Hopes linked to Caplovic by both camps

What awaits Slovak sport after the parliamentary elections

When we published Dušan Caplovic’s views on the situation in sport a few days before his appointment as Minister of Education (and Sport) – at a time when speculation about his future cabinet post was still ongoing – the interview sparked great expectations in the sports movement. Paradoxically, both camps reacted this way: the one satisfied with the direction of the financing model for sport, and the one that was much more critical. The minister’s answers gave hope to both groups.

Great expectations
Both groups in sport – the “Tokos camp” and the “Kukumberg camp” – expect a lot from the new broom. While former head of Jurzyca’s advisory team Jozef Tokos expects “continuity of thought with the proposals of outgoing minister Jurzyca,” because that is how he interpreted the interview, the head of the Shooting Federation Miroslav Benca believes the new minister “will have a more realistic view of the sports scene in our country.” The president of the Confederation of Sports Federations Marián Kukumberg hopes that Caplovic will quickly discuss with the sports federations the conclusions of the First Sports Forum in Slovakia. The manager of canoe slalom and member of Tokos’s team Richard Galovic is even more optimistic, predicting that Caplovic has “his own strategy for managing sport, which probably stems from the Smer party’s election program, so if he gradually puts all its priorities into practice, it will only be good for everyone in sport.” It seems that an unburdened discussion with both camps – which in fact began already under Jurzyca and resulted in some correction of the original funding model – could also bring concrete results.

Youth first
Caplovic’s idea of supporting youth sport as the top priority is considered absolutely right by Tokos, who assumes that the minister “can build on Jurzyca’s proposals – introducing a third physical education class, changing PE content to make it more experiential, supporting youth sport also in the afternoons through sports vouchers.” He might also support Jurzyca’s proposal to increase funding for talented youth – federations must use at least 50 percent of their total subsidy for this purpose, says Tokos. However, according to Tokos, regional sport “should basically be financed by local governments – municipalities, towns, and regions.” Kukumberg points to the outcomes and recommendations of the First Sports Forum, which suggest that there will likely be more priorities in sport than the three mentioned (youth, academic, and regional sport), important though they are. According to Galovic, sport should be made “accessible to as many children as possible, regardless of their parents’ economic situation,” and the way to achieve this is by supporting “systematic youth sport and comprehensive provision of these activities, especially supplying basic sports equipment and giving maximum support to youth coaches.” By contrast, Benca notes that while everyone talks about youth sport and helping youth, “real help is not that direct, it always goes through schools and projects, but the natural development of youth sport is limping.”

Financing only after a concept
No one in the sports movement questions that a sports concept should precede the funding model, but there are different understandings of the fact that the accelerated financing model and the disastrous internal debate were largely caused by early elections. In Galovic’s words, “the basic mistake was that, at the time of the final draft of the concept, there was less time for consultations because of the early elections.” According to Kukumberg, “it was a big mistake of the previous ministry leadership that serious steps were not consulted in advance with the SOV and sports associations, and obvious mistakes were corrected only after the official launch of the new financing model.” Miroslav Benca points to another aspect, saying that the proposed funding was influenced by Jurzyca’s team bringing back to life its “child,” the Viktória project, which about 90 percent of federations had rejected six years earlier. On the other hand, Jurzyca deserves recognition for trying to correct the situation and, despite original plans, “he adjusted the call for subsidies to federations so that it reflected all the major comments from the federations and for 2012 even introduced a 100% guarantee of funding for federations, so that no one would be harmed given the time pressure around introducing this model,” says Galovic. Funding for 2012 is more or less settled, but funding allocation for 2013–2015 could be done properly – and here Jozef Tokos is quoted as wishing “the new minister that both the federations and the SOV will come only with highly professional proposals.” Thus, work on the sports concept (or adjustments to its current draft), the Sports Act, sponsorship legislation, the amendment of the Gambling Act, and the new funding model can begin.

