day, to see that, to ensure that the family stays together.”
Despite many a raised eyebrow querying whether this was a gross conflict of interest, no one said a word. The tone was set for the next four years.
Now is not the time to go through the vision given by Dr. Batra in his pre-election speech, but one of his key platforms was that he was going to grow the reach of the game as President. He also stated that the “Home and Away League which is happening, I am a big supporter of that. This is also going to attract big revenue for FIH and maybe it trickles down to the Member countries.”
The Home and Away league that he was talking about became the FIH Pro League. India along with Pakistan under controversial circumstances were selected as being two of the nine men’s nations to compete in the inaugural League. (Looking For Answers) India’s women one of the nine women’s teams.
India would withdraw before the first game started. Pakistan would follow soon after the league was underway. The official reason for the withdrawal of India was that the competition would not be beneficial for their women’s team. The belief amongst many fans was that the new President of the FIH was flexing his muscles following a slap on the wrist for comments made on social media during the Champions Trophy and a pending internal investigation.
Some who claim to be close to Dr. Batra claim he never thought that India’s withdrawal would be accepted. The impact on the league was substantial as the revenue from the highest paying television station Star Sports dried up.
India was welcomed back to the fold for the second season of the FIH Pro League; no other countries being given the option to submit for inclusion.
After year one the FIH Pro League was in dire straits. The FIH were in financial difficulty because of it, and so too were many of the participating nations.
In addition the Hockey World League in which the lower ranked nations competed at a meaningful tournament and had the opportunity to progress was canned. It would be replaced by the Hockey Series Open, now that too has subsequently been shut down. So too has the Hockey India League closed down, one of the few competitions where the top players in the world were financially rewarded.
So the growing of the game promise has been questionable. With next to no new sponsors coming onboard, Star Sports involvement being heavily reduced, and Hero also reducing their levels of sponsorship the FIH was sliding downhill.
The executive Board and many of the member nations had hitched their wagon to India in the belief that money from India would be its lifeblood. It was always going to be a risky move.(Oh Dear Sir)
To make their predicament even worse then Covid-19 hit. The Executive Board cancelled their meeting in Lausanne because of the Pandemic, but the FIH Pro League continued!
In fact the 2020 season of the FIH Pro League still continues despite the fact that the competition has lost all credibility. Squad rules have been ignored, so too the rules regarding teams playing each other outside of the competition. Even how the outcome of the extended completion will be decided has been altered to try and come up with a winner! It has been a complete disaster; the only plus being that those who are able to play have had some warm up games prior to the Olympic Games. Players, coaches, and fans simply no longer care about the competition itself; that is if they know games are taking place!
Incredibly for a man who espoused to be taking the game globally the FIH Executive Board announced that the 2020 Congress would once again be held in India and once again at the hotel that the current President’s family has interests in, and the member nations again, despite the President being up for re-election would receive the same deal on accommodation!
However the Pandemic meant that on the 8thof May 2020 the FIH announced that the Congress would be pushed back until May 2021. The member nations again sat back and seemed to accept this decision even though other International Sporting Federations had amended their statues to allow on-line voting.
At the start of April 2021 the FIH offered its members the chance to attend the Congress in person in New Delhi or remotely amid the restrictions placed on travel due to the coronavirus pandemic. This was a bizarre situation, and one that saw skeptics wonder who and why would anyone make the trip to Delhi at such a time?
At the end of the same month it was announced that the Congress would be held virtually, resulting in those same skeptics asking why the sport had to wait a year to reach such an outcome?
A challenger was then announced to Dr. Batra’s Presidency. Respected former Belgian International Marc Coudron, who had been voted off the board in 2016. His platform boldly was built around honesty and integrity. Could Abraham Lincoln’s nickname and moral standards have been resonating with Coudron? Lincoln’s nickname was “Honest Abe.” It was a nickname that he embraced with pride. He believed in his own integrity and worked diligently to maintain his reputation as an honest politician and lawyer. Coudron appeared to be a man with similar beliefs.
On the 22ndof April 2021 the Agenda for the Congress was published. One item listed was that “A vote on the admission of the following nations as new FIH Members: Gambia, Saudi Arabia and Timor Leste.”
The admission of the Indonesian Hockey Federation was also to be tabled. During the Congress it was rejected. Although incredibly this vote was held twice, which seemed most extraordinary. Ultimately the outcome was the same. All of the other nations were given full membership of the FIH.
