Sports Funding Act: The new draft of the Sports Funding Act is also causing debate

When Fricke said this on the sidelines of the DOSB members’ convention, people in his association were pretty angry. Christiane Schenderlein (CDU), the new State Minister for Sport and Volunteering, recently presented the first draft of the Sports Funding Act. And in this, the federal government – as the DOSB felt – had secured all sorts of access rights to future sports funding, to personnel, money and power. Schenderlein replied that although they were willing to compromise, the core of the law would be preserved: that the funding of elite sports, which had been blocked for ages by conflicts between the federal government and the DOSB, would become leaner and more independent. Independent stakeholders such as the “Athleten Deutschland” association were immediately confident.

The reactions were all the more telling after Schenderlein sent the revised draft of the law to those involved on Wednesday. The response from the umbrella organization of organized sports was noticeably well-tempered. A spokesman said that politicians had taken up suggestions from the DOSB “at least in part”, and that this was “an important step” on the way to “creating the best possible sports funding law”. The opposition in the Bundestag saw a “compromise that was watered down in many places” (Alliance 90/The Greens). Athletes Germany even reacted with “shock” and saw a “blatant step backwards”.

In fact, the draft presented to the SZ at least raises the question of whether sport and politics are on the way to ensuring that everything remains largely as it is.

The big promise that all parties had repeatedly made publicly until the end was this: If the current top sports reform is to be anywhere near successful, its main drive shaft must run smoothly: the so-called top sports agency. This should determine how much tax money flows into sports that promise as many medals as possible, how athletes, bases and sports science are funded. Most of this was negotiated by the federal government and sport until the end, largely disconnected from supervision and transparency. The fact that this should now be placed in the hands of an independent agency: in itself a good idea.

For this reason alone, it seemed absurd that DOSB and a sports policy alliance from Bavaria recently tried to drag the agency under the DOSB umbrella. However, this request did not make it into the new draft. Others, however, do.

There are, for example, the two board members who will steer the agency in the future – and who, due to their task profile, will have enormous influence. The Board of Trustees, the agency’s supervisory body, should elect them. This is decided by a simple majority, and on paper this is still the federal government with five votes, while the DOSB counts three (plus a representative of the conference of sports ministers of the states). However, it is now not only the Federal Chancellery that has to approve the election, but also the faction of three DOSB representatives.

According to reports, the federal government wants to guarantee that the board members enjoy broad support from the board of trustees. But that two parties now have a say in these central board personnel? That at least opens the door for tougher negotiations. If there is a fight over the board of directors, that’s how business works, the DOSB could have its approval refined elsewhere. For example, if there are further questions that the board of trustees should clarify. The federal government has also scaled back its veto rights on these issues compared to the first draft law – instead of “personnel, budget and statutory matters”, they should now apply to the “budget and staff plan”.

On paper, politicians have the majority on the supervisory board – but that could turn out to be an optical illusion

Not a problem in and of itself, politicians still have the majority on the board of trustees with five out of nine seats – whoever provides the tax resources must also have the final say. But this excess weight could still turn out to be an optical illusion. Only three of the five federal representatives are said to come from the Federal Chancellery, and another two from the Bundestag. If the latter belong to the Committee for Sport and Volunteering – which is obvious – they could, depending on the composition, be more favorable to the DOSB camp, at least from time to time.

In an initial statement, the athletes’ representation “Athletes Germany” criticized “greater opportunities for influence through organized sport”. The agency could hardly work independently. However, she reserved the greatest criticism for the fact that no seat for athlete representatives is guaranteed on the Board of Trustees, the central control body. “This continues a pattern that is already known from the existing structures of organized sport,” says the statement: “Decisions about the living and working conditions of athletes are made without their effective participation.”

Although the athlete representatives could hope that the DOSB would cede one of its three seats to them, that would be about as likely as a Jamaican winning gold in the four-man bobsleigh at the next Winter Games. Athletes Germany had become seriously independent of the DOSB years ago and repeatedly criticized organized sport as one of the few institutions in the national sports policy scene. On Thursday, Christiane Schenderlein referred to the sports advisory board, a purely advisory chamber of the new funding agency, in which the athletes’ association is to be represented – but there it is only mentioned “for example” as the recipient of a seat. This is also the case for all other stakeholders, because otherwise the statutes would have to be rewritten every time responsibilities change. In light of all the developments, this still doesn’t seem appreciative for the athletes.

And so the changes come through, inconspicuous at first glance, but with potentially big effects – like a switch that, when pushed centimeters to the left or right, steers a train in completely different directions. Paragraph 13, for example, purpose of the elite sports agency: There is no longer any talk of the new agency being responsible for the management of elite sports, but rather for “systematic development”. How this is to be understood will only be explained in the accompanying text. Accordingly, the top sports agency should “provide advice and support, in particular to the federal sports associations, with its own sports expertise”.

What was it like again with independent funding from a single source?

Or the specifications that the agency should give to the associations in the future. The draft law stipulates that associations should “take decisive action against violence and abuse” in the future, only then will funding flow. But how do you prove this specifically? This is at the discretion of the agency, for example when it sets so-called “target agreements” with associations.

“Athletes Germany” in particular had repeatedly demanded that it was extremely important to exercise strictness. There, too, reports continue to arrive from athletes who complain about grievances, but do not trust the information centers in the sports associations – because these are often controlled by those who are responsible for grievances. Thomas de Maizière, the DOSB’s ethics officer, also sharply criticized this last December.

Couldn’t sports associations be obliged to join the Center for Safe Sport in order to receive funding? This center is due to start working next autumn, Christiane Schenderlein announced on Thursday after the conference of the sports ministers of the federal states in Norderney. Above all, it is intended to intervene, investigate and sanction violations that fall below criminal law – independently of associations. “Sport,” said Schenderlein, “must be a place of safety, free from violence.”

It remains a mystery, a fatal signal: that the new sports funding law does not oblige associations to join such, well, independent bodies – while at the same time the law demands better performance from athletes. This point is “particularly critical,” said Tina Winklmann, spokeswoman for sports and volunteerism for Alliance 90/The Greens, when asked: “Athletes must be able to rely on the fact that protection against psychological, physical and sexual violence is a tough standard for state support.”

In fact, many victims are already suffering now; in the recent past alone, allegations and scandals have shaken various sports associations: the gymnasts, the modern pentathletes, the speed skating and short track community, the ski mountaineers in the German Alpine Club. On Wednesday, the latter banned three key witnesses who had reported criminally relevant incidents to the public prosecutor’s office.

There is still time to change things, even if the sports funding law is due to go to the federal cabinet next week, at least that is what politicians want. On Thursday, the DOSB reported “continued potential for optimization” because they were aiming for “not the fastest possible, but the best possible sports funding law”. But: Best possible in the interests of the matter? Then the hopes dwindle.