Part 7 – Sport Ireland and Olympic Handball Ireland: A Case of Failed Governance Oversight

Images: Sport Ireland and Olympic Handball Ireland logos (source: official media)

Ongoing Governance Concerns and Limited Oversight

The governance issues of Olympic Handball Ireland (OHI) were formally brought to Sport Ireland’s attention in May 2024. At that point, the president had already served 16 years, including two consecutive terms without formal re-election. Additional concerns involved several board members continuing in their roles despite gaps in election or reappointment procedures, conflicts of interest, lack of transparency, and the concentration of key roles within a small number of individuals—such as a Secretary serving for 16 years who also held the role of Anti-Doping Officer for 13 years, and a Technical Director (in post for 13 years) who simultaneously acts as Head of Coaches, Head of Referees, coach and president of his own club. Both of OHI’s full-time staff also held multiple roles, raising concerns about excessive workload, a concentration of power in too few hands, and the overall impact on the sport’s development.

These patterns point to ongoing governance failures and weak external oversight, as none of the issues have been addressed or even acknowledged by OHI. The organisation has remained focused solely on its presidency—an area that itself lacked transparency and continued to breach the responsibilities outlined in its own Constitution, the Governance Code, and its legal obligations as a Company Limited by Guarantee under Irish law.

Co-Option of President Deepens Governance Breaches

During the board meeting with club representatives in September 2024—held in response to governance concerns raised four months earlier, in May—the OHI Board co-opted a president who had already served two terms without re-election, in direct violation of the organisation’s Constitution, which both limits terms and prohibits the presidency from being filled by co-option.

The president holds a legally significant role under the Companies Act 2014, and co-opting someone into this position without an election raises serious legal and accountability concerns.

It needs to be reminded that this decision took place during an ongoing Sport Ireland audit—at a time when OHI was already at risk of losing public funding due to non-compliance, and when accountability, transparency, and honesty were expected to guide the board’s actions, especially in what was the first meeting since governance concerns became public. Despite this context, the board went ahead with the appointment, ignoring unresolved governance issues and showing continued disregard for core responsibilities and regulatory obligations to this day.

Yet, public funding for OHI continued—even though none of the main problems were fixed with new breaches of its own constitution and responsibilities as a National Governing Body (NGB) were added. This raises serious doubts about Sport Ireland’s claim that the organisation is “actively working to implement” governance improvements.

This episode highlights not only failures in OHI’s internal governance and Sport Ireland’s oversight but also raises important questions about the role of club representatives. Despite holding five of the six available votes under the current structure—where the remaining vote belongs to OHI itself—no collective action was taken to challenge the president’s appointment or to call an official Extraordinary General Meeting. This highlights a broader weakness in the accountability chain—those with the authority to push for reform failed to act when it mattered most, particularly among those who had raised election-related questions before May 2024. Whether due to limited awareness, disengagement, or fear of consequences, their inaction effectively allowed governance breaches to continue—even under active Sport Ireland audit.

This leads to a deeper question: should OHI invest in supporting the clubs—by helping them understand their rights, responsibilities, and the basics of governance and Irish law—so that individuals within these clubs can contribute to the sport’s development with knowledge, purpose, and accountability?

Considering that only in 2024 was Dublin City HC offered a club development course funded by OHI—intended to strengthen local club support—some within the handball community question whether this initiative served as a strategic move ahead of the December 2024 elections where the same president was re-elected. If so, it raises further questions: Where has the sustained support for other clubs been all these years? Have resources been allocated fairly and transparently across the sport? And most importantly—where have the funds intended for club development and support actually gone?

Among other breaches after September 2024 were: the acceptance of two board members at the December AGM, following co-option earlier in the year, without prior notification or opportunity for nominations; the failure to communicate open positions through OHI’s official channels or the broader handball community; a presidential election held without manifestos or public presentations, in which only one candidate—the same individual who had held the position for the past 17 years, which lacked democratic re-election for two terms and was co-opted as president in September 2024—was permitted to speak; and informal nomination barriers that discouraged potential candidates, despite the Constitution not requiring club endorsement.