There was a key point linked to these admissions to Membership and that read as follows:
“As specified in the FIH Statutes (article 2.2(a)(ii)), newly approved Members present at Congress will have the right to participate in meetings of Congress and to cast a vote on resolutions put to Congress.” But did this mean that they could vote at this Congress?
In the FIH Statutes (article 2.2 (b) (ii) it states that the new members: “must pay when due all Member subscriptions decided upon by Congress and any other monies due and owing to the FIH. Any Member that has failed to pay any part of any subscription or other debt when due for payment to the FIH: (A) may not enter any team in an International Event without the approval of the Executive Board, unless it settles all such debts at least ninety (90) days before the start of the International Event in question; and (B) may not attend (and so may not vote at) any meeting of Congress unless the full amount owing is paid (in fully cleared funds) at least 24 hours before the start of the meeting;”
This raises a number of issues. First of all why were these nations logged in online prior to being awarded membership? By all means watch via the Watch Hockey app. As the statutes state that they cannot attend any meeting unless fees are paid 24 hours before the meeting starting.
We also know that these nations after they were elected voted, as the CEO and staff from LUMI advised all watching that they were now included.
How was it possible that these nations could have paid their membership in advance, as they were not guaranteed to be accepted as members? Even if they paid the fee after their election and in the subsequent hour before the Presidential election, they still were not entitled to vote as the payment was not 24 hours prior.
Why have none of the Member Nations or Confederations questioned this?
Prior to the elections, which seemed strange when the Presidency was up for grabs, the FIH announced its honorary awards winners. With three associations receiving such an award along with other key individuals who would also have a vote come the Presidential election the timing of these awards is questionable. Then the Presidents Awards were also announced prior to the Presidential election. Surely these should have been announced after the vote? Once again it appears that the member nations remained silent.
Come the election, Dr. Batra’s presentation was screened first, and we were told due to alphabetical reasons. Yet it was interesting to watch him putting across arguments that were clearly going to be put forward by Mr. Coudron in his presentation.
Then the member nations that were logged in were invited to vote. To be the winner the candidate had to have an absolute majority. Remarkably Dr. Batra achieved exactly the amount required. Of the 124 votes, including those from the three newly elected Members, Dr. Batra attained the required absolute majority of more than half the votes, receiving 63 votes to the 61 given to Marc Coudron of Belgium.
Presuming that the three new members voted for Dr Batra, and these votes were void then Marc Coudron would have had 61 votes to Dr. Batra’s 60, out of a total of 121.
Since the announcement of the result there have understandably been many nations, confederations and hockey players who have been upset with the outcome, something that is normal in any election.
Fans across the globe went to social media to demand to know how their nation voted. Constitutionally this information cannot be revealed, as the ballot is a secret one.
Yet clearly there is a question over how the new members were permitted to vote in contravention of the FIH’s own statutes. Also what needs to be asked is which 124 nations were online when the voting took place. There is nothing to prevent the FIH publishing this fact, as they would willingly reveal who attended congress in person.
There are questions as to why the four nations up for membership of the FIH were already logged in online prior to their membership being accepted? Even more so the Indonesian Hockey Federation as they are not the official body of that country and that was what the vote was to decide. Did the other three nations votes sway the election?
In addition why were only 124 nations of the FIH’s 140 member nations – including the newly elected three nations – on line to vote? Which were the 16 nations absent at such an important time? (Added 02/06/21 – This figure was based on adding up the list of nations listed as members on the FIH website and adding the three new countries. As of today the number of Member nations with the three new members is 136 Members).
Surely those hockey players, umpires and clubs who are constantly told they are part of the ‘FIH family’ and ‘FIH Community’ around the globe have a right to know which nations were online and voted and who was missing? Also how the newly elected members were allowed to vote?
Unfortunately there is a strong feeling that the honesty and integrity that Marc Coudron was advocating has been challenged and beaten once again, this time via the on-line voting system.
Is it a coincidence that the two individuals from outside the Executive Board who stood against current incumbents did not get voted in?
In both cases the votes cast by the new members of the FIH had the potential to affect the outcome, The question is did it?
In order to quell the rumblings and allegations more so than ever before the Hockey world want to see some transparency. Why has no member nation or Confederation spoken up? How many Hockey sticks has their silence cost?
If the national associations and their representative Confederations are going to remain silent at a time when the sport is teetering financially and faith in those leading the game appears to be wavering, then what hope is there for the game ever fulfilling Dr. Batra’s dream of growing globally and attracting big revenue?
