Part 9 – EHF, IHF, and IOC: When Governance Principles Fail to Meet Practice

Logos: EHF, IHF, IOC. No endorsement implied. Legal Disclaimer (General Use – EU Context). All rights belong to EHF/IHF/ IOC.

This ninth part of the series examines how governance problems in Ireland reveal deeper weaknesses across Europe and the wider world of sport.

The Structure of Handball Governance

The structure of power begins at the national level, continues through the European Handball Federation (EHF) and the International Handball Federation (IHF), and ultimately reaches the International Olympic Committee (IOC), which sits at the top of the global sporting hierarchy.

The IOC oversees the Olympic Games and leads the Olympic Movement — the global network of organisations that promote sport under the Olympic Charter. The Movement brings together the IOC, five Continental Olympic Committees, and National Olympic Committees in each country, all supposed to be committed to the values of fairness, inclusion, integrity, transparency, and accountability.

Within this system, the IHF is recognised as handball’s global authority. It sets the rules, runs world championships, and issues statutes, ethics codes, and governance regulations. 

In Europe, the EHF applies this framework, organises continental competitions, and adds its own rules for member federations.

Each country has a national federation, affiliated with both the IHF and its continental body, responsible for applying technical rules and upholding ethical standards at home.

At grassroots level, clubs are where handball is played and promoted. Through the work of coaches, referees, and volunteers, they train athletes, develop new talent, and compete in leagues and tournaments. They are the foundation of the sport; without them, the game simply would not exist, just as the organisations above them would have no purpose without this base.

Equally important are the other stakeholders — media, fans, and sponsors extend this foundation by providing visibility, support, and resources that help sustain the sport.

Yet the greatest power ultimately lies with the athletes. Even though they stand at the bottom of the chain — beneath the IOC, IHF, EHF, national federations, and clubs — the entire system depends on them. Without athletes, there is no sport.

Governing bodies and clubs do not own the game; they are entrusted to serve it. Their role is one of responsibility and accountability, not superiority.

The athletes — especially the amateurs who not only compete but also volunteer their time to help the sport grow — give their health, energy, and often their own financial means. Together with other volunteers, they form the foundation on which the game — and all the revenues it generates from sponsors — are built.

Governance, Ethics, and Whistleblower Protections

At international level, each governing body claims to uphold integrity and transparency through ethics codes, committees, and reporting systems. The IOC, the IHF, and the EHF, all promote principles such as fair play, accountability, and zero tolerance for misconduct. Beyond that, both federations also place binding obligations on their members.

The EHF Statutes require national bodies to apply EHF rules across all levels of the sport, while the IHF Statutes demand compliance with its regulations and Code of Ethics, with sanctions possible for violations.

These safeguards are intended to protect the credibility of sport — especially when national leadership is disputed, as in Ireland, where the presidency of Olympic Handball Ireland Association (OHI) was extended under irregular circumstances for 2 times. In such case, ethics go far beyond the idea of fair play on the field.

Membership in the EHF and IHF is not merely technical; it carries the duty to embed governance standards into national structures to ensure legitimacy, accountability, and integrity.

When Standards Are Questioned: The Irish case

Governance concerns within Olympic Handball Ireland (OHI) were reported directly to EHF officials, including the president, and submitted through the EHF Whistleblower Policy as well as to the IHF. The case continues to test both bodies’ willingness to enforce governance standards in practice rather than leaving them on paper. 

Instead of acting, the EHF said responsibility rested at national level and expressed “full trust” in OHI, while the IHF initially showed willingness to respond but later ignored repeated requests for clarification once the specific questions were submitted.

As a continental governing body committed to inclusion, transparency, and stakeholder recognition, the EHF can hardly justify its treatment of Irish Handball News — the only independent outlet from an emerging nation — once its stance and lack of responsibility in the Irish governance case were exposed publicly. 

Once welcomed and media accredited, it was later dismissed as a “private blog,” labelled “subjective,” and even asked to provide "journalism credentials written in the interest of handball” — despite having been accredited months earlier on the very same basis. Excluding such a voice amounts to institutional censorship, leaving OHI as the sole narrator of the sport in Ireland. It also directly contradicts  the EHF President Michael Wiederer’s own words that “it is positive that handball interested persons try to get involved and are ready to contribute to the development of the sport” — a principle that appears to end where the EHF’s own responsibilities and inaction come under scrutiny.

