Part 4: Who Speaks for Irish Handball?

Previously, in part 3, we explored club silence in key governance moments. This part turns to athlete involvement, internal culture, and the cost of speaking up.

Athletes: Key Stakeholders, Still on the Sidelines 

“Athletes are one key stakeholder group that has historically been kept away from decision-making and continues to find itself marginalized from debates centered around governance,” says Dr. Jörg Krieger in his 2022 book Athletes Pressing Charges: Fighting for the Future of Modern Pentathlon—a conclusion echoed by many sports governance researchers and reflected in the Irish handball context as well.

The way Olympic Handball Ireland (OHI) and clubs are run — from how competitions are organised to how funding is allocated — directly shapes the experience of both current and future athletes. 

Yet in Irish handball, athletes are often left out of governance conversations, even though they are at the heart of the game and contribute significantly as volunteers. Athletes are not just participants — they are essential members of the handball community, regardless of experience. While many join clubs to play and connect socially, chances to engage more deeply in shaping the sport are rarely communicated — and sometimes not offered at all.

International governance standards — including those promoted by the International Olympic Committee and even Sport Ireland — encourage inclusive decision-making and meaningful stakeholder representation. Yet, in the current Irish handball framework, athletes do not hold formal roles in governance, and their voices are often left out — not necessarily due to disinterest, but because they are not informed.

In many other countries — both in handball and other sports — athletes have successfully pushed to be included in governance structures, from athlete commissions to voting rights on federation boards. This inclusion ensures that those most affected by decisions have a say in how the sport is run. It also leads to better policies, stronger accountability, and a deeper sense of trust between athletes and leaders — which is essential for any sport that wants to grow in a fair and sustainable way.

Both past and present athletes have noted that few volunteers are actively engaged in developing the sport or their clubs, and that some individuals who do take on roles do not always carry out their responsibilities — leaving the burden to fall on others.

Many within the community seem disengaged from the broader direction of the sport — showing limited interest in governance, long-term planning, or decision-making.

This disconnect is made worse when athletes are excluded from key updates and discussions, leaving them unclear about where the sport is headed or how they could contribute. Over time, this lack of inclusion has lowered expectations and narrowed handball’s identity to something largely recreational. As one athlete put it, “People here take handball like it’s Sunday league. Singles vs married games,” reflecting the casual attitude that often prevails.

Poor communication from clubs and a lack of transparency from OHI over the past years have made it difficult for athletes to understand or influence decisions that affect them directly. Without access to information or a clear voice in governance, athletes remain sidelined.

Voices within the sport have also noted that some clubs are effectively controlled by a small group of individuals — some of whom hold multiple roles without regular democratic elections. In certain cases, founders or long-time members make most decisions without following proper governance practices or considering input from other members. While it's often claimed that few people are willing to get involved, little effort has been made to invite new volunteers or share responsibilities — a pattern also evident at the national level. This suggests the problem may lie less in a lack of interest and more in limited openness and reluctance to include others in shaping the sport’s future.

If clubs themselves have struggled to uphold good governance, could that be one reason — alongside those discussed in Part 3 — why OHI’s issues went largely unchallenged for so long?

Speaking Up or Staying Quiet: An Ethical Dilemma

“We should stop complaining and be friends with OHI,” said a former club president — a comment that reflects a broader culture where raising concerns is often discouraged in favour of maintaining personal ties or a positive public image.

Over time, those who raised important questions were often left without support — even from others who once shared their concerns — and found themselves standing alone when speaking up. When even peers remain silent, speaking up alone highlights a deeper absence of shared responsibility and community support.

In stronger sporting cultures, raising concerns is seen as a way to improve the sport through shared problem-solving. In weaker governance environments, it’s often taken personally, seen as criticism, or discouraged—making open discussion and progress much harder.

When “friendship” within sporting communities leads to silence in the face of serious concerns, it raises a deeper question: is the priority building the sport — or preserving personal ties at the cost of accountability and democratic principles?

In some cases, individuals who raised concerns about governance have later been offered roles or benefits within the system — raising questions about whether such gestures are made in good faith or as a means of softening criticism. 

A relevant example is Andrea Ongaro, who has served as Technical Director for 13 years despite gaps in the democratic election process. Before joining OHI, he ran a blog raising concerns about Irish handball—but stopped posting after taking the role, raising questions about whether his views changed and whether those concerns were ever addressed.

Similarly, several individuals who were previously critical of how the sport was governed now appear satisfied with their positions within OHI, the benefits they receive as club representatives, and the opportunity to attend international events. This shift suggests that, rather than being addressed transparently, long-standing governance issues have been set aside, as the organization focuses on school-based projects and integrates former critics into its structure. While some of these individuals seem to have been rewarded for their involvement, it remains to be seen whether the same concerns will resurface—either through new representatives or the same individuals, especially if their current benefits are reduced or withdrawn, as has already occurred in some cases.

Another dynamic emerged in September 2023, when OHI secretary Michael Moloney extended an offer to Irish Handball News. The proposal involved a paid role in connection with a project the platform had independently launched to document the history of Irish handball. However, the condition of remaining fully independent — cooperating without any formal payment or role within OHI — was not accepted.

When speaking up is quietly replaced with being brought in, when independence and cooperation are rejected, and when concerns fade after roles are accepted, we must ask: is the system changing people — or are people adapting to protect the system?