Conflicts of Interest and Role Concentration

When key roles are filled without open recruitment or public elections, and the same individuals hold multiple positions, it creates conflicts of interest, limits transparency, and blocks wider participation. In sport, this kind of concentration of power can lead to one group holding disproportionate control—undermining fairness, limiting participation, and ultimately hindering the sport’s effective development.

Such risks have been well documented across various sporting bodies. For example, the Football Association of Ireland (FAI) faced public scrutiny and reform following revelations of long-term executive control, poor oversight, and financial mismanagement—issues highlighted in the 2019 KOSI audit commissioned by Sport Ireland. 

This example demonstrates the broader governance agreement: when leadership structures are overly centralised and left unchecked, both credibility and development within the sport suffer.

With Principle 1 of Sport Ireland’s governance guidance, Board Composition, Roles and Powers, —which outlines that “there should be no overlap in the powers of any two bodies or individuals in a governance structure,” these standards are designed to prevent exactly the  risks evident at OHI—such as overlapping roles, limited independent oversight, conflicts of interest, and excessive responsibility concentrated in a small group, which ultimately limits broader participation.

Sport Ireland’s continued awareness of these issues—without visible corrective action—raises doubts about whether the governance principles it promotes are applied in practice. 

Although OHI publicly advertised four board vacancies just in April 2025 —seen by some as a step toward greater transparency and reform—the question remains: why were other key roles, held by individuals with multiple overlapping responsibilities, not also opened to public recruitment and well known by all the athletes?

Sport Ireland’s Delayed Response and Minimal Action

So far, there has been little visible oversight or corrective action from Sport Ireland. According to some handball members, the governance audit reportedly began only around September 2024. When queried, Sport Ireland did not clarify the reason for the delay, confirm the actual start date of the audit, or address the continued breaches.

As of July 2025, neither Sport Ireland nor OHI have issued any public updates or statements regarding the governance situation or the outcomes of the review process—nor have they explained the basis for the continued allocation of public funding. Similarly, no information appears to have been communicated by some affiliated clubs to their athletes through general communication channels.

According to an internal source, one suggestion reportedly offered by Sport Ireland was to expand the board, which had been operating with the minimum of five members required under the Governance Code.

In that context, OHI announced four board vacancies in April 2025, offering an application window of only 13 days. By 20 June, two new board members had been publicly announced, while a third was added to the board later that month without any public notification. (One day after this article was published, OHI updated its original announcement on the website about the board’s new positions to include the third-place position as well).

A similar pattern follows with a Sports Development Officer role for Northern Ireland, advertised on 26 June solely through the OHI website and LinkedIn, which provides just nine days for applications before closing on 4 July.

While three of the four board vacancies announced in April were filled by individuals from within the handball community, the short timeframes involved raise concerns about whether the recruitment process was truly aimed at attracting a broad and diverse pool of qualified candidates—or merely fulfilling formal requirements under pressure from Sport Ireland.

Likewise, a refereeing course announced on 4 April 2025 gave only 11 days to register before the 15 April deadline—this time with a clear negative impact. Promoted with Women in Sport (WIS) funding offering 50% cashback for female participants, the initiative was advertised as an inclusive development opportunity. According to members active in the handball community, the course had extremely low registration numbers. As a result, the second part—the practical session—was cancelled.

Another reported recommendation—allegedly encouraged—was to improve transparency. In response, OHI uploaded a number of documents and introduced a governance section on its website. However, does simply adding these materials truly improve transparency in a meaningful or accountable way?

With key governance issues still unresolved since May 2024, it remains unclear  what other meaningful reforms—if any—have been implemented or recommended by Sport Ireland, the KOSI audit, or the CLG itself if they got involved as core problems persist.

Financial Transparency and Procurement Concerns

OHI’s financial reporting has drawn scrutiny, especially regarding how transparently its funds are allocated. As sport scholar Dr. Jörg Krieger notes, simply uploading financial documents does not equate to genuine accountability:

“Accountability or transparency is something that sport organisations now do by putting their financial accounts online—in one form or another. And in some cases, they are quite detailed… But in other cases, you cannot at all. It's just that it's out there, and they make a claim: ‘We are a transparent organisation because our budget is there’.”