As a private association under Austrian law, the EHF may technically decide which media outlets it accredits or engages with. However, its position as Europe’s governing body carries broader responsibilities. The fact that Irish Handball News had been accredited months earlier — only to have that accreditation questioned after the EHF came under scrutiny for its passivity and its immediate expression of “full trust” in OHI — suggests a troubling pattern. It points to the marginalization of voices that raise questions about governance, ethics, or sensitive integrity issues — including those touching on potential conflicts of interest or corruption within the wider sporting system — a pattern already described as institutional censorship.

At the same time, the IHF’s silence raises serious questions. Initially, the federation appeared open to dialogue and showed interest in answering inquiries. However, after the questions were formally submitted, communication stopped — followed by more than a year of complete silence. This pattern demonstrates a lack of accountability, transparency, and, ultimately, honesty from an organization that holds global responsibility for promoting and upholding the values of handball.

The IHF is expected to set an example of ethics and fairness, ensuring that all member federations follow the rules rather than bending them to protect personal interests or powerful connections.

Under IOC governance principles, federations are expected to act with transparency, inclusivity, non-discrimination, and accountability. This means that decisions affecting access to information — especially those concerning independent or volunteer-based media — should not be arbitrary or silencing, but consistent with the federation’s duty to serve the entire handball community.

In practice, independent media platforms form part of the sport’s stakeholder ecosystem, particularly in emerging nations where no alternative coverage exists. By revoking accreditation after critical reporting, the EHF not only contradicted its responsibilities but also breached the principles of the Olympic Movement — alongside the IHF, which is fully aware of the situation yet continues to remain silent.

This contradiction is particularly striking given that, at the 16th Ordinary EHF Congress in Basel (2023), the federation unveiled a roadmap to become “Europe’s most sustainable sport by 2027” — pledging to “be Europe’s thought leader for fairness and governance in sport,” “foster an equal, inclusive, and skilled handball ecosystem,” and “pursue climate neutrality.” Secretary General Martin Hausleitner even admitted the EHF still “has a mountain to climb together with member federations” in building a sustainable governance model. 

The gap between these promises made in 2023 and the handling of OHI concerns and Irish Handball News — along with the unequal treatment of certain countries, some excluded from competitions while others remain despite international issues created for decades — undermines the EHF’s credibility and its commitment to the very standards it set for itself. The same applies to the IHF and IOC, whose silence reveals bias, a lack of impartiality, and a failure to uphold the principles of fair play.

This dynamic is not unique to handball. As sport governance scholar Dr. Jörg Krieger explains, such reluctance to intervene reflects a wider pattern across international federations:

“International federations (IF) often promote oversight mechanisms for their national member federations, but they are more political than they are actually implemented. Theoretically, an IF could refuse to recognise improperly elected national executives or suspend federations from international competitions. In reality, however, the political calculations often prevail because the IFs have little interest to intervene. It only ever happens when there is pressure from the media, athletes (rarely), or there is a threat to the funding.”

In Ireland, the threat of competition exclusion is irrelevant: the country has not fielded teams internationally for years and survives on just five senior amateur clubs, lacking academies. That makes governance oversight all the more vital. The IHF and EHF statutes and ethics codes bind them to ensure integrity within member federations, not only to run competitions. Yet both organizations have failed to act on governance concerns that directly affect the development of the sport, even when questionable leadership and international representation clearly contradict their own principles.

Representation and Governance Concerns

The issue of governance is further complicated by the role of Fintan Lyons, who has led OHI for 17 years. Although not democratically re-elected for two consecutive terms, Lyons has continued to serve in leadership and, since 2021, has also sat on the EHF Nations Committee Men.

This exposes concerns about accountability and the criteria by which representatives are maintained within continental structures.

In June 2024, EHF President Michael Wiederer defended Lyons’s position, saying it was unrelated to OHI’s internal governance and instead  was based on a “personal mandate” representing smaller nations.

Yet a former EHF committee member explained that the process requires nomination by a national federation, submission of a candidacy, and active involvement with the organisation. In this case, Lyons has been allowed to continue without a legitimate mandate — raising doubts about whether EHF procedures are being applied consistently, legally, or are selectively overlooked for long-standing figures in ways that undermine its own governance principles.

Escalating Governance and Media Concerns

Considering the EHF’s handling of the Irish situation — including the dismissal and cancellation of Irish Handball News — efforts to escalate the matter to higher authorities brought little result. Attempts to raise the case with the IHF Ethics Committee and the IOC went nowhere.

