/nginx/o/2020/07/02/13184018t1h4356.jpg?fit=%2C&ssl=1)
The review and election session of the General Assembly of the Latvian Olympic Committee (LOC) will take place on July 10. As this date approaches, negotiations on a sports governance model and opportunities to improve it have become relevant. This year, sports in Latvia will absorb the 38 million euros allocated by the state, while in the coming years the amount is likely to decrease.
–
State funding for sport is further distributed by six organizations – LOK, Latvian Olympic Unit (LOV), Latvian Sports Federation Council (LSFP), Latvian Olympic Social Fund (LOSF), Latvian Team Sports Games Association (LKSSA) and Latvian Paralympic Committee (LPK). These organizations distribute state funding among 95 recognized sports federations.
–
“Of course, many people don’t like it, but I already said in 2017 that we have too many federations in Latvia,” said Aivars Platonovs, President of the Latvian Swimming Federation (LPF), in a conversation with the program “Sporta studija”. “There are also too many ways in which these federations are funded, because for high achievements we receive funding from both the LOK and the LSFP. I believe that if there is one specific goal, then the source of funding should be the same.”
–
A similar opinion was expressed by the Chairman of the Saeima Sports Subcommittee Sandis Riekstins. “I agree that there is a large concentration of money in four organizations, which sometimes duplicate each other,” Riekstins said. “I don’t think it’s rational or right.”
–
“When setting priorities, the company itself has determined the principles according to which these resources are distributed,” continued LSFP President Einars Fogelis. “I think there will always be a debate about whether it is effective. Some colleagues will definitely believe that going to ‘one boss’ will be an opportunity to get more support, while others will think – what we deserve is due to us.”
–
In a conversation with the program, Fogelis remembered that the idea of merging the six above-mentioned organizations had already emerged. It is true that this idea is not supported by the federations of Olympic and also technical sports, which would then lose their position.
–
“It would only be logical if this power were only in one place,” adds Signe Luika, associate professor of the Latvian Academy of Sports Pedagogy (LSPA) and head of the Department of Management. “At the moment, it can be seen that the LSFP is addressing some issues, the LOC addressing others. Centralization of power would be what would make the process much more efficient.”
–
“So everyone with their question in the sports industry would know where to go.”
–
The complicated system is also highlighted by the former president of the Latvian Athletics Union (LVS) Guntis Zālītis, who revealed that athletes who receive LOV funding are forced to sign a tripartite agreement with their federation and also LOV.
–
“Yes, a tripartite agreement is being signed, but the federation’s saying is small because the money is given to the LOV. In fact, the money is given by the Ministry of Education and Science (MES), which raises the question of why such an intermediary is needed.” pointed out Zālītis.
–
Fogelis justifies the need for LOV with one important function of the organization. Namely, LOV is like an airbag for athletes who have already achieved certain results, for which they are also entitled to a certain bonus or right.
–
In practice, this example was seen among heavyweight Rebekah Koh and Artūrs Plēsnieks, who did not join the federation of their sport, but also retained LOV funding.
–
Although the need for LOV is not questioned by anyone, the question arises in the sports arena – how useful it is to use administrative resources in six organizations, which could just as well be diverted to other purposes.
–
“The financial distribution of LSFP, LOK and LOV takes place by attracting five or six accountants and financiers. Therefore, I think that the distribution of financial resources in one organization would allow directing the remaining funding to sports,” added Zālītis.
–
Fogel, for his part, said that this idea was feasible, but that the final decision had to be made by the members of the organizations.
–
The program reports that the working group set up by the Ministry of Education and Science is already working on determining priority sports and a new funding model.
— .
