Time will tell whether I was loyal to sport

He wasn’t even thirty when, last February, he succeeded in the competition for the position of Director General of the Department of State Care for Sport. He became the youngest top state official for sport in the era of Slovak independence. With energy, he began implementing his visions, which, however, often ran into strong resistance from the sports movement. Many view his work negatively, while others say he brought a breath of fresh air into Slovak sport. His further fate after the elections is unclear. Whether he remains the head of the department will be decided by the new Minister of Education. On March 7, Ladislav Križan marked one year in office.

Your key idea after taking office was to drive out the dishonest from sport. Did you succeed?
“One year is too short a time for any definitive conclusions. At the February meeting with the federations, almost all of them declared that they support a transparent system of allocating funds based on a formula calculation. The discussion is no longer about whether the formula should exist, but about what kind it should be. I consider this a fundamental shift in reducing the subjective decisions of politicians and sports officials in dividing funds for sport.”

The sports movement accepted the formula, but not the variables inserted into it. They were more or less dictated – these and nothing else. Without wider discussion. Why didn’t you leave more time to debate whether the formula really reflects Slovak reality?
“I understand this objection. For the first time in history, we discussed the wording of subsidy contracts with the federations, for 18 days. I regret that, due to the early elections, we did not have more time to go into detail on all comments – both regarding the contracts and the formula.”

We are getting more at the fact that elected representatives of key sports bodies such as the Slovak Olympic Committee, the Confederation of Sports Federations of the Slovak Republic, and the Association of Technical and Sporting Activities did not participate in the financing reform. Why were they not given the opportunity to at least oppose the proposal? Many misunderstandings and unnecessary tensions could have been avoided.
“I understand such an interpretation as well, but I see it differently. First: the SOV, KŠZ, and ZTŠČ had the same opportunity and time for comments as the federations, even though the change did not directly concern them. Second: the decision on the composition of the minister’s external advisory group, which prepared the changes together with the department, was entirely within his competence, and I respected his choice.”

Do you really feel that a football agent, an ice hockey coach, the general secretary of the tennis federation, and the national team manager for canoe slalom are truly a representative sample of Slovak sport?
“Except for Mr. Marušinec, an expert on public finance, Mr. Tokos, Mr. Filc, Mr. Moška, and Mr. Galovič operate in sport as successful individuals in much more diverse positions. The minister mainly chose people with whom he had positive working experience in the past. In my opinion, the synergy of expertise and different viewpoints worked effectively.”

(...)