What can be done for sport in 100 days?

(published in Slovak Sport Daily)

Although sport was not even hinted at as a priority in the election programmes of any of the coalition parties, the new four-party government could still build positively on the work of the previous two cabinets. The second-to-last administration introduced a formula-based, transparent funding system for sport within the Ministry of Education. The previous government slightly modified it and pushed forward other important issues: better governance of sports federations, the legal status of professional athletes, and especially a general increase in funding for national teams and youth development.

The content of the government’s recently published programme declaration of Government reflects continuity in the area of sport, but not in a dull, obligatory way. This term should finally place top priority on increasing physical activity among children and youth during and after school hours. The morning focus should be on improving the quality of physical education, while afternoons should bring closer cooperation between schools and sports federations. It’s a pity that the statement doesn’t include a commitment to mandating three weekly PE lessons, a goal that will be harder to push through later.

The government rightly pledges to activate private funding sources and to ensure all financial support for sport—not just that coming from the Ministry of Education—is reported through a single financial and information hub. Positive steps include pledges to define clear rules for building nationally significant infrastructure and for organizing top-level events. However, terms like “purposefully supported construction” of the National Football Stadium remain vague, and the proposed “National Sports Centre” is an unclear new concept.

The organizational structure for sport does not inspire great optimism. There’s an underperforming ministerial section under a minister with an unstable position, as well as a government plenipotentiary. If the coalition arithmetic didn’t allow for a third state secretary, it would have made more sense to expand their competencies for cross-sectoral issues in sport rather than create another advisory body—the Council for Sport.

A review of the status of the three elite sports centres should be conducted as soon as possible, rather than waiting until December for the “optimization project” that’s mandated by law for the Ministries of Education, Defence, and Interior. Besides considering the views of those involved and of the sports community—who have tolerated the status quo for a quarter-century—the government, within its first 100 days, could ask what experts behind the flagship ESO reform think of such duplication in public administration. Or it could consult the Financial Policy Institute of the Ministry of Finance on how to ensure value for money in providing top-level services for elite athletes. Are there any reasons to maintain three separate centers other than historical inertia, more photo ops, or the new political playing cards now held by two coalition parties? Why does the policy statement mention “streamlining their operations” even before any analysis?

Any reform should not reduce the total funding available for Slovak sport, and a ranked list of athletes—based on criteria similar to the central funding formula—should be standard practice, even if it’s not explicitly mentioned in the policy statement.

And here’s the cherry on top: Could the government actually bring full order to state sport funding within 100 days, including money flowing from all public bodies? Instead of proposing a poorly defined initiative to create a “Slovak national team brand” in cooperation with state-owned enterprises, how about a meaningful, systemic effort? Let’s be optimistic. Even a modest attempt would be a good start.