Part 1: The Rise of Questions Inside Olympic Handball Ireland

One year after governance failures first came to light, Olympic Handball Ireland (OHI) remains under scrutiny — with serious questions still surrounding its governance, transparency and accountability.

At the first meeting with clubs in September 2024, what was truly disclosed about the absence of presidential elections across two terms? What actions — or inactions — were taken by Sport Ireland, and how did both the clubs and the OHI board respond to the growing governance concerns?

These questions—along with an analysis of how governance responsibilities are distributed between OHI, the clubs, Sport Ireland, Sport Northern Ireland, the European Handball Federation (EHF), and the International Handball Federation (IHF)—will be explored in this and subsequent articles. This analysis draws on the perspectives of members of the Irish handball community who attended the September 2024 meeting and the AGM, as well as input from other individuals—both past and present—active in the sport, including a former EHF delegate whose experience offers valuable insight into the federation’s internal dynamics. It is further supported by the sport scholar  Dr. Jörg Krieger, one of Europe’s foremost authorities on sport governance. As a professor at Aarhus University and director of the Olympic Studies Centre in Norway, Dr. Krieger has extensively researched how governance structures, ethical leadership, and democratic accountability shape both national federations and international sport bodies—offering a critical lens through which to examine the challenges facing Irish handball today.

Understanding Sport Politics

The situation within Irish handball cannot be separated from the broader realities of sports politics — the internal power dynamics and decision-making processes that shape a federation’s direction. In the case of OHI, despite rebranding in January 2024 and removing the word “Association” from its name, it continues to operate fundamentally as an association of clubs. The five clubs active in Ireland, form the foundation of Irish handball’s structure and underpin its recognition by the EHF, IHF, Sport Ireland, and other public bodies.

In 2016, OHI changed its legal status to a company limited by guarantee (CLG) to comply with Irish company law and align with Sport Ireland’s governance expectations. However, this change proved largely administrative, as governance weaknesses — including missed elections, conflicts of interest, and ongoing issues of accountability and transparency — persisted within the organisation. Despite its company status, OHI remains a publicly funded, non-governmental sports body, and its core public service role has not changed.

As Dr. Jörg Krieger explains, sport politics concerns how leaders exercise power, comply with governance rules, and remain accountable — principles that apply not only to national bodies but to every club engaged in the sport.

Peter Caulfield’s Opening Speech and the Unanswered Questions About OHI Elections

During the September 2024 meeting with the clubs, Peter Caulfield — a former OHI president — opened proceedings by emphasizing the federation’s company status and the "serious responsibilities" of board members. However, he offered no explanation for the board's missed election cycles. One attendee observed, “I kind of found it weird, like as if he was trying to dissuade people to, you know, to join the presidency.”

Caulfield, who served as OHI president before Fintan Lyons' appointment in 2008, was confirmed by Lyons in April 2024 as having been an EHF delegate "for a number of years," remained on the Board for many years as an ordinary member, without being subject to regular democratic re-election. AGM records available since 2016 show that his position was not opened to election in either 2016 and 2019, despite the Constitution requiring board elections every three years. His role appeared on the ballot only in 2021 and again in 2024, when he stepped down.

From Missed Elections to Honorary Status: How Transparency Slipped Inside OHI

Shortly after stepping down, Caulfield was awarded the title of Honorary Life Board Member — a symbolic position that allows him to remain involved in board meetings without voting rights. However, the appointment raises serious governance concerns, not only due to its lack of transparency, but also given that Caulfield’s long-standing position on the board had itself bypassed proper democratic elections for multiple terms.

According to the OHI Constitution (Article 6.1 iii),

“Honorary Members are nominated by the board and ratified by the General Meeting for a period up to life. Honorary Members may attend and speak at a General Meeting but do not have voting rights.”

In governance standards, "ratification" means formal approval through voting — not automatic acceptance. The OHI Constitution gives the General Meeting supreme authority (Article 5.1) and specifies that decisions, including elections and appointments, must be made by voting (Article 8.3.4). Thus, nominations must be announced in advance, presented properly, and subject to a formal vote to be valid.

What really happened in Caulfield’s case? Among the members present, some recalled no clear announcement or vote taking place. Others expressed uncertainty or confusion about the process. This raises critical questions: Is the OHI protecting its inner circle through honorary memberships and co-options—just as it did when Fintan Lyons remained in office despite ineligibility?

Presidential Elections and Transparency: Scrutinizing Fintan Lyons' Tenure

Fintan Lyons, who served as president of OHI since 2008, was questioned about how he remained in the role for two terms without re-election. He claimed there had been “assumptions that the president would simply continue if no one else expressed interest” and said he did not intend to mislead anyone. However, he offered no explanation for why elections were neither held nor properly communicated, as he had done in April 2024 to Irish Handball News, instead shifting full responsibility onto the Secretary at the September meeting. One attendee, reflecting on Lyons’ long tenure, questioned how someone “after two decades, most of it as president,” could claim not to know that re-election was required, calling the response “ridiculous.” 

Lyons’ explanations were described as evasive: “He actually addressed this thing where he was claiming that he was not trying to fool anybody, that he just keeps being the president, and it was basically as if that never happened.” The same source added: “Instead of talking about his own responsibility in the whole matter, he sidestepped the issue. He didn’t even answer anybody’s question”. When challenged, Lyons reportedly said he was “not going to be listening to the lectures from him,” a comment perceived as dismissive.

Reflecting further on the exchange, the attendee noted: “In the end, Fintan sort of sidestepped the issue—started talking about how hard they’re working on the board, that they’re volunteers and so on. I mean, as if the rest of us don’t understand what volunteering means—as if we’re doing it for the money.”

