Following the overall research aim and the formulated hypotheses and research questions, the results obtained by the analyses were organized and supplemented with appropriate methods of visualization and interpretation. After the identification of the broader context in the form of a comparison of the relevant indicators of the Slovak Republic with EU countries, the results gradually describe the current state as well as the historical development within the national, regional, and local levels of public sports funding. All components of the analysis performed led to an assessment of the sustainability of the applied financial model. The assessment of the current state is followed by recommendations aimed at supporting the long-term sustainable setting of this financial model of sports support in the Slovak Republic.
4.1. Comparison of Sports Funding within the EU Countries
In 2021, the total allocated funds for sports reached the value of EUR 2.07 billion in the EU on average [
72]. However, this average value is reached by only eight EU countries (see
Table 2), if Belgium (lower limit) is also included, which is not even half of the European Union average. On the other hand, it is also necessary to consider the fact that each country has a different economic power, and therefore the funds linked to the sports can represent different values. That is why the more relevant aspects of statistical measurement and comparison are the values recorded as public spending on sports per capita or of public spending on sports in relation to the country’s GDP.
From the perspective of the allocation of public funds to sports per capita, the average in the EU is EUR 130 [
72] (with a population of approx. 15.89 million). This average corresponds to the total expenditure of the 27 EU countries by 2021 (see
Table 3). In this regard, countries such as Luxembourg (the second smallest country in the EU), Sweden, the Netherlands, and Finland allocate the most funds to sports in this calculation. The opposite cases are the countries of Bulgaria, Latvia, Romania, and Slovakia, where the allocation is EUR 34 per capita. If Slovakia wanted to match the EU average, it would have to allocate almost another EUR 528 million to sports.
The last instance measured in this comparison is spending on sports against the GDP of the EU countries. The EU average has long been at the level of 0.4% [
72] (
Table 4). This percentage was reached by 15 EU countries in 2021. In these statistics, Slovakia is also among the countries that are at the very bottom of the ranking, and in the long term, no change in this situation is expected. Of the EU countries, only Ireland (0.1%) reached a worse position in the ranking. Hungary, on the other hand, continuously provides the biggest support, which allocates public expenditure at roughly 1% of GDP. Basically, it is the only country that actively, and continuously, exceeds the limit of one per cent.
From the perspective of geographical comparison, Slovakia is at a very low level within the EU according to the individually selected indicators of the economic and financial analysis. This is a challenging position for individual sports organizations at all levels. Either it puts them in a position where they must try even harder to obtain additional funding outside the public sector, e.g., in the form of sponsorship, or it can be perceived as a disadvantage in international competition. For this situation to continuously improve and for the model of funding sports from public resources to be considered truly sustainable in the future, it is necessary to have transparent data on the individual levels of this funding. Only then is it possible to continuously evaluate and assess how effectively public funds are being allocated to sports at individual levels. And this is the only way to set and maintain a sustainable model of funding from the public resources in the future. Therefore, it is also necessary to deal with the collection and evaluation of relevant data, as done and presented in the next sections. Thus, the results from the geographical comparison represent a direct justification of the further presented research and its overall merit for current knowledge and practice.
4.2. National Level of Public Sports Funding in Slovakia
Resources to sports, as mentioned above, are allocated by individual ministries, but municipalities and HTUs should not be omitted either. As part of the assessment of the total amount of sports funding, the analysis was performed, shown in
Table 5. This focused on the years between 2017 and 2021. It must be noted that the year 2022 was not included in the analysis, as complete data were not available within the HTUs and municipalities, which significantly affects the overall public funding of sports. For future analyses, this represents one of the elements on which potential following research activities can be built.
In the statistical analysis, the allocation of funds for sports is only increasing very slowly. For example, in 2018, the allocation of funds was even lower than in the observed year of 2017. The development of funds was certainly not enhanced by the pandemic, when the budget increased by almost EUR 2 million, which can be partly considered a good sign, but on the other hand, several EU countries protected the sports sector in this period much better than the Slovak Republic (see
Table 3 and
Table 4).
If the overall percentage growth of the budget between 2017 and 2021 was considered, it can be concluded that the growth represents a value of less than 25.4%. However, it is difficult to state whether these are high or low percentage shifts. The reality, validity, and credibility of this funding lie in other limits, namely in how the given funds can be used effectively and transparently. This is very difficult for the state to control.
For comparison, attention can be drawn to the fact that the largest allocation of funds regularly flows from the budgets of municipalities and HTUs; specifically for this monitored period, it was EUR 646.42 million [
47]. The problem with this industry is its slow development, which, as was suggested, could have slowed down even more due to COVID 19. On the other hand, even in the post-COVID era, no great growth of the monitored amount is noticeable.