A Culture That Silences Questions 

In another case, an athlete who asked for OHI meeting updates to be shared in the club’s group chat was removed from both the chat and the club by an individual with direct ties to OHI activities. The stated reason for the removal was that the athlete had not registered for the new season — despite previously being assured by the club that is welcome to return at any time, and with no formal issue having been raised.

In response to the request for transparency, the individual stated that sharing OHI meeting updates would put too much “pressure” on the athletes. The club president also added, “As a very small committee, we just don't have the capacity to comprehensively inform club members of what's going on in the OHI and Handball in Ireland more generally.”

However, the club’s WhatsApp group is actively used to organise matches, social events, and competitions—showing that communication tools are available. Sharing brief updates on OHI or club decisions would take minimal effort, yet governance matters are often discussed informally during training or among friends, if at all, with no record of what’s said. Since training attendance is usually lower than group chat participation, this approach excludes many and limits transparency. Ultimately, the issue is not one of resources, but of willingness, inclusion, and consistency.

Governance Gaps and Conflicts of Interest

In September 2024, the same club president stated, “I am not actively looking to expand my knowledge of OHI politics beyond what people tell me directly.” This reflects a troubling lack of engagement with governance structures the club helps shape—especially given its voting power, exercised by a representative who regularly attends meetings. This raises further questions about how that representative — who is involved in OHI’s activities — can remain impartial in club matters. The overlap between club and OHI roles creates a potential conflict of interest, where decisions risk serving internal or personal agendas rather than the broader interests of club members or the sport as a whole.

Concerns about conflicts of interest in Irish handball are not limited to a single club or individual. Yet instead of being addressed openly, such issues are often discussed informally among friends or kept behind closed doors. While these patterns have been visible to many involved in the sport for years, they have rarely been raised directly with the OHI board.

In April 2024, for example, Fintan Lyons acknowledged that the situation involving Andrea Ongaro — who holds multiple roles within OHI and also within his own club — had never been formally questioned. When asked about this, Lyons described OHI as “a very small organization” and added that he did not agree with the “characterization of conflict of interest,” suggesting that the overlapping roles were not seen as problematic.

However, the fact that this situation is not recognised as conflicts of interest — either by OHI leadership or, so far, through internal governance actions — raises serious concerns. With Sport Ireland currently conducting governance audits, this situation calls into question how seriously stronger standards and democratic practices are being treated.

Seventeen Years in Power: What Has Changed?

In the 2024 presidential election, four of the five clubs — along with the OHI board — voted to re-elect Fintan Lyons, who had already held the position for two terms without an election, now entering his 17th year in leadership. This outcome has raised further questions about how fair and democratic the process was — despite the election procedures being outlined in Part 2 of this series, and now with even more to consider.

It was  reported that a club delegate, relatively new to the sport, expressed trust in Fintan Lyons and the OHI board during conversations with other handball members, saying, “many things were done for the sport.” However, such support raises further questions about the record of accomplishments over the past 17 years. Aside from statements made by OHI itself, public praise has been notably absent, with most reactions ranging from silence to criticism. In several cases, individuals who have worked with or currently collaborate with OHI have expressed support in formal settings, while privately voicing concerns to peers — a pattern confirmed by those with close ties to them.

These questions bring us back to the core issue: was the support reflected in the election vote a sincere expression of confidence—or the result of a long-standing strategy to consolidate influence?

In contrast, one long-time member of the handball community, with over 20 years of Irish handball, questioned the claims of development under Fintan Lyons’s leadership — noting that meaningful school activity only began to increase after the COVID period, with limited progress seen during earlier mandates. It was questioned whether “massaging of the figures continues like it used to,” referring to earlier practices where children participating in single blitz events were counted in official participation statistics. “A year later, they say it’s like 20,000 kids are playing handball,” — despite the absence of a consistent youth programme or a strategic school engagement plan. It also pointed to the current state of domestic competition, noting, “We have the weakest league that ever was,” suggesting that, despite positive messaging, the sport’s competitive structure has deteriorated rather than improved.

Such remarks highlight concerns about how success is defined and reported, especially in the context of public funding, and raise important questions about the role clubs have played in these results. 

To explore this further, Irish Handball News asked Fintan Lyons in April 2024 what specific actions had been taken to support club development — drawing a comparison to the Faroe Islands, whose rapid rise from Emerging Nations to defeating top-ranked countries has been largely credited to strong, sustained club support. Lyons did not provide a direct answer and instead shifted the conversation to other topics about OHI.

It remains unclear whether such details — if available — were ever shared with club representatives during the candidacy process, as at the AGM Lyons, who was co-opted as a president after the governance issues were made public, was given the floor only to praise the board and share some enthusiastic plans he has, while the other presidential candidate was not offered any time to speak before the vote.

With no open or public campaign from Lyons to account for his 17 years in office, the wider handball community has no access to this information. The full picture is known primarily to long-standing insiders — some who have since left the sport, and others who remain involved but choose not to speak publicly or educate their athletes about the sport’s history and its impact. As a result, new athletes and club members are left reliant solely on the narrative provided by OHI, while silence prevails on the organisation’s true record as well as in the majority of the clubs. This raises concerns about how trust can be granted on the basis of narrative alone, without consideration of actual results, the experiences and impact of those present and previously involved, or the lack of information available to new members who are expected to shape the sport’s future.

To be continued…