—
When Soeren Friemel arrived in Rio de Janeiro in December 2015 for his pre-Olympic site inspection as head of tennis officiating, he encountered a sobering reality. “Everything was in need of improvement,” he later recalled. Construction firms were changing hands, points of contact remained unclear, and the timeline was unforgiving. Fourteen months later, the tennis competition would run flawlessly before a global television audience. The transformation from that chaotic December day to Olympic success reveals the type of knowledge that only decades of experience can teach—lessons about building international teams, managing complexity, and maintaining standards when circumstances resist cooperation.
Experiential knowledge—the kind developed through repeated exposure to complex, high-stakes situations—differs fundamentally from theoretical understanding. Management textbooks outline organizational structures and communication protocols. They don’t teach you how to coordinate 118 officials from different continents when construction delays mean your venue won’t be ready until two weeks before competition begins. They don’t prepare you for the political tensions inherent in managing three powerful organizations with competing priorities. They don’t simulate the emotional weight of decisions that could alter careers and tournament outcomes.
This type of practical wisdom accumulates gradually, situation by situation, decision by decision, until pattern recognition becomes almost instinctual. The question for any field requiring complex coordination under pressure: what can be systematized from individual experience, and what must each generation learn anew?
Building International Teams When Infrastructure Isn’t Ready
The Rio Olympics tennis event presented challenges that would overwhelm most event managers. The venue was under construction near swimming facilities in Barra Olympic Park, requiring coordination with multiple construction teams whose contracts and personnel changed mid-project. Meanwhile, official selection couldn’t wait for infrastructure completion.
Soeren Friemel faced the task of selecting 118 officials from over 700 applications while construction continued around him. The International Olympic Committee mandated a 50/50 split between Brazilian and international officials—a diversity requirement that added complexity to an already intricate selection process. Each official required coordination for international travel, accommodations across Rio’s sprawling geography, multilingual briefings, and integration with Olympic protocols unfamiliar to many tennis officials.
This wasn’t simply logistics—it was leadership under ambiguity. Which officials possessed not just technical competence but cultural flexibility? How to ensure Brazilian officials, many working their first Olympics, integrated smoothly with veterans from other continents? When construction delays threatened training schedules, which accommodations preserved quality standards versus which compromised integrity?
The answers emerged not from project management software but from years of similar challenges at Davis Cup finals, Grand Slam tournaments, and previous Olympics. Pattern recognition developed through experience allowed rapid assessment of situations that resisted standard protocols.
Three Organizations, Competing Priorities, One Event
Olympic tennis operates at the intersection of three powerful institutions: the International Olympic Committee, the International Tennis Federation, and local organizing committees. Each brings legitimate priorities that don’t naturally align.
The IOC thinks universally across all Olympic sports, applying standards designed for swimming or track and field. Tennis-specific requirements—like players spending entire days at venues rather than brief competition windows—sometimes conflicted with IOC frameworks. The ITF understands tennis but must negotiate with an Olympic bureaucracy unfamiliar with tennis’s particular demands. Local organizers face on-the-ground realities of infrastructure, security, and public expectations that international bodies may not fully grasp.
Navigating this requires more than diplomatic skills. It demands understanding how different institutional cultures make decisions, what each organization truly needs versus what they initially request, and where compromise strengthens outcomes versus where it creates unacceptable risk.
Soeren Friemel had encountered similar stakeholder complexity throughout his career—managing relationships between the ITF, ATP, WTA, Grand Slam committees, and national federations, each with distinct priorities and decision-making cultures. This accumulated experience proved essential in Rio, where quick consensus-building prevented conflicts that could have undermined the event.
No training manual captures this nuance. It emerges from repeatedly working within complex organizational ecosystems until the underlying patterns become visible.
