Unforgivable popularity?
(Published in SME Daily)
Škrtel, Chára, and Sagan represent Slovakia better than a world champion in dog sledding or megastars of gymnastics or shooting.
Which sports and which athletes represent Slovakia better? Škrtel with Hamšík, Chára with Hossa in the national team jersey, Hantuchová, Sagan on one side—or, say, a world champion in casting sport, the game of “go,” dog sledding, archery, gymnastics, or shooting on the other?
The main conflict between supporters and opponents of the new system of financing sport, representation team and talented youth, rises from the following questions: "Is the success known by the general public the same or comparable to the success, which is known to only few people? Should the state fund successful and popular sports at the same level as successful but unpopular ones? Representatives of sports covering roughly 80 percent of athletes (football, hockey, tennis, athletics, handball, basketball, cycling, and even whitewater canoeing), together with the authors of the reform, say no. The president of the Slovak Olympic Committee, the head of the Confederation of Sports Federations, and many smaller sports associations strongly disagree.
Today, taxpayers fund national teams in more than 80 sports. A thoughtful citizen might ask: are we wealthy enough as a country to fund all of them? In 2006, we presented our first proposal on sports funding (Project Viktória) like this: some sports should be prioritized, others less so, and some not at all.
Six years later, with our hearts full of solidarity, we now say: all sports should be funded, but based on three rankings - strictly according to clear, transparent, pre-announced, and measurable criteria. The main criteria—success and popularity—are multiplied in the formula used to create the first two rankings: national representation and talented youth. Those who are both successful and popular receive the most.
The amount of money would be influenced by international competition (number of national associations) and in addition number of children registered from the age of 10 to 18 years. Popularity is measured by rating of media at home and abroad and also by domestic opinion polls.
The new financial incentives for all sports federations are: achieve success at the senior and junior level, increase the number of competing children, appear in the media, and positively influence the public. Many small sports have done well under the new criteria and are gaining support—korfball, acrobatic rock ‘n’ roll, badminton, or the overall winner: floorball. Everyone can succeed, not just the big players
The third chart consists of one hundred elite athletes and for the first time in history they are rated mainly by the criterion of success and partly by popularity. Medalists will be guaranteed uninterrupted preparation, and the federations that raised them can also benefit. All sports—even those that are both unsuccessful and unpopular—will have generous support during a five-year transitional period, with a soft cushion in 2012 of 90% of the previous year’s funding.
How were our taxes used up until now? National teams were funded based on poor and egalitarian criteria. Talented youth and events were funded without clear standards. The number of children involved wasn’t considered at all. The system was based on customary practices, the power of committees, personal connections, and phone calls. The new system is resistant to corruption and clientelism (coined by Eugen Jurzyca) and prevents ministers and officials from making arbitrary decisions. There are no committees. Visits to the ministry will be unnecessary.
Due to early elections, the new system is incomplete. Only the new minister of sport will be able to examine the millions of euros quietly allocated for sport in the ministries of defense and interior - intended exclusively for individual athletes (excluding tennis) - without clear criteria. The first priority for all three new ministers should be to look at those paid state athletes who do not appear in the top 100 and at the differing salaries of those who do.
A surprised part of the sports movement repeats slogans like “funding is a human right.” The “needs of sport” (read: the sports federations) are not being met. They would like tax breaks and lottery proceeds allocated for sport - ideally, so they can distribute them themselves. But you’ve never heard any federation speak of what society needs.
They never objected to the old system into which they wanted politicians to simply “pour” money. The sports movement as a whole has never offered a comprehensive concept for sports financing or any kind of alternative. Officials know how to organize national conferences, the outcomes of which are endless lists of priorities. They can produce documents declaring that everything is broken, like last year’s from the Slovak Olympic Committee. They know how to argue among themselves, for example about centres of Olympic preparation. At other times, the movement goes completely silent - like when the former government handed out tens of millions of euros for the renovation of Bratislava’s hockey arena without a tender for location.
The minister of sport has allowed for adjustments in the case of convincing arguments. But are critics really hitting so many valid targets (Šimo, SME, Feb 24)? Apart from typos already corrected in the calculation of sport difficulty coefficients, the main objection is to the weight given to popularity—argued as “a naive thesis, inappropriate for Slovakia.” Some federations, skeptical of media metrics, question journalists’ integrity—claiming they're influenced by media owners or betting companies. Completely off-target is the Slovak Olympic Committee’s claim that the athlete ranking depends on the will of officials. We proposed the exact opposite.
We rejected some suggested criteria, such as total membership base. In the Czech Republic, using this metric led to the absurd result that the number of athletes exceeded the number of inhabitants.
Convincing arguments from the sports movement will not come. They haven’t come in 25 years. Any finance minister would condition increased funding on the introduction of order. Only now is the cleanup finally beginning.
(The author is a sports manager and lawyer, head of Eugen Jurzyca’s external advisory team for sport)
