New arenas in Bratislava must be built through a transparent competition

(published in the daily SME)

The state does not intend to contribute to the operation of the ice hockey arena or the national football stadium. Hockey and football can show the way forward.

For years, the sports movement has approached the state with prepared investment proposals, expecting approval without much discussion. For reasons unknown, this approach is widely accepted by the public and much of the sports media. Most recently, hockey representatives and the Bratislava municipality have announced that the city will begin “resolving” land ownership for a 3-billion-crown multipurpose hockey arena between the bridges in July, once the riverside zone’s zoning plan is approved. The land is nearly ready; only 20 percent remains to be resolved. But is this really a done deal?

It would be unfortunate if a decision has already been made. Choosing the location by the athletes themselves would be completely fine - if they were financing the project themselves or with the city alone and not requesting state funds. Seeking public money is understandable, as in our conditions it is unrealistic to build national stadiums purely on a commercial basis.

But when billions of taxpayer crowns are needed for hockey and football alike, the following approach is unacceptable: we chose the location, set the total cost, the state should cover 70 to 80 percent, we’re following a German model, and it’s a done deal. Any sensible government must approach things differently.

The problem is that there is no state strategy for building investments of national importance—only now is the Ministry of Education beginning to prepare one. The Prime Minister’s team, through the Viktória project available at www.reformasportu.sk, proposed several specific measures earlier this year as part of the reform of Slovak sport, including how to approach national sports investments.

The recommendations are clear: major investments of national importance must be financed exclusively through competitive procedures. Stadiums should meet only the minimum requirements of international federations, and the state should fund only that standard. The facility must be owned by a transparent and trustworthy entity, with which the state will sign a long-term agreement guaranteeing its use for state purposes. The state will not subsidize operational costs; the agreement must ensure the owner covers those. The contract should also include penalties for breaching the terms. The winning bidder must demonstrate the project’s financial sustainability.

It’s not publicly known how the Slovak Ice Hockey Federation evaluated possible sites for the arena. The municipality merely announced some kind of competition—for a project stidy.  The Slovak Football Association at least had a private company assess the locations: Slovan, Inter, and a greenfield option. Based on internal criteria, Tehelné pole won. Since mid-2005, the public has only been informed about the selected location, the architectural design, and the seat color. However, pre-selections made by athletes themselves carry no weight in state decision-making—especially when billions are involved. The voice of the Ministry of Education, the central authority for sport, which expressed disapproval of the Slovan location and raised concerns about the hockey arena site, has been mostly ignored.

It’s as clear as day: if hockey and football want a few billion from public funds, the rules are set by the state, not the sports federations or municipalities. The only viable solution for the state is a transparent competition. Football stakeholders are cooperating and have no issue with such a process. Let’s hope the same goes for hockey. If the only proposal in the football competition comes from the Slovan site and it meets the criteria, Slovan wins. If the only hockey proposal is from Petržalka and it qualifies, it wins. But if multiple proposals are submitted in a transparent competition where cost is the deciding factor, let the best win—the one that places the least burden on public finances, in other words, the cheapest.

If someone comes up with a joint project for both arenas that creates a synergy, all the better. If football representatives argue (and they have a case) that building a 35,000-seat stadium is more reasonable than a 20,000-seat one meeting only the minimum criteria, let them present alternatives. The basic version will be cheaper. Let a lively debate determine whether the more expensive option is worth it—ideally under the next government.

Slovakia needs a national football stadium, and after securing the 2011 Ice Hockey World Championship, also a multipurpose arena. That much is certain. Both projects enjoy public support. Unlike in neighboring countries, they aren’t even a topic in pre-election battles. In the Czech Republic, for example, the location of their 35,000-seat national stadium, selected by the Social Democratic government, was upstaged by the opposition’s proposal for a 50,000-seat venue at a different site—also without a tender.

Let’s be reasonable. Doubts have accompanied many sports projects involving state involvement. There were concerns a few years ago when the National Tennis Centre was approved through direct assignment, and in many other cases. After frequent failures in the sports sector, it is truly essential to proceed properly and transparently. It will benefit the athletes most of all. Football and hockey—our two most popular sports—can lead the way.

(The author is an adviser to the Prime Minister on sport and a sports manager)