Why Accessibility Matters More Than Org Charts
During the Rio Olympics, Friemel described his availability to officials and staff: “People can come to me at 1:30 AM or 7:00 AM—my bus leaves at 7:30.” This wasn’t hyperbole or exceptional dedication to a single event. It reflected the operational reality of managing international teams across timezones, languages, and cultures. Soeren Friemel had learned through decades of Grand Slam and Olympic coordination that accessibility becomes the currency that builds trust in high-pressure environments.
When you’re managing people from every timezone working in an unfamiliar environment, accessibility matters more than hierarchical authority. Problems don’t respect business hours. A Croatian official with a visa issue at 2 AM needs resolution before morning. A Japanese line judge confused about Olympic protocol can’t wait for the next scheduled meeting. A Brazilian coordinator dealing with equipment failures requires immediate guidance.
The 24/7 nature of major sporting events means that leaders who limit availability to scheduled meetings lose crucial information. Issues escalate because people can’t reach decision-makers. Small problems become crises. Trust erodes when officials conclude they’re on their own.
Building resilient systems requires being present when people need guidance—not just when it’s convenient. This lesson, learned across countless tournaments, creates teams that function effectively even under extraordinary pressure.
The Decision You Can’t Prepare For: Djokovic at the US Open
Perhaps no moment in Soeren Friemel’s career tested experiential judgment more severely than September 6, 2020. As US Open Tournament Referee, he faced an unprecedented situation when world number one Novak Djokovic struck a line judge with a ball after losing his serve in the round of 16.
The line judge, Laura Clark, was injured and required medical attention. Chair umpire Aurelie Tourte and the on-court supervisor consulted, then called for the tournament referee—the only official authorized to issue disqualifications at Grand Slams.
Friemel had not witnessed the incident directly. He learned what happened from the officials on court and available reports. The facts were clear: Djokovic had struck a ball without looking, it had hit Clark in the throat, and she was clearly hurt. The rules were equally clear about consequences.
“There was no other decision possible,” Friemel later explained. “We all agree he didn’t do it on purpose, but the facts remain—he hit the line judge, and she was obviously hurt.” The decision framework focused on two factors: the action and the result. Both elements were unambiguous.
But knowing the right decision and implementing it under extreme pressure are different challenges. This was the world number one, the tournament’s marquee attraction, in an empty stadium due to COVID-19 protocols. The decision would eliminate tennis’s biggest star from the year’s final Grand Slam. Global media would scrutinize every aspect of the judgment.
Friemel’s blood pressure was, in his own words, “in a slightly elevated state” during the process. After making the call, walking off court, there was an internal moment of doubt: “I hope I got this right.” The decision was correct according to rules and precedent, but the weight of consequence remained.
The situation demonstrated a crucial aspect of experiential knowledge: confidence to act decisively even when outcomes are uncomfortable. Decades of similar decisions—though none quite so high-profile—had built the judgment and composure necessary for this moment. The decision was later validated by tennis experts globally, but validation came after the fact. In the moment, experience provided the only available guide.
The incident led to a concrete system improvement. The US Open now provides tournament referees with tablets to review potential disqualification incidents before making final decisions, acknowledging that even correct decisions benefit from additional information when available.
Cross-Cultural Coordination: Davis Cup’s 157-Nation Challenge
Managing officials across cultural boundaries presents challenges that extend beyond language translation. The Davis Cup, with 157 participating nations, and the Billie Jean King Cup with 134 nations, require coordination across radically different cultural approaches to authority, communication, and professional relationships.
Some cultures expect direct, explicit instructions. Others find such communication style disrespectful, preferring indirect suggestions that preserve relationship harmony. Some officials view questioning authority as essential professionalism. Others consider it inappropriate insubordination. Some respond well to public recognition. Others find it embarrassing.
Effective international coordination requires cultural code-switching—adjusting communication style, feedback delivery, and relationship-building approaches based on cultural context. This skill doesn’t come from diversity training seminars. It emerges from making mistakes, observing consequences, and gradually developing the pattern recognition that allows real-time cultural adaptation.
