To change or not to change, that is the question
So the battle has begun… the first of European federation presidents to speak publicly about the changes to the FIH calendar was Marc Coudron from Belgium. Yesterday he expressed in the Belgian newspaper La Libre some interesting statements.
Fight

To change or not to change, that is the question

The new global Home & Away League (name & branding still unknown) was modelled after the successful Six Nations for the game of rugby Coudron tells us. Suppose our new league will consist of 9 countries, that would mean 16 games all over the world plus 2 more for the semi-final and final at 1 central location. So Coudron sees his Red Lions playing 4 games away (in the southern hemisphere) during the first 6 weeks of the calendar year, 4 games at home or nearby during 2 weeks around the Easter period in April in between their regular club competition and its play off. And all other games (8-10… not 6 like Coudron claimed in the paper) in this League would have to be played between mid May and the end of June after the play off from his local Honour Division.
The founder of the HIL and president of the FIH Batra already stated his HIL would move from January – February to most likely September and October which would mean the traditional start of our European competitions would clash with this high profile Indian League. So if European top players (and those playing for these European clubs) would be denied playing the HIL, that loss of income would have to be compensated by either their national team or their European club team…. or we choose to remain a sport for semi-professionals enjoying themselves for some pocket-money during their studies and early careers. Coudron sees possibilities to pay higher salaries for his players (without specifying if he means only for his national team or also the clubs) and thinks the new format would raise more money like it did for the game of rugby.
It would seem Coudron prefers this scenario to changing his Belgian club competition to a new format over a shorter period of time… However, nothing is set in stone just yet.
But let’s not forget the calendar also has to find room for such tournaments for national teams as the European Championship and its counterparts in other continents, the World League, the Olympic Qualifier, the World Cup (and the Junior WC), the Olympic Games (and the Youth Olympics) and for some the Commonwealth Games. Plus we have this EHL we’ve been struggling with, over here in Europe for club teams who’s ambitions go beyond their own borders.
Brake

The coming weeks and months will show if these were just words or if our European federations really will defend our traditional club culture…. or and I think this will be the most likely scenario if FIH and Europe will find a middle way at the cost of the players….
KISS

Read some of the recent articles I wrote about this as well : Adapt or Die – Money Time for Hockey – Sport or Entertainment.
2017-02-18 @ 06:21
The way that seems appropriate to respond to issues raised in your post ‘To change or not to change…..’ is with an open letter to FIH.
Dear FIH,
Whilst not involved in the hockey community, but as someone who has many colleagues who are passionately involved nationally and internationally in your sport, it is has been an interesting process following the progression of your new global league, with presentations to your congress and various posts since.
Given this, your 10-year strategy is understandably aimed at converting the non-hockey community into new fans of hockey. Though all that can be said in response to this is ‘good luck’. How can an International Federation propose a strategic future for the sport that places their three key strongest pillars, International hockey, European hockey and the HIL, in direct competition with other? In what context is it wise to put the new international global league in direct conflict with the European club competition, then put the HIL in direct competition with the European club competition? The European club leagues and the EHL have been the strongest foundation of your sport, attracting players from the world over and a strong financial environment that has allowed athletes to resemble some form of living from hockey. Similarly, it appears the HIL has a dedicated window in the calendar where players can also earn an income from hockey. How can you consciously put these pillars in conflict with each other?
Sadly FIH, too many questions exist. Is this a move to help further strengthen Indian hockey at the expense of European hockey, making players choose between one or the other? What is the impact on the European club and national teams, your strongest proven pillar of sustained hockey presence globally? How does that remotely improve world hockey?
It is understood the STAR TV deal is still a mystery to many in world hockey. Where are the benefits to national teams and athletes as a result of the $200 million (plus) deal over eight years? In other professional sports, TV rights contribute (or cover) international competition costs and assist to provide significant incomes to players. Yet it still appears the world’s hockey nations continue to rely heavily on government and self generated commercial funding, with little, if not any, financial support from you as a world governing body. It even costs the hosts of your international events significant sums of money to put on your events – how can that be? How does this look for the new league?
It is refreshing to see the comments from the Belgian Hockey President standing firm to protect his clubs. Hopefully further nations come out to support this and to protect the strong club structure that exits in Europe, without which the national programs and sport would not be as prominent.
Though this is where further questions exist. Upon election, your new president has stated he wants more competitive hockey nations around the world, yet the new global league seems to create a gap between those who play annually in the new league and those that don’t. Take Canada men for example, who have not applied to be in the new league, yet just months earlier were competing in the Olympic Games. How does that satisfy your goal to be a truly global sport that inspires the next generation? If anything, it appears contradictory.
FIH, at a time when you should be unifying all stakeholders to create an annual calendar of quality hockey, you appear to be disrupting hockey internally. Mr. Coudron’s comments reflect that. I’d imagine other sports are watching in much entertainment. When a director of your organisation embarrassingly announces to congress that you don’t have a name for the new league, title sponsors, an idea of who will be playing or how many teams will be involved – it leaves serious questions over those directing this programme. The view that you can be part of the new league, yet possibly not qualify for the Olympic games also seems hard to fathom – and hardly motivating for nations to turn their sport upside down at the risk of upsetting their community and for players to give up half of their year and professional development every year (in the absence of any indicated financial compensation), only to miss the pinnacle of their sport.
Best wishes to the new CEO who has to try to piece all of this together. There appear to be answers in aligning existing activity with international windows, as other elite sports manage well. For the sake of hockey community, let’s hope that intentions and directions are investigated for hockey’s benefit……