Part 3: The Cost of Clubs Not Leading in Irish Handball

In Irish handball, as in many sports, clubs form the foundation of development—providing access, competition, and the athlete base that gives national federations their legitimacy.

Importantly, under Olympic Handball Ireland’s (OHI) own Constitution, the 5 member clubs collectively hold the majority of voting power —making them the ultimate decision-makers in the OHI’s governance. However, as seen in recent years—and most notably during the September 2024 meeting convened to address governance issues and missed elections—clubs did not fully exercise this authority. Few questions were raised, and leadership was not formally challenged—allowing power to shift informally to the board, despite the authority clubs hold.

As one club representative remarked after the September 2024 meeting, “I think it’s really important to mobilize now. Clubs should have the main say. I know the board has one vote, which is kind of ridiculous.”

This responsibility goes beyond formal voting power. Clubs also act as intermediaries between athletes and governing bodies—representing athlete interests and supporting the sport at both local and competitive levels. In theory, they serve as the athletes’ voice—entrusted with the power to influence leadership and safeguard both the sport’s integrity and its development. Even at the amateur level, ensuring that athletes' voices are heard is essential for democratic governance. While OHI must adhere to good governance standards set by Sport Ireland, the European Handball Federation (EHF), and the International Handball Federation (IHF), its affiliated clubs are also expected to uphold these same standards as a condition of their membership.

But does this work in practice? Do clubs really speak for the athletes, or has a gap grown between athletes, club leaders, and OHI? This article—and the next one—looks at how clubs and athletes, have worked together, especially after the problems with governance and missed elections discussed in Parts 1 and 2. It asks whether clubs are truly supporting athletes and doing their part in the sport’s leadership, or if bigger changes are needed—not just in OHI, but in the clubs themselves too.

A 2021 study called Good Governance Challenges in Sport Clubs: A Cross-Country Comparison found that governance problems often come from limited resources and not involving members in decisions. In amateur sports like Irish handball—where clubs are central to athlete involvement and volunteering—small and changing athlete numbers each season make it hard to build strong connections with the club leadership. This is made worse when athletes are not included in decisions or kept informed about important issues—such as challenges inside the club, development plans, or even problems and opportunities with the OHI. When communication is weak, athletes may feel their role is limited to playing, instead of contributing to how the club or the sport moves forward. This limits their ability to share their views or support the sport’s growth—both locally and nationally.

Given all this, a key question remains: How effectively have Irish handball clubs involved their athletes in governance and OHI’s decision-making? 

How Silence Enabled a Broken System

In multiple sports around the world, many governments have mandated good governance standards for sport federations. However, how these principles are adopted at the club level remains a critical question. Research by Sisjord et al. (2017) suggests that local sport clubs tend to have a lower level of awareness and understanding of governance guidelines compared to national governing bodies. 

Looking at the experiences and decisions shared by past and present members of Irish handball, as well as the actions seen so far, it becomes clear that governance issues within OHI extend far beyond the recent election irregularities. For years, there has been a pattern of quiet inaction from club representatives, with concerns often raised informally and behind closed doors—typically among a small, familiar group long embedded in the sport. It wasn’t always like this; former members recall AGMs marked by strong debate and disagreement. But if past discussions rarely led to accountability, clear planning, or real solutions—and if they were often postponed or left unresolved—then the silence seen at the September 2024 meeting may reflect deeper, long-standing frustration. It could also signal a loss of trust in leadership, disappointment that speaking up wouldn’t change anything, or even fear of consequences—especially among those who had received roles or benefits from OHI, like board roles given without open elections, delegate spots at the EHF or IHF chosen without transparency, and opportunities to attend courses or travel in Europe for various reasons.

Inside the September Meeting: Limited Access, Limited Answers

The September 2024 meeting—meant to address years of governance failures—was marked by low attendance, and very few questions or challenges directed at the board. Only two representatives per club were invited to the meeting—out of five active and three inactive clubs—which was held both in person and online, four months after the public announcement of the governance issues. Athletes from several clubs confirmed they received no information about the meeting, despite it being the responsibility of club representatives to inform their members—and OHI’s duty to ensure transparency in such a situation of the governance, especially given the organisation is publicly funded by taxpayers.

The OHI report from the meeting—expected to be shared with clubs and made public due to the use of public funding—was not distributed, according to club members. It was also not shared online, reportedly over fears of a leak. 

One club president explained that one of his club’s delegates—who has close ties to the OHI board—told him, “Nothing really happened. So of course there was nothing for me to report to the club.” This gave the impression that the meeting was unimportant, despite the fact that several key decisions were discussed. Such as: OHI explained that Fintan Lyons would continue as president through a board decision to co-opt him after two mandates being kept without elections—even though constitutionally such a move is not democratic. A governance review had been commissioned to assess the organisation’s internal structures, as public funding was at risk due to the lack of adherence to Sport Ireland’s governance codes. These matters, along with other key issues, which are further explored in Part 1 and Part 2 of this series. 

With a small number of clubs and limited engagement in governance, opening the September meeting to a broader audience could have created space for greater transparency and inclusion. It would have allowed more athletes and volunteers to hear explanations and raise concerns. It might also have prompted the OHI to address wider governance issues, such as missed board elections beyond the presidency position, conflicts of interest, and the ongoing concentration of roles among a few individuals without open announcements or transparent recruitment. However, club representatives did not raise these issues, which allowed OHI to maintain control over the agenda and limit accountability and transparency.

This raises important questions about the role of clubs in protecting the sport’s integrity, representing their members, and upholding the standards expected of publicly funded organisations. 

The atmosphere in the room was described as quiet and passive. “People were just kind of waiting to see what the report was going to say,” one attendee recalled. “It was very unfortunate that people didn’t really challenge—almost as if it was okay, eventually.” 

The quiet reaction at that meeting—where the board explained key decisions that lacked constitutional support—further highlighted broader concerns about club representation, understanding of roles, and expectations around governance. As one attendee pointed out, there was also a lack of awareness about the history of handball leadership under Fintan Lyon, Michael Moloney, Andrea Ongaro, and Peter Caulfield over the past 17 years. “A lot of people there were relatively new to the sport who do not know the history of the association and the levels of obstruction of the clubs over the years and wrongdoing.” This passivity may also stem from a broader disconnect: a lack of awareness of the constitutional powers that clubs hold over the OHI board, or a shift in club culture where governance participation has gradually faded. 

In either case, the impact is the same—decision-making concentrated at the OHI board level, with little scrutiny, accountability or challenge from those entrusted to represent the wider membership and the use of public funding. This lack of engagement reflects a broader culture of silence and acceptance that has allowed OHI to operate without real accountability for years—with clubs following decisions rather than actively shaping them, despite holding the power to influence the sport’s development and governance under the Constitution and good governance standards.

With governance authority in clubs’ hands—but rarely used—the next part of this series explores how some of the athletes and club leaders, have responded to these situations, and whether real reform is still possible.