True transparency, as Krieger emphasises, requires more than publishing figures. It demands clear, detailed, and accessible information that allows stakeholders—such as athletes, clubs, and funders—to understand how resources are used and decisions are made.

Although OHI’s financial report technically complies with the small company standard (FRS 102, Section 1A), its limited detail raises serious concerns. As a state-funded body, OHI has a heightened duty to explain how public money is spent in details, especially on the big amounts. Fulfilling that duty requires going beyond minimum legal formats to adopt a standard of transparency that reflects its public role.

In the absence of this clarity, transparency becomes performative rather than meaningful.

OHI’s financial reports fall short as expenses are grouped into broad categories, lacking explanatory notes or outcome reporting. For example, marketing and promotion costs amounted to over €52,000 in 2022 and over €26,000 in 2023—with no accompanying detail to justify or evaluate the spending. This is particularly questionable given the sport’s limited national profile, reliance on unpaid, organic online promotion, and a small number of individuals actively involved in the field. It is unclear whether such expenditures were examined during Sport Ireland’s audit.

Another concern involves the cost of OHI’s website redesign, which was reported as €15,000 in the 2023 AGM and later confirmed by the president in April 2024. When asked about the expense, Fintan Lyons explained:

 "Because that's the fee that we were asked... That's what I was told, excuse me, that's what I was told by João, was necessary to fix the website so that we could edit the website and make changes to the website as needed for the future." (João Ferreira - Operations Director/Coaching Committee)

This raises concerns not only about the cost for a small NGB to allocate such a significant amount solely for a website, but also about the transparency and legality of the procurement process.

In other terms procurement “refers to the process by which public service bodies purchase goods, services or works from suppliers which they have selected for this purpose. It ranges from the purchase of routine goods or services, to large scale contracts for infrastructural projects and involves a wide and diverse range of contracting authorities,” as explained under the OGP Public Procurement Guidelines (2023). In addition, procurement should be conducted in an open and equitable manner, ensuring all potential suppliers have a fair opportunity to participate. The process must be managed with integrity and transparency, placing strong emphasis on securing the best possible value for public funds and avoiding any conflicts of interest.

While OHI’s largest ongoing project—the refurbishment of the Ballymun hall—is underway, the question is: were these guidelines followed for this project as well as other ones, and does the audit process and Sport Ireland’s oversight truly ensure that responsibility under Irish law?

Overlooked Opportunities: Ignoring Independent Research on Coaching Effectiveness

One notable example is a 2024 academic study titled “How Valuable Is Coach Education? An Investigation into the Effectiveness of Coach Education in Olympic Handball.” The study was based on information provided directly by OHI and included interviews with individuals who had completed coaching courses in Ireland in recent years.

The research was conducted by Luminița Dulău, a Romanian coach and former professional handball player from one of Europe’s strongest handball nations. With over 15 years of coaching experience at junior and senior women’s levels, she has helped develop players who progressed to Romania’s first league and even the national team.

She completed her studies in Physical Education and Sport at Babeș-Bolyai University of Cluj-Napoca in 2001, and in 2024 earned her Master’s degree in Sport Coaching Science at University College Dublin (UCD). Her dissertation was supervised by Dr. Peter Horgan, a highly respected lecturer at UCD’s School of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Sports Science—one of Ireland’s top-ranked faculties for health and sport-related studies, with a strong academic reputation across Europe.

Dr. Horgan, who holds a Ph.D. in Sports Coach Education, has over 15 years of experience in high-performance sport development, coach education, and curriculum innovation. He has led national-level programmes and combines academic rigour with applied expertise—making him a particularly relevant and credible supervisor for research focused on practical coaching effectiveness.

The research was offered directly to OHI’s leadership for presentation and discussion—specifically to its long-serving Technical Director, who also holds the roles of Head of Coaching and Head of Referees. However, to date, no such engagement has taken place.

This raises a broader question: given that OHI was aware of the study’s development—having provided internal coaching history data—and that the findings were made available at no cost with the clear aim of contributing to coach development in Ireland, why has no effort been made so far to formally engage with or review its conclusions? 

