An agreement within the sports community is not enough

The current Sports Act from 2008 is a shining example of how legal regulation should not be done. To summarize the many objections simply: it failed to regulate the key societal relationships in sport. It didn’t resolve a single major issue. Its adoption served mainly as a bureaucratic checkbox in various government documents of the time.

A new Sports Act is now in the works. On its own, it’s no cure-all, it can only bring legal order to selected aspects of sport. Changes to funding models have already been partly implemented and can continue even without a new law. Still, the law should serve as a foundation and replace the current fragmented legal framework. Its adoption is, as usual, anticipated in multiple government documents. And as usual, the deadline has been pushed back. The core issue, again, lies in the limited capacity of the Ministry of Education, which, besides education, science, and research, is also tasked with sport.

The draft outline published on the Slovak Football Association’s website is sound in content. What’s unique (if only in scale) is that dozens of experts have been brought in to prepare it, with the ministry’s oversight being largely symbolic. A similar attempt collapsed back in 2006. A Sport Daily commentator (April 11) rightly noted that “a binding agreement within the sports community on a few core principles is essential—without it, even the best legislative work will be wasted.” That holds true, although reaching such consensus will be tough.

But there’s an even more critical point.

Passing a high-quality Sports Act requires strong political will and a political leader, someone who can defend the law’s core ideas, push through reforms that might be unpopular (such as defining rules for public funding or clarifying the employment status of professional athletes), negotiate with government colleagues—especially the finance minister—resist external pressures, and safeguard the law’s wording through committee reviews and parliamentary debates.

So, is the Minister of Sport the driver of this reform? Given that there’s no public sign of any major contribution from the minister regarding this law, the answer is clear: he does not have the reins in hand.

The author of this commentary has participated in multiple attempts to draft a Sports Act over the past decade. It’s crucial to support the experts currently working on the project, who have written: “Everyone involved is contributing their time, knowledge, and expertise voluntarily. For that, they deserve thanks, respect, and admiration.”

But maybe it’s time to involve someone else to ensure the project’s success, perhaps that unsuccessful presidential candidate who, according to the head of the football federation, enjoyed strong regional support. Their cooperation has been effective so far. The lunch has been eaten. Stadium renovations are underway. Providing political backing for a single law shouldn’t be too much to ask.

Because in the end, an agreement within the sports community, while important, is simply not enough