The Finnish Olympic Committee announced on January 15, 2024 that “Sports and the sports community have started studies on the structure and common services, the goal of which is a financially secure future”.
The process that started in January can be described as strange, to say the least.
It seems that the Olympic Committee wants to dictate a model that suits itself, in which, above all, power over the distribution of sports organizations’ resources would be transferred from the Ministry of Education and Culture to the committee, even so that the legal aspects of that large-scale reform do not want to be investigated or clarified.
Looking from the outside, the “sports community” gave actual authorization only to such a process, which talked about enhancing the network’s operation and commissioned a network report on “the current state, needs for updating, possible structural changes and the organization of common services”.
Now that speech has been put on the back burner and the agenda has become the strengthening of the activities of the central organization and handing over the right to distribute money to the Olympic Committee.
The reform has been justified by the tightening of the financial situation and the reduction of public funding of sports organizations by at least 20 percent.
It is clear that society’s support euros will not grow very strongly in the future, but there will be no sudden unexpected changes, such as the Minister of Sports, Sports and Youth Sandra Bergqvist 17 May 2024 said: “We are not planning any cuts to the basic funding of sports organizations for next year (2025). In this way, we want to give organizations peace of mind so that they can focus on the important work they are doing.”
Who wields power and money?
The Olympic Committee is primarily concerned with its own funding, which got a nasty surprise at the end of the last government negotiations: The Committee lobbied for the Functional Country and People program and its one part of the Suomi Liikkelle project, the start-up, implementation and funding of which would have been assigned to the Olympic Committee.
However, that didn’t happen, and at the end of the government negotiations, the portfolio of the Minister of Culture, Science, Youth and Sports was divided. At the request of the small parties, a third minister came to the ministry and the money remained behind the minister. The minister’s power is measured in euros.
The goal of the Olympic Committee is selfishly logical, because the right to distribute money strengthens its own existence, when it can take off what it wants when public funds are reduced.
Once again, a model for structural reform has been sought especially from other Nordic countries, but only to the extent that it is suitable for the Olympic Committee’s own goals.
In Finland, there is no sports movement like Sweden or Norway, which is based only on a sports system made up of organizations. The Association Act also makes Finland different compared to other Nordic countries. Sports organizations and clubs are independent associations that are responsible for their own activities. They cannot be ordered from above.
It is also confusing that when there is talk of savings and operational efficiency in connection with the restructuring, at no point have concrete figures been presented or told what the costs of the reforms would be.
Structures should be changed and organizations merged, but the price tags are hidden.
Also absent is reflection on goals or roles; what should anyone do or better yet the other way around – is anyone doing something?
In Finnish sports, quite a few times in the last fifteen years structures have been modified and then thought about what should be done with them. In this respect, nothing has changed.
The Olympic Committee’s idea of a strong central organization and controlling everything is probably not very modern, but it describes the internal panic of the organization: when you can’t get a dominant position otherwise, you want to take it through the formal commitment and process that is now underway.
What are we really doing?
Public funds for exercise and sports will also not be increased by the fact that the distribution of money, at least in public grants related to organizations, would be transferred from the Ministry of Education and Culture to the Olympic Committee. It has not been possible to convincingly justify the direct weaknesses of the current model, where civil servants prepare decisions and supervise the use of budget funds.
The Olympic Committee’s state aid covers about 70 percent of its budget. That is why it is questionable how the committee considers it its right to so strongly undermine the current system.
If the allocation of grants to sports and sports organizations were transferred to the Olympic Committee, it would still take place under the guidance of the ministry. The ministry would set the criteria for grants, as they are responsible for the state’s budget funds. At the same time, an important official task would be transferred to the Olympic Committee. It should be able to organize the distribution process, the review of financial statements and be responsible for the correct use of the entire general grant amount (30-40 million). The dealer is also responsible for financial audits.
The situation would become particularly difficult if one of the grant recipients (112 in April 2024) was dissatisfied with the grant decision and contested the decision. The process would become a dispute in the district court, because there would no longer be a correction or administrative procedure in use.
Everything described above would require human resources, the costs of which would be borne by the Olympic Committee and ultimately the aided organizations. Instead of savings, fixed costs would increase.
The restructuring package will be discussed at the Olympic Committee’s spring meeting on May 28. The preparatory working groups have met during the spring and the image has been given to the outside that everything has progressed smoothly with signs of consensus.
However, the participants invited to the preparatory work have said that they are not clear about what is actually being done.
It would not be realistic that with a few months of preparation, the significant structural and financial reforms would be in such ready shape that the member organizations would have had time to discuss the process among themselves or to consider the effects of possible changes. On the other hand, there hasn’t been much to discuss either, because the Olympic Committee has not reported the savings resulting from structural changes.
It will be interesting to see at the spring meeting whether the member organizations swallow the bait served by the Olympic Committee and are content to watch their own future in the role of bystanders.