The experiential knowledge here is highly contextual. What works coordinating officials in Japan may create problems in Brazil. What builds trust with European officials may alienate colleagues from East Asia. The underlying principle—adapt to context rather than imposing universal approaches—remains constant, but the specific applications vary endlessly.
Quality Standards That Survive Pressure
Perhaps the most crucial experiential lesson involves maintaining quality standards when circumstances encourage compromise. Construction delays in Rio could have justified accepting lower training standards for officials. COVID-19 protocols at the 2020 US Open might have warranted relaxed evaluation procedures. Equipment failures at various tournaments could excuse inconsistent application of rules.
Soeren Friemel developed a guiding principle through decades of officiating: “A small regional event deserves the same professionalism as a Grand Slam.” This consistency—applying identical standards regardless of tournament prestige or contextual difficulty—builds credibility that enables leadership during crises.
When officials know standards won’t shift based on convenience, they internalize those standards. When players understand rules will be applied consistently, they adjust behavior accordingly. When tournament organizers recognize quality requirements are non-negotiable, they plan accordingly.
This consistency requires considerable discipline. Maintaining standards when doing so creates conflict, delays schedules, or disappoints powerful stakeholders demands resolve that only comes from witnessing the long-term consequences of compromised standards.
The experiential wisdom here: short-term flexibility often creates long-term fragility. Maintaining standards through temporary difficulty builds systems that withstand sustained pressure.
What Experience Teaches About Building Systems
Individual expertise has value, but organizational sustainability requires converting personal knowledge into transferable systems. Major sporting events now begin planning 90 days before competition, addressing everything from credential distribution to emergency response protocols. This systematization allows events to maintain quality despite personnel changes.
But what Soeren Friemel and colleagues learned through decades of international sports event management can be systematized. The systems-thinking approach converts personal expertise into transferable protocols that outlive any individual’s tenure.
Standard operating procedures now codify lessons about official selection criteria, training schedules, quality assurance checkpoints, and communication protocols. These systems embody accumulated experiential knowledge—they represent hundreds of situations where someone learned what works and what fails.
However, systems have limits. They handle predictable situations effectively but struggle with unprecedented challenges. The Djokovic disqualification, the COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on tournaments, the rapid shift to electronic line calling—these situations required judgment that exceeded existing protocols.
The most valuable experiential knowledge may be recognizing when to follow established systems and when situations demand improvisation. This meta-knowledge—knowing when rules apply and when circumstances require adaptation—represents the highest form of expertise. It cannot be reduced to procedures or taught through instruction. It emerges only through repeated exposure to situations where both rigid adherence to protocol and flexible deviation from protocol have led to failure.
Lessons Beyond Tennis
The experiential knowledge developed through decades of international sports event management transfers to any field requiring complex coordination under pressure. Corporate event management, disaster response coordination, international project management, and diplomatic negotiations all benefit from similar wisdom: how to build diverse teams quickly, navigate competing stakeholder priorities, maintain quality standards despite challenges, make high-stakes decisions with incomplete information, and convert individual expertise into organizational systems.
The question facing any profession: how to capture and transmit this experiential knowledge? Apprenticeship models, where less experienced professionals work alongside experts during real situations, remain the most effective approach. Mentorship programs, case study analysis, and structured debriefings help codify lessons. But some knowledge resists capture—it must be earned through direct experience.
The value of professionals who have spent decades developing this expertise extends beyond their individual contributions. They represent institutional memory, pattern recognition engines that identify subtle warning signs others miss. Organizations that fail to retain and leverage this experiential knowledge find themselves repeatedly learning expensive lessons that prior generations already mastered.
Excellence in complex coordination emerges not from talent or training alone, but from the accumulated wisdom that comes from decades of navigating high-stakes situations where theory meets reality. That wisdom—hard-earned through countless decisions, mistakes, and refinements—represents an organizational asset that no amount of theoretical education can replace.
—
