Our sport is a rarity, it resists reform

He claims that sport is one of the few areas of our society that has not undergone reform. Lawyer Jozef Tokos (37) worked on several projects that attempted to change that. The last one, called Viktoria 2, aimed to bring order into sports financing. It did not catch on.

Nine out of ten Slovak sports officials see the greatest shortcomings in the lack of money and poor infrastructure. Are their complaints justified?
“The complaints are justified. Funding for sport from the state budget has actually declined, and infrastructure for both elite and recreational sport is inadequate. But this cannot be a reason for nine out of ten Slovak sports officials to formulate exclusively financial demands. Everyone wants more money from the state budget – teachers, healthcare workers, court clerks. What part of the sporting movement lacks is greater perspective, comparisons with other sectors. Sport has not been reformed so far.”

A third minus is also often mentioned. Sport is on the margins of social interest. Isn’t that only a superficial view? After all, for example, a hockey triumph fills squares, and perhaps hundreds of thousands run or cycle?
“According to statistics, active sporting participation of Slovaks significantly lags behind the European elite, for example the Nordic countries. From this perspective, sport is indeed not an integral part of our people’s lifestyle. Passive interest in sport is mainly a phenomenon in hockey. World Championship triumphs truly managed to fill squares more than, for example, political protests.”

Slovak sport was supposed to be fixed by two long-term national programs. Since 2000 you have worked on several projects. The one called Viktoria was published earlier this year, but immediately faced opponents, just like the national programs. Why?
“We proposed distributing almost the entire package of funding for national teams and talented youth to federations according to a predetermined formula, with minimal opportunities for the minister to interfere and none for officials, and to include sports events in the distributed ‘pie.’ Just as an example, today the ministry in its ongoing call is distributing about one third of its sports budget to federations. Let’s distinguish several types of objections to our proposal. Opponents of any changes were mainly those who benefited from the lack of transparency. Opponents of the formula itself – success multiplied by popularity and the weights of popularity, especially international – have the legitimate right to believe that a medal in a very popular sport has the same or very similar value as in an unpopular one. Finally, there were objections about insufficient discussion.”

Did you not publish the concept too late and with bad timing?
“We finished the proposal for the new sports financing system after six months of work only after the government’s fall in October last year. Criticism of the ministry leadership’s process after the end of the first part of our work was largely justified, since the sports federations did not receive the promised materials for several weeks. Our proposal was incomplete given the government’s collapse. According to uniform criteria, total sports financing from central sources should be distributed, including funding from the Ministries of Interior and Defense. That requires political will and agreement among three ministries. In the past, all these ministries were never run by nominees of a single political party.”

In your categorization of sports according to the formula, some newer but popular disciplines – floorball and acrobatic rock’n’roll – appeared fairly high. What is your opinion on the rather widespread view that we should prioritize sports so to speak from a historical perspective?
“The criterion of historical or traditional sports I do not consider correct, because it is not objectively measurable. Floorball and acrobatic rock’n’roll ‘jumped up’ because they have a large increase in the number of children playing sport in an organized way. Our proposal introduced the right motivation for young people, especially children, to play sports regularly – not, for example, formally registered fifty-year-old men with big bellies. The amount of funding for a given sports federation should have been influenced by the number of sporting children, not the entire membership base, as the ministry now proposes. Last year, a humorous figure was published from the Czech Republic, where the number of registered athletes was higher than the number of inhabitants. Numbers can be inflated, for instance, by not striking off registrations of already inactive players. Or someone may be a member of several federations, associations, or clubs at the same time.”

For most of our officials, the fetish is the medal table from the Olympic Games. The one with three golds for us in Beijing, and the previous ones, concealed shortcomings. The current one, after London, triggered even panic. Isn’t that an outdated approach? Do you think Kazakh sport is better than Croatian or Swedish because its athletes won many gold medals? Without disrespecting any sport, can one really compare, for example, a semi-final appearance of footballers at a World Cup with three golds in archery?
“The medal fetish is wrong. Success should have an impact at home and abroad. At home by creating positive role models for children and youth, so they play more sport. A success of a Slovak athlete that the whole world learns about is, from the perspective of representation, more valuable than a success nobody hears about. A World Cup semi-final for footballers cannot be compared with three golds in archery. Studies have been published showing how global awareness of Croatia rose when they won bronze at the 1998 World Cup.”

