The Struggle for a Sports Life

As indicated below, sport management was not adopted in the former socialist countries until a few years ago. Before the change of regime, western management theories could not find their way into the organizational systems of sport either. What were the reasons? We can simply say that they were not needed. In all socialist countries, physical education and sport played a significant role. Within them, competitive sport was of outstanding importance owing to its political representational function outstanding sports achievements were identified with the success of the socialist system, and in some countries - including Hungary - the sports success was used to restore the nation's self-respect lost in World War II. In the political representational function of sport has not lost its importance since the change of regime.

Sport was always considered a significant social issue and so was dealt with by the state. Popular sport was declared to be free but in prac­tice that meant that the money to be spent on sport was not included in the salaries (the same applied to medical treatment and education). Sport facilities were provided by the state and not by the enterprise sector. This caused serious problems after the change of regime when the state withdrew from the financing of sport. The state no longer wanted to support sport and the economic sector was not yet prepared to do so. The transition from state control and financing to operation in market economy is a hard process. Under the new circumstances it was imperative to adopt management and sports management systems.

In all socialist countries sport was managed under direct or indirect party control and the involvement of the state and other control organizations was regulated officially.

In addition to the many similarities, there were also differences in the various sports structures. The regular structuring of sports management in some countries such as in Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary implied that the sports management organized according to the Soviet pattern did not fit into the particular conditions. So these countries tried to find the proper form of operation.

In the East-European countries sports management had three basic modes

1) State controlled sports management the system of central control is set up along the same lines as the other state organizations. Central control is exercised by the national sports office and enforced through the local administrative sports organizations, the boards and managers of which are appointed and not elected.

Alongside them, social organizations also operate under central control.

The system is characterized by double control enforced through the regional/local state organ (e.g. district or country councils) and through the sports organization of the state organ (sports department of the councils).

This model was characteristic for the Soviet Union, Poland and Rumania. In all three countries the central sports management organ was ordered under the direct control of the Council of Ministers. In the Soviet Union the co-operation of the co organization was not voluntary but ruled by the state. In Poland and Rumania the national sports federations could operate fairly independently. In Rumania some sports clubs were given priority and enjoyed extra support by the state for champion training.

2) Social (mass organizational) sports management Physical education and sport are not directly controlled by the state but considered as a social task. The sports organization is an independent social organization; its board and managers are elected. It cooperates with the central or regional state organizations and other organizations under separate agreements.

This model was characteristic for the sports management of Czechoslovakia. The central sports management organ was not directly controlled by the Council of Ministers or by the party. The sports clubs were also independent.

3) Mixed sports management the state and social sports management organizations operate parallel. The state organizations have the tasks of planning, financing, investing and coordinating, while the social organizations manage and control the actual sports activities.

This model was characteristic for the sports management structure of Bulgaria and East Germany. In both countries the central sports management organ was under the control of the Council of Ministers, the president of the sports management organ in Bulgaria was member of the Cabinet. In Bulgaria the social sports management organization operated in the form of association, its sub organizations were the national sports federations, the latter being subordinated. In East Germany the social organization involved in the sports management was also an association but directly controlled by the party, and the national sports federations were subordinated to the social sports management organization. Here the sports clubs were controlled centrally and some of them were preferred (as in Hungary).

There are no clear models in practice; they can only be defined on the basis of the dominant features. Certain differences are also shown in the same model as to the independence of the sports clubs, the structural levels and the role of co organizations etc.

All the models show the central control of sport and the dominance of social activity at the level of execution (sports clubs).

How long has it been since we can tallk about sport management in East-Europe? Well, management is pretty new in the field of sport, it has launched at the end of the 80ies. The former economic system in East-European countries gives the reasons for this occurrence.

In the socialist regime, sport had no financial resources of its own. It was financed by the government through various channels, such as the central budget, local council budgets, state-owned business organizations and tax preferences. As it is well known, he who gives money can give rules. Sport was organized by the central sport office and controlled by the government.

If we claim, that management is the process of 1) setting goals and aims, 2) arranging for financial, human and physical resources and 3) achieving desired results through efficient utilisation of resources, there was no management before the change of regime as it really was.