Note: MESRS = Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport of the Slovak Republic; MI = Ministry of the Interior of the Slovak Republic; MD = Ministry of Defense of the Slovak Republic; GO = Government Office; SA = subsidy allocation; HTU = higher territorial unit.
The percentage expression (
Figure 2) shows that municipalities and HTUs still represent the majority of 51.7% of the total budget allocated to sports. However, when compared to previous research analyses [
39,
40,
41,
42], this is a reduction from the recorded 57.75%, which is a total decrease of 6.05%.
In the proportion in which the percentage share of municipalities and HTUs in funding sports decreased, the share of the Ministry of Education of the Slovak Republic increased almost to the same extent, from the original 36.33% to 42.6%. This is a growth of 6.27%. These relatively high percentage shares clearly show that for the Ministry of Education of the Slovak Republic, funding sports is one of the main priorities, in contrast to the Ministries of the Interior or Defense, which can be considered a logical development. Also, this percentage allocation and its development can be of interest to future researchers, as it can show the long-term setting of the proportional funding of sports in the Slovak Republic.
Looking at other institutions, it is worth noting that only the Ministry of Defense increased the total share of sports funding, specifically by 1%. Although this seems to be a small amount, it helped in the construction of the modern athletic stadium and various other purpose-built sports facilities of the Military Sports Centre Dukla. The total change represents an increase from 2.87% to the final 3.9%. In contrast, the change in the percentage share of the Ministry of the Interior or the Government Office and the subsidy allocation from the prime minister’s reserve decreased by 1.15% (from the original 2.65%) and by 0.1% (from the original 0.4%). However, these institutions do not cover particularly important areas of sports funding. Therefore, even their percentage decline can be seen as neutral in the long run.
An important addition to the funding of sports at the national level is also the identification of the pattern of the share of recognized sports, which was already a subject of research in the authors’ past works, especially in [
73]. In this article, the focus on this formula was rather directed at the current perception of the formula from the perspective of the sports community. In this regard, a great deal of criticism was addressed towards the formula, which corresponds to several opinions of the professional public. For example, Dušan Ťažký—former sports director and general secretary of the Slovak Cycling Association—says that the formula does not allocate enough funds to small sports organizations, even to pay the expenditures for one of their employees [
74]. This opinion is also held by Ivan Husár, the state secretary for MESRS for sports, who presents his thoughts on the act on sports, which also discusses the formula, as follows: “… just the application practice in four years has shown that it is mainly a bit too bureaucratic for smaller associations, burdens them and does not provide them with the money to cover these duties”. He adds that the act contains many issues that cannot be applied in practice [
75].
Other opinions include the comments of Petr Onuščák—president of the Slovak kick-boxing Association—and Róbert Kajánek—vice president of the Slovak Muay Thai Association—who answered the question of what they see as the strengths and weaknesses of the current Sports Act.
Onusčák indicates that the act favors only a few sports and therefore does not bring the same benefit to all. Furthermore, he recommends reconsidering the membership coefficient under 23 years of age in the act, as some associations register young members who have not achieved solid placements at the European or World Youth Championships for several years. In addition, according to him, the year-to-year reduction in contributions should be abolished, as some associations receive financial resources even without achieving results for several years. Onusčák concludes his comment by saying that the act on sports is beneficial only for some sports [
76].
Kajánek, on the other hand, claims that the act was prepared primarily by lawyers and not by representatives of the sports community. He also emphasizes that the coefficients of recognized sports should be adjusted to reflect the current popularity of some sports, including combat sports. Kajánek cites the growing viewership and success at the European and World Championships as proof of the growth of his sport and suggests that the act should be changed and adapted to the changing state within society and sports. He further criticizes associations that receive subsidies despite showing no progress or results for a long period of time. Kajánek gives an example of a tennis association that, according to him, should not receive as large number of subsidies as it does, if it does not show results for a long time [
76].
Anton Siekel—president of the Slovak Olympic and Sports Committee—says that the formula is only as good as the data expressing the variables contained in it. This probably best describes the reality of the application of the formula for the contribution to recognized sports. We agree with this opinion. Many other representatives of sports also identify with it, which is evidenced by the effort to measure the popularity of sports more effectively, using different measures, or by the professional debates on this topic [
77,
78].
Assessment of the validity of hypothesis H1: The collected and analyzed statistical data as well as the opinions of the professional public provide evidence that the current model of sports funding cannot be considered fully sustainable and raises questions about its efficiency and fairness. They also indicate the need to reevaluate the formula of the share of recognized sports and adapt it to current needs and conditions.
