Da something is wrong. The President of the German Olympic Sports Confederation (DOSB) wants to discuss the “fundamental question” again shortly after the summer games in Tokyo with a view to the medal balance of the German team: “What kind of competitive sport we want”, “what it is worth to us”, that is the taxpayer. How did Alfons Hörmann come up with it? The head of the delegation reacted to the countable result of “Team D”: ten gold medals, 16 silver and eleven bronze medals. So few did an all-German team not bring home for decades. Does Hörmann want to change something fundamentally?
Get free access to all articles on FAZ.NET for 30 days with F +.
READ F + NOW
A few months before his self-elected resignation as head of the DOSB, the time for a cultural change under his aegis has expired. Since Hörmann has placed the classic and simple performance principle at the center of his efforts since he took office in 2013, his fundamental question must be a rhetorical one. He always wanted more medals. He got what he asked for. Much more tax money. Funding from the Federal Ministry of the Interior alone has risen from 150 million to 300 in recent years.
In return, Hörmann got involved in a potential analysis system developed jointly with the Ministry of the Interior, which will take effect in summer sports from January 1, 2022. It strengthens the strong and leaves the weak where they stand. In the future, only those who offer a plausible perspective of winning medals will receive full funding. Are there clearer answers to the question of which competitive sport Hörmann has in mind and what this model is worth to the elected representatives?
Getting started in school sports
The goal behind this top-class sports reform is to return from ninth place to the top six in the unofficial nation ranking at the Olympic Games. An honorable claim, if the reason was convincing. So far there is money for gold because an Olympic team represents the efficiency of the Federal Republic. In mechanical engineering? The strength of a society can certainly be reflected in the success of an Olympic selection.
But there will only be an increase if the dusty, politically motivated justification gives way to another justification. How about the approach of offering all talents a development opportunity? That presupposed finally attacking where deficits have been recognizable for decades. For example in school sports. Despite all the evidence for the effect of exercise on children’s development, it is underestimated, seen as the first to be spread, most recently in lockdown. It was again evident how much this society likes to separate the body from the head and ignore the interplay.
It is a myth to believe that children from all levels of education have unhindered access to sport. Not to mention the question of why some sports fail to motivate the offspring of migrants. If you want to start at these points, you need trainers at the grassroots level, who have to be rewarded accordingly. That is hardly the case, although in the best of cases these trainers manage to win people over to exercise for a lifetime. The side effect would be fruitful: more Olympic champions, who in turn inspire children to follow them. We should treat ourselves to that.
.