The system, where the expenditure of companies for sports played the role of the extended hand of the state support, practically ceased to operate by the end of the 80ies, the change of the system. The political and economic restructuring in the recent years has brought about radical changes in sport as well. A new type state administration structure took shape, and with this, the old sports organization model on centralized government control ceased to function. The shift to market-oriented economy fundamentally affected the system of sport financing this rapid change has put sport in an awkward position. Nowadays sport has to raise its own fund, so people who are involved in sport feel the need of management.

The first organizations specialized for sport appeared in the second half of the last century; they were sports circles established for specific sports activities, then sports clubs and sections specialized in certain sport, and later these were controlled by the federations. These organizations covered the society's sports activities, and until the turn of the century the Ministry of Religion and Education exercised "loose" control over the sports organizations.

At that time there were no signs of over regulated bureaucratic organizational systems, which are characteristic of these days and the past decades. It is in the nature of sport - competition of individuals or teams according to set rules - that organizations are required to determine the rules of sport, to coordinate the activities of sports circles, sections and clubs, also to frame the general rules of their operation upon mutual interest as well as to impartially reconcile their disputes. To satisfy these requirements and expectations sports federations were established in succession. In certain cases it was reasonable and efficient to involve more than one sport in a national federation. E.g. the Hungarian Athletics Federation operated the sections of weightlifting, wrestling and fencing as well from its foundation in 1897 to 1913 and from 1930 a basketball committee was set up in the federation.

The increasing social importance of physical education and sport, the expansion of sport to international level and the necessity of coordination of the different sports branches brought about the National Council of Physical Education in 1913 as a consulting board of the Ministry of Religion and Education. The Council's tasks were to supervise physical education and sport at school, to harmonise the sports policy of the sports circles, clubs, sections and federations, and - last but not least - to make proposals for the allocations of central government support destined for physical education and sport.

Though there were smaller organizational changes, the Council coordinated in fact the organizations specialized for physical education and sport until 1945.

Since the political change in 1945 the organizations controlling physical education and sport in Hungary have constantly been restructured - even in these days. The main stages of reorganization were as follows:

After 1945 the first, relatively stable supreme organ of the Hungarian sport was the National Sports Office established by a government decree on 5th March 1948. The government decree stated that the organizing, controlling and developing of physical education and sport in Hungary should belong to the competence of the Minister of Religion and Education, and to perform these tasks a sports office of national authority should be set up and managed by a secretary of state under the control of the ministry. The setting up of the office was preceded by protracted debates, which was due to the chaotic post-war conditions. According to the report titled The New Organization of the Hungarian Sport and Sports Administration written by Mr Gy. Hegyi in 1948 the foundations of the democratic physical education and sport were laid by the Supreme Sports Council, which soon established the National Sports Committee. Pursuant to a government decree passed in March 1946 the Minister of Religion and Education was entrusted to control and develop physical education and sport as well as to organise - under the Department of Physical Education - the sports authorities, namely The Sports Supreme Council, The Hungarian Olympic Commit­tee and The National Council of Sports Physicians. Mr Hegyi's report says that the significant difference between the National Council of Physical Education of the Horthy regime and the present National Sports Committee lies in that the former had appointed members, whereas now - true to the principles of democracy - the affairs of sport are managed by the self-government elected by the sporting people.

The most striking failure of these outdated organs was that they gave absolute preference to the progress of qualitative sport, excluding the people from the benefit of physical education and sport.

And here appeared the disbelief that the supreme administrative organ of the Hungarian sport with its organizational system should be capable of totally controlling the Hungarian physical education and sport and also providing for each sector of sport (mass and top sport, physical education and sport at school). The above mentioned report pointed out the importance of the Hungarian Communist Party's sports programme published on 23rd March 1947, shortly after the national elections. The programme urged the setting up of the National Sports Office to be the supreme administrative organ of the Hungarian sport. The Office operating under the control of the Ministry of Religion and Education declared its totalitarian sports policy and controlled the Hungarian physical education and sport until the end of 1950.