Conflicting Explanations: Lyons’ Public Statements vs. Reality

An article published on 4 May 2024, based on a recorded interview conducted on 28 April 2024, remains publicly available. In the interview, Fintan Lyons gave conflicting explanations about the presidential elections — not acknowledging their absence, but instead asserting that elections had been conducted democratically and transparently, claiming: “You’re elected for a number of terms, and you don't have to get elected every single term. That’s the way it works.” He also suggested that he remained as a president because there were no other nominations — even though the presidency was never openly advertised. When pressed further, Lyons repeatedly shifted responsibility to Secretary Michael Moloney. His statements left no room for interpretation: they confirmed a pattern of informal practices and unannounced decisions that sidestepped the constitutional election rules. Yet when club members asked for clear explanations, none were properly given — and confusion was instead blamed on the “misinterpretation” of his own recorded words.

How OHI’s Missed Elections and Co-Options Broke Constitutional Rules

Pamela Bastable, introduced at the September 2024 meeting as a governance expert on the OHI Board, chaired the session. According to one  attendee, her exact role and how long she had served were not clearly explained at the time.

Later, the December 2024 AGM was confirmed that she, along with Maria Byrne, was formally accepted as a Board member — both having been previously co-opted earlier in the year following a recruitment campaign through Boardmatch.

However, the members were not informed in advance about the open Board positions — neither prior to nor during the AGM — meaning they had no opportunity to nominate candidates, notify the wider membership, or participate in the selection process, as required by OHI’s Constitution and good governance standards.

The use of Boardmatch, while legitimate for external recruitment, effectively excluded OHI’s own clubs from the process. Moreover, no open or transparent announcement of these vacancies was made on OHI’s official channels, an issue already exposed in 2023 but which continued unchanged into 2024.

According to the OHI Constitution (Article 10.13), the board may fill “casual vacancies” at its discretion through co-option. However, the Constitution also states that board members should be formally elected by the membership at the next AGM (Article 10.18) and that new board appointments should be properly communicated to the clubs. Nowhere in the Constitution is there permission for indefinite or silent co-option without clear prior notification to members about open positions.

Thus, while temporary co-option is permitted under OHI rules, the full acceptance of new board members must occur transparently through open announcements on official platforms, giving members the opportunity to nominate candidates and allowing independent candidates to stand as well — ensuring fair competition and democratic choice.

The situation within OHI reflects a broader pattern seen in sports organisations when governance controls weaken. As sport scholar Dr. Jörg Krieger explains, when sport leaders remain in place without strong control mechanisms, "more power accumulates in the hands of a few, and internal loyalty networks make it harder for real change to happen. Over time, democratic processes are weakened, and organisations risk becoming closed systems resistant to transparency."

Constitutional Questions and Legal Validity Around Co-Option of the OHI Presidency

Bastable informed participants that a third-party governance review had been commissioned to assess the organisation’s internal structures and procedures. The board’s plan, she explained, was to implement the review’s recommendations before proceeding with any new elections.

This approach drew some pushback during the meeting. One participant questioned the decision to postpone elections, suggesting it would be more appropriate to first elect new leadership—who could then take ownership of the reform process. In response, the board reportedly stated that their aim was to “leave a clean house” for incoming leadership.

The OHI board acknowledged that Fintan Lyons had not been re-elected for two consecutive terms and explained that he had been “co-opted” into the board. In governance practice, co-option refers to the temporary appointment of individuals to fill unoccupied board positions when vacancies arise between elections. It is typically used for internal or non-executive roles—not for leadership positions such as the presidency, which are meant to be filled through direct member election.

Applying this mechanism to justify the continued leadership of a president who had exceeded the constitutional term limits for two terms presents significant governance concerns. The OHI Constitution does not define the presidency as a casual or internal vacancy, nor does it authorise co-option as a mechanism for extending a presidential term. The Constitution requires that the president be elected by members at an Annual General Meeting (AGM) or Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM); it limits the term of office for any board member to three years, after which re-election is necessary; and it allows the board to fill casual vacancies , but it does not override the requirements for democratic election to the presidency.

The legitimacy of decisions made by the board during the past two presidential terms—both served without proper re-election by the membership—was brought into question. In response, Pamela Bastable reportedly referenced a constitutional article that allowed the board to continue operating and “keep making decisions,” even under such irregular circumstances. However, no specific article was cited during the meeting that would legally justify applying this provision to the presidency. While it was mentioned that the relevant statute would be shared with attendees afterward, no clarification was provided so far based on the sources from inside the Irish handball.

In this context, the functioning of the board under an unelected president from 2020 to 2024 lacks constitutional legitimacy. The absence of club-wide voting, the prolonged use of an expired mandate, and the internal justification of co-option undermine both the legal standing and the democratic integrity of decisions made during that period.

Furthermore, this arrangement contradicts the governance standards outlined in Sport Ireland’s Code of Governance, which emphasises fair, transparent, and competitive processes for leadership appointments. It also conflicts with international governance standards from the EHF and IHF, both of which require adherence to democratic and constitutional norms as a condition of membership.

While an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) could have been called earlier to address the situation—after concerns were first raised publicly in May 2024—the Board reportedly declined to do so at the September meeting. It remains unclear whether any clubs requested an EGM before then.

As a result, the claim that OHI functioned “normally” under these conditions is highly questionable and appears inconsistent with both its own constitution and external governance expectations.

In the next part of this series, we examine whether the 2024 elections of Olympic Handball Ireland—an organisation receiving public funds—lived up to the standards of democratic governance in Irish sport. Read the second part here.

IOHA Consititution 2016.pdf

Download PDF • 592KB