Initially, the IHF — which carries an oversight duty toward its member federations — has shown no interest in addressing governance concerns in Ireland. This includes neither the independent project that sought information on the past 20 years of emerging nations’ development, nor the EHF’s position and actions against Irish Handball News for reporting these issues. IHF journalist Adrian Costeiu, who had initially agreed to answer questions about emerging nations, failed to respond for more than a year or forward the concerns to the appropriate department — eventually asking for the questions again in November 2024, as if the original correspondence and follow-up emails had never existed.

After months of silence and unanswered messages to other IHF officials, Irish Handball News finally received a reply from the IHF Legal and Player Transfer Department in April 2025 .

The IHF insisted that any complaint to the Ethics Committee had to be filed through Olympic Handball Ireland (OHI) — the very body at the centre of the allegations, before reaching the EHF.

Under Article 4 of the IHF Ethics Code, only recognised national and continental confederations, can submit cases to the Ethics Commission. In practice, this means that an ethics complaint against OHI and EHF, could only be filed by OHI itself, creating an obvious conflict of interest and leaving independent voices without any formal way to raise concerns.

Despite being told that OHI and the EHF were the subjects of the allegations, the response did not change: individuals cannot file cases directly and must instead go through OHI, or appeal via the EHF’s legal bodies before reaching the IHF Arbitration Tribunal.

Directing concerns back through the very bodies under scrutiny only deepens the problem. It undermines confidence in the process and sidelines independent journalism, volunteers, and unaffiliated contributors to the sport — people who engage with no financial interest or personal gain.

By applying procedural rules without regard for these realities, the IHF has effectively designed an ethics system that excludes certain stakeholders from being heard. This approach disregards the vital role of independent actors and volunteers — many of whom sustain the sport at grassroots level — and instead expects them to pursue costly, time-consuming legal routes rather than providing accessible, impartial channels for concerns.

This is not simply a procedural flaw; it is a governance choice that contradicts the values of transparency, equality, and whistleblower protection that both the IHF and EHF publicly claim to uphold. 

The reality is that neither the IHF, the EHF, nor even the IOC has established clear governance safeguards for volunteers or independent voices in sport—even though many of these volunteers, often athletes and active community members, remain the backbone of the system.

These omissions mean that, even within the Olympic Movement, independent contributors — whether building the sport, sustaining events through unpaid labour, or raising accountability concerns — are systematically excluded from protections. They lack fair access to justice and have no protection from legal costs — costs that volunteers should never have to pay. 

Volunteers already give their time and work for free to the sport and to federations that receive salaries and significant amounts of money each year. When they raise concerns, they should be supported, not punished with expenses. If values like equality, inclusion, and integrity are real, the sport organizations must also cover those who speak up to hold individuals of the system accountable. Expecting volunteers to finance access to justice effectively turns accountability into a source of income for the organizations — contradicting the very principles of fairness and good governance, and exposing a deeper problem of institutional hypocrisy, moral failure, and abuse of power.

Above that, the system protects institutions over individuals who speak out about the issues surrounding the sport.

Stakeholders — whether amateur athletes, coaches, referees, or volunteers — have the right to ask questions and expect answers and concrete actions toward resolution and improvement, regardless of formal affiliation.

Leadership in sport should embody accountability and democratic governance, serving the community built by its stakeholders — not the exercise of personal power or protection for some specific individuals or organizations. This is not a matter of subjective opinion, but a fundamental duty of every sport organisation.

When concerns are dismissed or double standards applied, credibility suffers. This has been evident not only in the Ireland case but for decades, where governance has too often been shaped by politics and self-interest rather than consistent principles.

The real test for handball’s governing bodies and IOC is whether the principles they proclaim on paper will ever be upheld in practice and demonstrated through action — providing role models for the next generation rather than examples of hypocrisy. Equally, it depends on whether stakeholders recognize their own influence and are willing to challenge those in power.

Real reform demands solidarity — the willingness to stand with others even when their struggle is not your own — because the world of sport must act as one community, united in purpose despite its differences. This principle must also guide national federations, whose role is to confront injustices within continental and global structures, rather than remain silent simply because the issue does not affect them directly. Only through collective pressure and the courage to speak out can leadership truly serve the community — instead of protecting its own interests and those of close allies, excluding countries that are not aligned with prevailing geopolitical powers, while others remain shielded for decades despite repeated breaches of international law, or silencing those who expose its flaws.