The President and his board, as well as those who represented the Hockey community in the elections would be wise to heed the advice of ‘Honest Abe,’ when he said, “Commitment is what transforms a promise into a reality… Commitment is the stuff character is made of; the power to change the face of things. It is the daily triumph of integrity over skepticism.”
Sadly at this point in time skepticisim is triumphing in the world of hockey.
John.
Thank you for taking the time to comment again.
The one positive from the make up of the board is that all regions are represented, so should have a voice. Of course that does not guarantee that the outcomes are going to necessarily be what they all want.
I also agree that the current Board needs to focus on the sport that they have been elected to govern rather than being a part of other committees. I do not have access to all of the financials but those that were released earlier this year did not make good reading, and the Covid situation is hardly going to improve these in 2021.So the sport is going to need strong and clever leadership to keep the it afloat and bring in much needed revenue. The one plus is now that the Statutes have been amended for On-line meetings to be held there is no longer a need for the cost of the Board flying to Lausanne for Executive Board meetings, and so too the various other committees. This will result in a saving for the FIH and the National Associations.
Whether people have faith or not the spotlight is well and truly on the Board and the decisions they make and the direction they take the game will you feel definitely determine its future. I have to say I agree the Pro League is simply not viable and a decision needs to be made accepting this fact.
Thanks again for taking the tie to comment.
Martin, my apologies for the late response. Some very interesting reading. Why go through the process if you are not going to change?
Fantastic article that explains everything very well.
I have waited a few days before commenting as I wanted to see if any of the National Associations stood up and said anything, or and this is most unlikely as they have their snouts well and truly in the trough, the Confederations. The silence has been deafening.
Which sums up the sport! The apathy that exists amongst hockey players and administrators is truly amazing. Then again it may be exacerbated because the game is in fact not as big as we think it is, so the silence seems greater than it really is.
Personally I believe this board based on the past five years is going to lead the sport to a very, very dark place. If the Pro League is not scrapped the sport and some associations are likely to be bankrupt in the next two years. Where is the business know-how on the Board?
12 of the board of 16 have been involved in Hockey administration at Board level, that is hardly inspiring. Six are ex International players.
Of the 16, 4 come from Asia, 5 including the CEO from Europe, 3 from Africa, 3 from Pan America and one from Oceania. Yet how many come from leading hockey nations? How many have overseen a successful program?
How many are on other committees such as IOC committees, is that ego or actually necessary to hockey? Hockey needs their full attention at the present time, the game in in a perilous state.
Maybe they realise but simply do not care, that their egos will not allow them to see, that without hockey they would not be on these other committees. If hockey goes under they will lose those positions.
The sport needs smart business people to pull it out of the hole it is currently in. I have no faith in a CEO who keeps calling the sport FIFA despite having been with the sport now three years, and I have no faith in this Board turning things around. Most importantly I have no faith in the National Associations standing up and being representative of the players around the globe.
I am a very depressed hockey player, think I may head to the bar!
There does not appear to be the slightest interest in holding the FIH Rules Committee to promises made when amendments were made to the Rules of Hockey by the FIH RC or its forerunner the FIH Hockey Rules Board. There may be some head scratching about that comment because these incidents have occurred at well spaced intervals over decades. However the effects of them are still seen and felt today.
The first I’ll mention is the deletion of the Offside Rule in 1997.
At the time the FIH RC wrote in the rule-book that following this deletion constrains would be placed on the actions of attackers close to the goal. Clearly the idea of ‘goal-hanging’ attackers shooting at goal at point blank range and without height restriction is a disturbing one. So what constrains did the FIH RC introduce? Answer, none. In fact 1997 is now so long ago that no-one raised an eyebrow when the Rules were amended in 2015 to allow attackers to shoot at goal when the ball was still above shoulder height, and the tennis smash style shots that are now frequently made are commended as skillful. Players changing in on a goal-keeper, before a drag-flick is made as a first shot during a penalty corner, in order to hit any rebound into the goal or to deflect from close range, a ball passed towards the goal, high into the net, are also a common sight. It’s not difficult to devise reasonable Rule to deal with all of these problems.