The results of the comparative analysis, which shows that from the perspective of the EU, the Slovak Republic is at the bottom of the sports funding ranking, should be viewed in similar terms. Within the domestic space, the funding of sports at the national level is only very slowly increasing, which ultimately prevents the continuous operation of the sports funding model in the long run. For many funded sports organizations, it is very difficult or even impossible to achieve long-term financial sustainability under current funding conditions and settings.
4.4. Local Level of Public Sports Funding in Slovakia
4.4.1. Funds Allocated for Sports within Regional Cities
From the perspective of the complete program funding of sports of all regional cities in Slovakia (
Figure 6), it can be concluded that the regional cities allocated a total of EUR 105.13 million for the period between 2017 and 2021. The largest funding for the sports program was recorded in 2021 when it comprised a total package worth EUR 23.99 million. Conversely, the smallest amount of funding went to sports in 2017, specifically EUR 17.60 million. A big drop in the funding of sports programs can also be registered in 2020 when sports funding reached the value of EUR 18.62 million, which was reduced by almost EUR 4 million compared to 2019.
Looking at the percentage shares of individual regional cities (
Figure 7), we can conclude that it is a very balanced financial distribution of the shares of all cities, except for the city of Prešov. The city of Prešov is the only regional city in Slovakia where the value of the sports program funding has not even once exceeded the value of EUR 1 million during the period studied. This problem was also mentioned in the previous research [
39,
41], where the decline of the city’s football club, handball club, and hockey club were also listed. This has partially stabilized in the meantime. The city council of Prešov allocated only EUR 3.41 million to the sports field during the period studied, which represents roughly a 3% share of the total funding of all the regional cities. For comparison, the closest to Prešov is the approximate budget of the city of Košice or Žilina, which allocated EUR 11.54 million and EUR 11.67 million to sports, representing an 11% share. If the largest share is closely examined, specifically the 18% share of the city of Bratislava, the difference would already be at the level of almost EUR 15 million since Bratislava allocated EUR 18.34 million to the sports program.
4.4.2. The Level of the Urban Subsidy Scheme
An important part of the regional cities’ sports financial programs is their subsidy scheme. This can be evaluated as one of the main tools for allocating funds to different types of sports, even the sports that are not clearly a priority for the cities. To this perspective, we can add that up to 22.80% of the funds from the sports program of the regional cities consisted of sports subsidies. Together, these subsidies reached the amount of EUR 23.97 million.
When the years 2020 and 2021 were studied more closely, it was revealed that these years did not bring a noticeable reduction in the provision of subsidies. On the contrary, the cities started new subsidy schemes, which were greatly increased. In this regard, the city of Bratislava can be emphasized, which increased subsidies from the value of EUR 122.96 thousand (2019) to EUR 953.99 thousand (2020). Another such case is the city of Nitra, which went from the value of EUR 572.03 thousand (2019) to the value of EUR 964.15 thousand (2020). A rare case from the opposite side of the spectrum is the city of Trenčín, which dropped from a value of EUR 650.78 thousand (2019) to EUR 180.15 thousand (2020). However, if we are looking for a unique example of the best and most consistent regional city, from the perspective of the amount of funding allocated to sports resulting from subsidies, Banská Bystrica would clearly represent such a city. Although the city came with a certain reduction in funds during the period between 2019 and 2021, it was the only city that had subsidy schemes worth more than EUR 1 million four times in a row. In fact, only Nitra, apart from Banská Bystrica, reached a subsidy value of more than EUR 1 million and that was recorded only once, in 2021. Of course, the value of EUR one million should not be taken as a universal amount representing a magical limit. Rather, it is about the use of this value as a figurative indicator of the development of funds in the entire range of Slovak regional cities.
The factor of the number of subsidies for sports (
Figure 8) was also created for the regional cities from the perspective of the consistency of the whole analysis. In this regard, it can only be stated that the share of approved subsidies stayed at the same values almost every year, i.e., numbers varying around a total number of 770 or more approved subsidies, except for 2020, when the number of approved subsidies was 691. A total of 3801 subsidies were approved during the period studied.