The study addresses persistent challenges that have contributed to the stagnation of handball’s development in Ireland over many years, particularly in the areas of coach education, structural planning, and long-term athlete development. Its findings, if reviewed and openly discussed by those responsible for coaching and sport development, could have supported meaningful progress.

In light of Sport Ireland’s allocation of public funding specifically to support research and development in sport, it is reasonable to ask: is the primary goal to promote genuine improvement and transparency—or to engage with findings only when they are formally commissioned through internal processes? If public funds are committed to strengthening sport systems, then independent research—conducted by a graduate of a recognised academic programme, on a core issue such as coaching effectiveness education, and supervised by a leading expert in the field—should be welcomed, not overlooked.

In the case of Olympic Handball Ireland, not engaging with credible, independent research shows a deeper unwillingness to accept outside input. It holds back progress, weakens trust, and raises real questions about whether OHI—responsible for guiding the sport’s development—is truly willing to make the changes needed to improve.

When Policy Fails in Practice: What the OHI Case Shows

The case of OHI highlights a recurring and systemic issue in Irish sport: the disconnect between governance policy on paper and how it is actually applied in practice.

While the Governance Code, the legal obligations of a Company Limited by Guarantee, and OHI’s own Constitution set clear standards for integrity, transparency, and accountability, their effectiveness ultimately depends on active enforcement by clubs and athletes—which did not occur—independent oversight, which has appeared lacking due to continued inaction, and open communication, which remains absent. 

Despite clear rules, the unresolved issues at OHI show how governance frameworks can become box-ticking exercises. Without real enforcement, oversight based on trust and self-reporting allows serious breaches to persist unchecked.

This weakens the credibility of the entire system—where public funds keep flowing, policies exist on paper, but real accountability is missing.

Political Responsibility in Sport Governance

In his final month as Minister for Sport, Thomas Byrne spoke at the Sports Law Bar Association conference in December 2024, where he highlighted his commitment to promoting ethics in sport, among other priorities. Yet, no visible progress followed in the OHI case during his tenure, nor in relation to other governance issues in sport that were shared with us and explained directly by those affected from other sports.

With Charlie McConalogue now in the role, serious questions remain: Are existing oversight mechanisms sufficient? And what steps will be taken to ensure that standards are enforced—not just promoted? These questions have previously been raised with the Department, but no answers have yet been provided.

Oversight, Accountability, and the Urgent Need for Reform

To rebuild trust, Ireland needs independent audits that assess not just paperwork, but actual compliance with legal and constitutional obligations—alongside clear oversight of governance improvements and transparent communication with all sport stakeholders, shifting the current self-assessment model from NGBs to a responsibility of the state.

The Minister for Sport has a duty not only to promote good governance, but to ensure it is consistently applied through Sport Ireland. That responsibility extends to smaller NGBs, where public funding and democratic principles deserve the same level of protection as in elite sport.

To rebuild trust, Ireland needs meaningfully involving all stakeholders, including clubs and athletes. As confirmed by the Minister’s office, Sport Ireland currently engages only with National Governing Bodies (NGBs). 

When governance breaks down, public funds continue to flow, and transparency is lacking across stakeholders—despite known breaches—the credibility of the entire system is at stake. 

Reform cannot be symbolic—it is a public responsibility and a reflection of the democratic values that sport is meant to uphold. And for change to begin, it takes speaking up, knowing your rights—whether as a club member, an athlete, or a citizen whose taxes fund sport—and taking action when state bodies fail to do so.

While no Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) was held last year to resolve the governance concerns, this year OHI has scheduled one for 28 July—reportedly to amend the Constitution. If the previous Constitution was repeatedly breached without consequence, what assurance is there that a revised version will be respected—and what becomes of the unresolved issues and accountability gaps tied to the original document?

It also remains to be seen what changes the new Constitution will introduce—whether any of them could be controversial or affect existing rights—and whether club representatives will critically assess and challenge proposals that raise concern. More broadly, this occasion presents a key opportunity for athletes, clubs, and other internal stakeholders to demand meaningful reform, ask the hard questions, and ensure that any unresolved governance issues are addressed transparently and publicly, rather than sidestepped through procedural changes.