Money first and foremost
The decisive battle in sport will likely take place over financing – despite the fact that participants of the First Sports Forum expect Parliament to adopt, among other things, a strategic concept, two laws, and amendments to four laws, while the government is tasked with fulfilling twenty objectives. Agreement here will be harder – partly because the biggest sports federations, covering at least 70 percent of all athletes, were satisfied with the new distribution model based on the formula popularity times success. However, resistance from many smaller federations and the first statements of the new minister suggest the original formula will not remain unchanged. If Caplovic further feels that “it seems as if the federations whose representatives prepared this model are receiving stronger support than those federations that bring us good results at the Olympics and deserve that support,” finding a compromise will be particularly difficult. Not impossible, though – Jurzyca’s retreat in 2012 has already been mentioned. In the end, even Tokos, the head of the advisory team, says not only that “the criteria of popularity (social significance) times success must definitely be preserved,” but also admits that the new minister “can change parameters, for example, the balance between domestic and international popularity. The criticized Slovak media index could be reduced in weight or even removed. Olympic popularity could be added. It would certainly be appropriate to include more precise questions in the domestic public opinion survey. The external team I led suggested distinguishing between active and passive popularity, and the result was different. The exact wording of the survey questions could be approved by the sports movement. The ministry can also work on unifying the methodology for calculating success, which would replace international federation rankings in team sports.” There is therefore room for agreement between the two camps; it will depend on Minister Caplovic and the leaders of critical associations whether the baby is thrown out with the bathwater. Kukumberg’s position was clearly critical: “The new distribution model proposed by Jurzyca’s working group may have had a positive philosophy, but its implementation was completely wrong. The idea of creating transparent criteria collapsed at the outset because of a poorly set formula. We understand that the recalculation appealed to federations that were to receive a significantly increased budget. They certainly deserve more money for their activities. But it does not seem ethical to us that the state’s sports department would, through increased support for a few federations, simultaneously liquidate or at least financially cripple many successful smaller sports.” Even Kukumberg admits, however, that “Mr. Jurzyca realized this at the last moment and just before leaving office did not sign the planned changes, leaving them for his successor.” Kukumberg recommends “opening a new discussion on the formula, or distributing the remaining funds for 2012 in the same way as the first 70 percent.”
 

Two camps
The rift that arose in preparing the financing model between large and small federations is visible and will have to be resolved. Galovic believes that “if the new Minister of Education familiarizes himself thoroughly with the concept, he will easily improve the system by adjusting the ‘sports popularity index,’ especially by putting more weight on public opinion research, leaving out Slovak media monitoring, and adding popularity according to the methodology of the International Olympic Committee.” Tokos believes that “the new minister will accept the system of allocating funds to federations according to the formula success times social significance of the sport” and will continue discussions with federations “about some minor adjustments, which can gradually bridge the rift. The positive thing is that after the February meetings with federations, hardly anyone doubts the need for clear, measurable, and predictable criteria.” According to Kukumberg, however, “there is no simple or quick solution. Increasing the 2012 budget could help, and from it, federations that achieve the best evaluation based on a revised and consensually approved model could benefit more.”

Money from betting
According to Dušan Caplovic, money from gambling and betting should also go to sport – most respondents support this idea. Galovic welcomes the prospect if the current political power makes this goal a reality. “If we finally get a sponsorship law, even more state money can be redirected to youth, since national teams will then be able to seek support from the private sector.” Benca notes that this idea “in fact takes us back to the time when lotteries belonged to sport, to the SZTK, and the model would return to where it was 20 years ago.” Kukumberg says, “we have been trying to implement the idea that part of gambling and betting revenue should go to sport, as it used to in the past, practically since the abolition of the State Fund for Physical Culture. We are glad the new minister has the same view.” Realistically, however, he adds, “we will be even happier if he convinces the Minister of Finance as well.” Tokos takes a different stance, echoing what Minister Jurzyca often said: “The decisive factor is the total amount of money for sport from the state budget, not the channels through which the state budget is filled. I absolutely do not support that anyone other than the state – for example the sports movement – should decide on redistribution. Good proposals can certainly also be made in the area of gambling and betting, for example by setting precise criteria for the use of Tipos funds for marketing purposes.”

Should everyone be supported?
“We cannot finance everything, we need to define twelve to fifteen sports that will be given priority funding – which does not mean that smaller sports will not be able to get subsidies,” Caplovic said in an interview with the daily Šport, surprising many. According to Tokos, this is a completely legitimate intention and de facto identical with the Viktória I project. “In this year’s change in financing we abandoned it out of solidarity. The top twenty sports took and still take about 80 percent of the financial resources even after the change, so in principle they are financed as a priority,” adds Tokos. Kukumberg argues that “currently the state supports around 85 sports federations – but that does not mean it finances them all significantly. Large and successful federations receive substantial support (20 federations take over 80% of total subsidies), but more than half of the federations get only a relatively small – symbolic contribution from the state, yet they are still grateful. Although the amounts are often around 5,000 euros, several federations could not cover basic operations without them.” Benca believes “all sports should have the chance to apply for subsidies. But since there is no concept of what the state actually wants to achieve in sport, we cannot set a model of 12–15 sports.”

Epilogue
So, the new minister has work “as heavy as church construction” ahead of him. To adopt a sports concept, to amend several laws, to adopt a sponsorship law, to introduce a transparent, clear, and predictable system of support for sports and athletes – it is not a small task. The positive fact, however, is that discussion about the disastrous situation has begun even within the sports movement itself; athletes and their representatives are putting forward and challenging projects and proposals for solutions. It is no longer just the business of ministry officials. (...)