In 2002 there was an announcement made in the rule-book that an upcoming comprehensive rewrite of the Rules of Hockey would be complete, in that it would contain all the briefing notes previously set out elsewhere separately as advice and instruction to umpires officiating at international Tournaments, so other Rules documents would become unnecessary. But what had happened in 2004 when the promised rewrite was completed? All Advice to Umpires and Technical Interpretations, previously in separate sections at the back of the rule-book, were deleted. The rule-book, far from being a comprehensive Rules document, which included Tournament Regulations, became a skelton of its former content and the Umpire Managers Briefing for Umpires at International Tournaments took on a new life, instead of being discontinued.
The UMB when on to conflict with and contradict the Rules of Hockey in some areas. For example Rule 9.9 concerning the intentionally raised hit was scuppered by the inane mantra ‘forget lifted – think danger’ with the result that hits intentionally raised into the opponent’s circle were not penalised even thought prior to 2004 raising the ball into the opponent’s circle with any stroke had been expressly prohibited. This was one of the first constraints on attackers which was removed in a way that was contrary to the undertaking given in 1997.
The UMB also announced, contrary to what was given in the Explanation of Rule 9.9 that balls raised to below half shin-pad height are not dangerous – which is as daft as the recent change to the dangerous play Rule which declare that only opponents can be subjected to a dangerous play offence.
In 2007 we had a Rules farce that ran in the other direction. The FIH RC deleted a Rule clause and individuals within other FIH Committees, notably Peter von Reth, refused to accept the deletion, despite the FIH RC being the sole appointed Rule authority, as the FIH Executive had declared in a Executive Circular in 2002.
So from Feb 2007 when an ‘official Explanation of Rule 9.11’ (which was nothing of the sort) was posted on the FIH website, until May 2015, “or gains benefit” was applied as if it was still part of Rule 9.11. The restoration of the clause to the rule-book, as advantage gained, did not occur until January of 2016.
We then had in 2011 the bizarre situation where the Forcing Rule was deleted, but the offence was not, because the reason given for the deletion was “because any action of this sort can be dealt with under other Rules” but umpires immediately stopped penalising forcing offences (to the great detriment of the game), but the deletion of the ‘gains benefit’ clause was ignored and the clause continued to be applied even though there was no mention of it in a rule-book for nine years.
The ‘gains benefit’ clause should not have been deleted because that removed appropriate penalty for the direct prevention of a goal with an accidental ball-body(foot/leg) contact, but it certainly needed to be amended and reinforced, because standard umpire coaching at the time was that any ball body contact would gain a benefit for the team of the player hit with the ball, an obvious nonsense which no umpire should have accepted as proper direction because it turned one of the two criteria for a ball-body contact offence ‘on its ear’.
No one who can remember how hockey was played prior to 1993 when what was called a New Interpretation of obstruction was introduced (which was nothing of the sort, it was an Exception to the Rule which applied only to a player in the act of receiving and controlling the ball; the criteria for the offence the illegal prevention of a legitimate tackle for the ball remained and remains exactly as it always has been), can be comfortable watching the way hockey is now played. Here again long practice of umpires interpreting in their own way (or to instruction given by Umpire Managers) caused them to completely ignore the extension of a clause in the Rule Explanation of Rule 9.12, added in 2009, which prohibited a player who had just received and controlled the ball, from moving to position between an opponent and the ball – which should of course include moving to maintain an existing ball shielding position and backing or leading the ball into the playing reach of a defender (advice which was ‘lost’ in the vandalism which was called the rewrite of 2004).
The above is an brief account of some of the things which have happened. I have not mentioned the important subject of dangerous play and the inexcusable introduction during the Beijing Olympics of the idea that an on target shot at the goal could not be considered to be dangerous play (again the 1997 constraints on attackers upended) That surface again from an umpire during the 2010 World Cup, and was present in slightly altered form, in the Briefing video for the Rio Olympics, so it has not yet been discarded despite its absurdity. One of the strangest thing to have happened in the last few years is the issue of a letter from the Royal Dutch Hockey Board to umpires in the Netherlands, in 2018, instructing them that legitimate evasive action (the causing of which defines a dangerously played ball) does not apply to defenders defending the goal during a penalty corner. Strange because this National Board does not have the authority to issue such an instruction but stranger because although aware that this has happened (I know they were informed in November of 2018) the FIH Rules Committee and the FIH Executive have done nothing to correct this situation.
The application of the Rules to which the game of hockey is supposed to be played is a mess, and the apathy of ‘the hockey community’ and ‘the hockey family’ (and their and the FIH Rules Committee’s apparent powerlessness to control Umpire Managers) are ensuring that it stays that way.