The National Physical Education and Sports Committee was established in 1951 as an independent administrative body, operating its local organizations at the executive committees of the local councils. The period between 1951 and 1958 when the National Physical Education and Sports Committee operated is called the golden age of the Hungarian sport. In our opinion, however, it was only the golden age of top and competitive sport since the mass sport - which means recreational or leisure sport - as well as physical education and sport at school fell behind the level of top sport. The remarkable success of the top athletes at the Helsinki Olympic Games and at the world and European championships had nothing to do with physical education at school because it was of terribly low level with two training classes a week. The same referred to the student competitions, which did not even reach the pre-war level. It was also an illusion that the popular and village spartachiades organized by trade unions and other popular sports movements of low standard would promote the top sport. The top sport achievements of the 50s were based on the financial sacrifice of the society and the state, which directly supported top sport. The sport success was motivated by political prestige to prove the justification of the socialist-communist society and its superiority.

While western countries were engaged in reconstructing wartime damage and building up the economy and the infrastructure, this spending their financial and intellectual property on restoration, the eastern countries, on the other hand, produced sham results, preferred shallow fields of division of labour like top sport and tried to hide the deficiencies and defects by half-measures, partial alterations and pretended reorganizations.

These statements characterized, of course, not only the sports policy of the 50s with its concentration on top sport. The National Office for Physical Education and Sport in its internal proposal of 1992 for the restructuring of the Office states that The Hungarian sports life has always concentrated on the competitive sport from the very beginning in the last century because the sports achievements have been the only way to excel under the political pressure of dualism, Trianon and socialism. We arrived at the same conclusion in our study made for the Sports Development Subcommittee of the European Council on behalf of National Office for Physical Education and Sport; in our study we analysed sport divided into competitive, recreational and school sport in this succession of priority. In West Europe or in the western world sport has quite a different meaning.

My fellow author, Mr Lszl Laki writes in his study titled The Economic Impact of Sport in Hungary that The Hungarian particularities cannot be understood by examining sport in itself nor can they be deduced from the national and international progress of the sports movements since the end of the last century, it is also required to be familiar with Hungary's history of this century. I fully agree with Mr Laki's argument, according to which the different historical periods (the Monarchy, then its collapse, the period following the Trianon Peace Treaty, the inter war years, the peace treaty after World War II, almost half a century under Soviet rule and finally the change of regime) fundamentally determined the relation of Hungarian sport, especially top sport to the prevailing policy, power, economic and ideological factors. We do not deny the sport loving character of the Hungarian people what naturally contributes to the top sport achievements and the success at the Olympic Games, but statements like "we are a sporting nation" or "an equestrian people" or "a healthy nation" are mere demagogy which has nothing to do with our top sport achievements. What really counts is that the prevailing policy always realized the extremely powerful and representative function of top sport and used it under different circumstances and for different purposes.

Mr Ferenc Kemny did pioneer work in organizing Hungary's participation in the Olympic Games but his efforts must have been strengthened by the political-ideological climate of separation from the Monarchy. In the period after the Trianon Peace Treaty the politicians gave top sport a prominent role in the restoration of national consciousness and national self-respect. With the sports achievements the autocratic elite of the 50s wanted to prove to the world the superiority of socialism, which actually turned out to be a complete failure. Since competitive sport, top sport always had significant political importance; it was given considerable financial support by the state in each period of the history of sport (the extent of support varied but the greatest support came from the socialist governments throughout forty years). This is the main reason of why sport was always qualified as a successful sector. And so grew the legend "Hungary is a small country, but a great power in sport". It is obvious that top sport and the organization systems specialized for it have a significant role in the sports policy and in the policy in general of other countries of much higher living standards, but the great difference is that in rich countries top sport offers entertainment for the well-to-do citizens having sufficient leisure time, while in poor countries it serves as a substitute activity for the exhausted population and functions like panem et circenses.

After the period of the National Physical Education and Sports Committee Hungarian sport was characterized by regular restructuring up to the recent time

In 1958 The Hungarian Physical Education and Sports Council was set up;

In 1963 The Hungarian Physical Education and Sports Association was establish­ed and restructured twice under the same name (in 1968 it was transformed from a mass organization into an association of sports clubs);

In 1973 the National Office for Physical Education and Sport was established and also restructured by a resolution of the Political Committee in 1984;

In 1986 the National Youth and Sports Office was established with the amalgamation of the National Youth Committee and the National Office for Physical Education and Sport.