The shared statistics show that the city of Bratislava provides the most subsidies. The city increased this share mainly due to the years of 2020 and 2021 when the number of subsidies reached 176 and 196, respectively. Closely behind the city of Bratislava was the city of Nitra, which regularly provided the largest number of approved subsidies from 2016 to 2019. This fact changed in the examined period 2020/2021 or 2021/2022 when the city of Nitra reduced its subsidy schemes to exactly 69 approved sports projects. The city of Banská Bystrica and the city of Trnava approved a total of 293 and 300 subsidies for sports, respectively. In the case of the city of Trnava, a continuous reduction in the number of approved subsidies occurred, when a decrease from 74 (2017) approved subsidies to 48 approved subsidies (2021) was observed. It is not possible to identify a uniform development for Banská Bystrica, because the course of approved subsidies oscillates considerably, reaching a period of reduction as well as a period when a higher number of approved subsidies was observed. The fact that it is the city that regularly provides the largest package of funds for sports subsidy programs and, on the other hand, also has the smallest number of approved subsidies, points to the fact that there is probably a low diversification of funds in the city towards all sports. Again, the question arises as to whether such subsidy schemes can be considered sufficiently transparent and effective, aiming at supporting the sustainability of the entire system of funding sports support as well as the sustainable operation of individual sports organizations.
4.5. Interviews with Representatives of the Sports Community, HTUs, and the Cities
From the interviews, the characteristics of which were listed in the research methodology, it emerged that most coaches and athletes consider the funding of sports at the local and regional level to be insufficient and ineffective. These are exactly the categories studied while applying this particular method. At the same time, coaches point out that GBR, which are used for funding, are not optimally set and this often affects the possibility of obtaining sports subsidies. Thus, the researched category of administrative and legislative clarity and simplicity were not met by the analyzed results either. These results represent an aggregated form of the insights and information provided by the interviewees during the semi-structured interviews and their in-depth analysis. They were performed to complete the picture already created by the subsidies statistics in the previous sub-chapters results. The opinions of the subjects involved in the sports funding process (on either side) enhance the appropriate story telling of the data acquired, compared, and summarized, while adding another layer of arguments needed for the final assessment of the hypotheses’ validity. This supports the mixed-methods approach applied, as described in the research methodology.
On the other hand, representatives of HTUs and city councils claim that sports are currently supported as much as other fields, and sometimes even more. However, everyone agrees that the crisis period, which the entire economy is currently going through or whose effects are still felt, also affects sports funding. Some of the respondents expressed the opinion that the sports funding is effective only if the clubs are effectively managed and utilize the allocated funds correctly. It can therefore be concluded that the financial security of sports at the local and regional level is currently problematic and there are opinions leading to the conclusion that it is necessary to improve and optimize this funding.
It is also interesting that some athletes and coaches draw attention to the fact that sports funding should be distributed more according to the needs of individual sports and clubs. Most of them claim that the funding is redistributed quite inefficiently and sometimes there are situations where the funds go only to certain sport types or clubs that are politically or otherwise preferred in the given period. This neglects other sports and clubs, which also deserve necessary financial support so that they can operate sustainably and ensure the values they provide for society.
Overall, it can be stated that the findings obtained from the analysis of the conducted interviews show that the financial support of sports at the local and regional levels is not completely satisfactory. Some representatives of the sports field think that the efficiency of the redistribution of funds could be improved to consider the needs of individual sports and clubs. On the other hand, some representatives of local governments and HTUs see sports support as a means for promoting a healthy lifestyle and active leisure time. In any case, it is necessary to find a balanced approach in the future that will consider all relevant factors and the needs of individual sport types and sports organizations.
Assessment of the validity of hypotheses H2 and H3: Similar to the case of the national level, at the regional and the local level, it can be concluded that the funding of sports is not optimally set. It could even be evaluated as ineffective, discriminative to a certain extent, bureaucratic, insufficiently transparent, not unified, and insufficiently financially supported overall.
In this regard, the comparative analysis clearly shows that there is no uniformly set model of funding sports in the case of HTUs or the regional cities themselves. The continuity and interconnectedness of individual funding components at the local or at the regional level is not obvious, which represents a problem for the sports community, especially in planning and supporting the strategic operation of sports at this level. The validity of the established hypotheses was therefore not confirmed. It is to the gradual improvement of this identified state that the entire conducted and presented research is directed. As a final output, specific recommendations for further action are formulated in the next parts of the article for relevant entities involved in setting strategies and policies for public sports funding at all levels of the country’s governance.
To present all the researched categories used in the testing of the validity of all the research hypotheses established,
Table 6 was created. Even though some positive arguments were collected in the research, namely those pertaining to the urban sports funding schemes, the final decision on the hypotheses’ validity was negative. This final result was supported by the negative aspects identified within the public sports funding in relation to all the other categories studied.
To enhance the clarity and understandability of the overall research results,
Figure 9 was created to arrange the results highlights according to the studied levels.
This way the main shortcomings of the public sports funding system in Slovakia were summarized so that they can be compared with the results of other researchers in the following
Section 5. This representation also helped guide the recommendations for achieving sustainability of public sports funding in the future.