What comes after the Sports Act?

(published in Slovak Sport daily)

The draft Sports Act passed its first reading in parliament with overwhelming support. 124 out  of 127 MPs voted to move it to committee. The reasons are clear: the law correctly defines the public interest in sport, ensures transparent funding for national teams and youth development based on a formula incorporating performance, popularity, and participation—originally proposed by the author himself a decade ago. It introduces a centralized information system and enforces principles of good governance within sports federations, such as proper regulation of leadership elections. With these rules in place, the situation that unfolded within the ice hockey federation and the case involving Žampa are unlikely to repeat. Independent auditors in organizations receiving substantial public funding should not be viewed as a threat.

The law also addresses the employment framework for professional athletes, a concept the author publicly advocated for over fifteen years ago. The Labour Code will apply only where explicitly referenced by the Sports Act. The simplified employment model for sport has already been touted in public discussions as a possible model for other sectors, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, if the International Labour Organization gives its blessing. Tax incentives for sports sponsorship will be welcomed by athletes, although they may require careful explanation to other sectors. With the law’s passage, sport will see a financial boost from increased lottery revenue contributions. Already in 2016, this could mean an additional €8–9 million. “Crunch, crunch” - the sound of fresh funding even convinced the opportunists to support the bill.

Building on earlier reform proposals, the Sports Act ranks among the current government's most well-crafted legislative efforts. Its development took two years and followed an unconventional path. Rather than being led by the central government body for sport - the Ministry of Education (and nominally of sport), it was driven by a working group coordinated by the Chairman of Parliament. The group consulted extensively with all relevant stakeholders, managing to keep communication gaps to a minimum (though the emphasis on a sports tribunal was arguably excessive, and the use of health insurance levies was not fully thought through).

Yet implementing the Sports Act falls to the ministry and that’s where the real challenge lies. Will it have the staffing and expertise needed? Consider just a few of its upcoming tasks: deciding how to weight foreign and domestic popularity, using TV ratings (via people meters) from around the world to measure the former, and selecting suitable questions for public opinion polling, ideally in broad consultation with the entire sporting community. Many unresolved issues remain: funding for sports vouchers, sports-oriented secondary schools, and departmental sports centres. Any consolidation of these institutions will only be politically feasible shortly after an election.

Will the sports community push to ensure that the third reading and November vote aren’t the end of the road? So far, other ministerial sports initiatives have gained little traction. For example, an October proposal to introduce nationwide talent testing for children as young as six. A month ago, the public response was also muted after the Ministry of Health announced its obesity prevention action plan. The currently outgoing minister responsible for sport has shown limited engagement with sports policy except for one issue: the “hipster” healthy lunches in school cafeterias got more headline coverage than the Sports Act itself. The minister should seize the opportunity to finally outline what comes next.