The National Youth and Sports Office was reorganized in a way that it was involved in the Ministry of Culture and Education as National Sports Office as of 1st July 1989;

In 1990 after restructuring the National Office for Physical Education and Sport was founded;

In 1991 the Office was put under direct control of the government.

It appears from the above historical review that the organizational system of the Hungarian physical education and sport underwent regular restructuring in every four or five years.

It is a wrong organizational theory to intervene into an organization with such regularity because the members and employees of the organization can only work efficiently and identify themselves with the organization's objectives if they feel secure and their activity has prospects.

Moreover, these restructurings did not usually have real social motives, which would otherwise be essential when a large public organization is transformed. In most of the above cases the restructuring was not motivated by definite objectives and duties based on social expectations but by the intention of creating new posts and control positions (which was connected with the change of name) and by the declaration of new principles to hide the real social motives. A professional and scientific analysis of the social requirements and the real functions of physical education and sport would have been required to carry out an efficient restructuring.

In our opinion the supreme administrative organ and the entire organizational system of the Hungarian PE and sport need to be reformed. First of all an in-depth analysis is required to survey the social requirements and after that to define the basic and partial functions of each sector of sport and physical education and upon the gathered information to set up the system of objectives and tasks. Following this the entire organizational system should be adjusted to it in a way that first the needs of the sports sections, clubs and federations performing the actual sports activities should be surveyed together with their organizational requirements so that the proper managing and control organization system can be established.

It is essential to properly separate the major sectors of sport and physical education (competitive and top sport, recreational or leisure sport and physical education as well as sport and physical education at school) and to define their real social functions, which is necessary to form the organizational system that is best fitting to these functions.

It is also indispensable to upgrade the financing system of physical education and sport with the aim of setting up a support system adjusted to the realities. Each major sports sector should be separated and within this, differences should be made in determining the amount of support given by the central and local government, by surveying the self-supporting, self-financing capacity of each field.

The major contradictions lie in the financing system since from the 50ies it has always been declared that all sports sectors (school, mass and top sport) shall be supported but with the limited funds available top sport has been given absolute priority to use up the state grants, indirectly the corporate resources and to benefit from the informal, patronizing channels.

It would be advisable to subdivide the sports administration. Top sport in respect of the Olympic sports could be controlled by the Hungarian Olympic Committee on the basis of the Hungarian sports traditions focusing on the Olympics. physical education and sport at school should naturally remain under the control of the Ministry of Culture and Education. Nevertheless, as co-organization the sports federations - rather than the National Office for Physical Education and Sport or the Hungarian School Sports Federation - should be involved in organizing the student competitions. Recreational and leisure sport should be coordinated and controlled by the National Office for Physical Education and Sport, also managing non-Olympic top sport.

The three major sports sectors cannot be separated rigidly; there must be some overlapping and transition, too. The supreme administrative organizations (the Hungarian Olympic Commit­tee, National Office for Physical Education and Sport and the Ministry of Culture and Education) each controlling one of the three major sports sectors may have joint tasks when exercising their functions. Therefore, to harmonize their control functions an expert organization should be established (e.g. National Sports Council) and this impartial organ would pass and control major sports political decisions.

The above ideas are mere hypothesis as no coherent and in-depth survey and analysis of the organizational system of the Hungarian sport and physical education has been made since 1945, even the studies made by sociological approach since the 70ies have been neglected.

As for the medium control organizations, since World War II there have been regional sports control organizations of significant authority set between the supreme administrative organizations and the sports federations, clubs and sections performing the actual sports activities. In the past forty years the system of regional control organizations was set up according to the local administrative (council) system. After the change of regime and pursuant to the Law on Municipalities the local governments have been involved in the regional/local control system of sport.

Sport being a service to satisfy social requirements must have an important role in self-governments. Therefore, the sports directorates - the extended hands of the National Office for Physical Education and Sport - should perform co­ordinating functions. There are conflicts and debates between the sports directorates and the county or city municipalities. After the change of regime the parliamentary and government system was restructured with amazing speed, however, the transformation of the regional­ and local institutional system has not been completed yet. We can still find traces of the official machinery of the former council system. A new attitude, determined planning and reasonable objectives are required for radical changes.