Last Sunday was the deadline for comments and suggestions to the concept prepared this time by the new Ministry of Education under Dušan Čaplovič. What bothers you the most about it?
“First, two positives. Financing sport through the formula ‘success multiplied by popularity,’ although modified, is a continuity with the proposals of our team. Endorsing our idea of introducing a third physical education lesson, at least at the first level of primary schools, is also an improvement over the current situation. But Čaplovič’s concept is an excellent example of how a strategic document of the central state administration should not look. It lacks a verbal definition of public interest in sport, a basic idea, a vision narrower than the main priorities of the concept. Just like the National Programme for the Development of Sport up to 2010, it is full of filler and a large number of very general and vague ‘proposals of measures to achieve the goal.’ The ministry should rather have prepared a solid concept for the 3.5 years remaining in the electoral term than a ten-year program assigning tasks to all sorts of institutions in the spirit of a National Front document.”

Could you give examples of empty words, the “filler” as you called it?
“I’ll give four examples. What to think of the task for sports event organizers to ‘present Slovak sport in public service media and build a positive attitude to sport through broadcasting Slovak competitions and events’? Would they not know that without Mr. Čaplovič’s concept? Between 2014 and 2020 municipalities are supposed to build new and operate existing sports infrastructure. How? Between 2013 and 2020 the ministry and federations are to ‘support the construction of national sports centers in selected sports,’ and starting in 2016 they are to ‘modernize sports infrastructure at public universities.’ What are the criteria? The concept is full of such formulations.”

How should such requirements be formulated?
“The concept claims that ‘sport in Slovakia is understood as a user and not as a creator of the economy. The reality is different, sport as an economic category of the state gives back more than it takes.’ A good thesis, which is very likely true. One only needs to add up, even as a layman, how much, for example, recreational skiing costs a family. Then there are revenues from sports betting, various taxes, and tens of thousands of people for whom sport is a direct or indirect profession. But such a serious claim is not substantiated in any way, not even by a footnote referencing research. It requires precise formulations, calculations with which one can argue during budget negotiations. That’s where one could start.”

Does the new concept talk about infrastructure and professional sport?
“Very vaguely. Without any expert reasoning, the proposal suggests preparing a project for the construction of a National Football Stadium and for the construction and modernization of ice rinks in selected regions. Missing are principles, strategy, and process. Why ice rinks specifically? The resolution further, without any reasoning or criteria, proposes prioritizing three summer Olympic sports and five winter Olympic sports in preparation for Sochi 2014 and Rio 2016. Where did they get such numbers? The regulation of professional sport, the status of a professional athlete, or a proposal for resolving sports disputes is completely absent. Not a single line.”

Occasionally even sports officials say – maybe there was no political will. Is it possible to have a left-wing and right-wing view of sport? Isn’t that absurd?
“In sport I would rather speak of correct and incorrect solutions. Proposals that could be called unambiguously right-wing would, in the context of European sport, be rather unique. Would any minister propose to finance only 15 federations from the state budget according to criteria and none of the others? In sports financing it is appropriate to accept certain principles and bring order. For example, three elite sports centers without uniform criteria is disorder. Čaplovič’s ten-year concept did not introduce uniform criteria, it once again only refers to putting things in order in the future. We proposed a central ranking of Slovak athletes compiled according to criteria.”

Alongside the director of the department at the Ministry of Education, the ruling Smer party also reinstated the post of government plenipotentiary for sport and youth. Isn’t that a duplication?
“Besides the central state administration body for sport, which is the Ministry of Education, the activities of other ministries – especially Interior and Defense, Health, Labour and Social Affairs – also directly or indirectly relate to sport. The establishment of the plenipotentiary position is not wrong in itself, what matters is the fulfillment of its competences. Good luck to him. From the tenure of the plenipotentiary during the first Fico government, the only more visible activity of his work was building small football stadiums.”

One senior political figure connected to sport long sought the answer to who is actually the head of Slovak sport. He determined it was the director of the department of state care for sport at the Ministry of Education. What is your take on that?
“The general director of the department is not the head of Slovak sport. He is a civil servant who is supposed to perform tasks according to the Civil Service Act and other laws. The label of head may have arisen from his ability to influence financial flows to sports federations. Our proposal for a sports financing system based on our formula could have ended that, and even the minister would have had only minimal room for subjective interventions.”

How can the tangle of Slovak officials be untangled and simplified? Tell me your view, what should the umbrella organization of our sport look like? Should it be an existing institution or should a new one be created?
“The umbrella organization should represent sport externally and perform useful coordinating functions, as well as services within the movement. Of the existing bodies, it could only have been the Slovak Olympic Committee. After this year’s unsuccessful attempt by the Olympic Committee to set up an umbrella organization under it, the next attempt should aim for an agreement among three entities: the Slovak Olympic Committee, the Confederation of Sports Federations, and the Slovak Football Association. But what matters is the content, not formal roles. Coming forward with substantive proposals has long been a problem for the sports movement.”