On December 11, the administrative district court began to file a claim by the Latvian Golf Federation (LGF) against the Ministry of Education and Science (IZM), which oversees the sports industry.
The main reason for the dispute is the 31,245 euros of state funding granted to the Ministry of Education and Culture for golf in 2025, which is significantly less than the 45,842 euros that the federation received in 2024.
LGF asks the court to recognize the decision as illegal and to cancel it, because in the opinion of the federation, the amount of funding was determined without observing the principles of good management, transparency and equal treatment. Also, LGF states that the decision is probably based on incorrect data that is not agreed with the federation. Data evaluation was carried out by the Council of Sports Federations of Latvia (LSFP), to which the Ministry of Education delegated this function.
LGF president Jānis Trēgers emphasized at the court hearing that the purpose of the litigation is not to collect money, but to shed light on the shortcomings in the distribution of state funding.
Cornerstones of conflict: number of championships and definition of players
One of the main sources of disagreement is the different interpretation of the number of organized competitions and the calculation of the number of golfers.
Competition interpretation: LGF has informed about the organization of 76 Latvian championships or master competitions in 2024. LSFP president Vladimirs Šteinberg stated that, according to LGF data, these 76 events cannot be considered separate competitions in the status of the national championship.
Šteinbergs explained to Latvian Television (LTV): “Looking at that data, we see that there are 15 ladies’ and men’s tours, where each tour is presented as a separate championship. In that case, we would have to count each round of the Latvian Football Premier League championship separately, and then there will be 36 championships, not one championship.” Therefore, from the 76 championships specified by the LGF, the LSFP reduced their number to only seven. Steinberg added that the LGF was not the only federation that interpreted the number of competitions in this way – one of the essential criteria for calculating state funding.
Differences in the number of players
Another bone of contention is the differing numbers of players. LTV previously reported that in the data submitted to the ministry for the year 2023, the LGF had indicated more than 6,000 players, making golf the most popular sport in Latvia in the adult segment. However, at the same time, the federation wrote on its website that a new player record was reached – 1331 golfers.
VIDEO:
The number of participants is a critical criterion in the distribution of money. In 2024, golf received about 23,000 euros more than it should have by submitting the total number of registered players to the ministry, rather than those who actually participated in the competition, and this created a situation where a number of other federations received less funding as a result. A year later, when the evaluation of the data was transferred to LSFP, golf was no longer the most popular sport in Latvia and received much less state funding.
Lack of transparency and the definition of “Athlete”.
LGF president Trägers emphasized at the court hearing that the ministry itself chose the largest number of registered players in 2024 from the two numbers offered by the federation. “You [ministrijā] themselves and not LSFP took registered players that year. We gave you two numbers, explained what is what. How do you explain this inconsistency?” Traeger asked.
Aleksandrs Samoilovs, Director of the Sports Department of the Ministry of Education and Culture, explained that the exact term “athlete” was not sufficiently defined before. “Guidelines were developed. It was explained what the term “athlete” means. This took place at the end of 2024, a seminar was also held, which also explained to all federations what terminology “athlete” will apply to 2025,” explained Samoilov.
Ironically, the definition of an “athlete” – that is, at least 10 years old and who has participated in at least two official competitions within a year – was long ago determined in the documents developed by the LSFP and approved by the Ministry of the Interior, but in 2024 it was either not known or suddenly forgotten by both the LGF and the ministry itself.
Data disclosure of federations
LGF tried to request the documents submitted by the other sports federations for the calculation of state funding and add them to the case materials, but the court did not satisfy this request. Such a desire is not unusual, because, for example, in the neighboring country of Lithuania, all documents submitted by sports federations for receiving state funding are publicly available.
The president of LSFP, Vladimirs Steinberg, would not like the disclosure of the federations’ data to promote unnecessary disputes. “If it’s really for transparency, it’s great, cool, right! But if we want to see those numbers in order to find some small opportunity to touch something and pull a scab, well, that’s not cool. There are enough scabs in sports anyway,” said the LSFP president.
The first-instance verdict in the dispute between LGF and the Ministry of Interior is expected at the end of December. The MIA lawyer, responding to the LGF’s indications of shortcomings, even advised the federation to enlist the help of a professional lawyer next time and file a claim even in the Constitutional Court, instead of the administrative court.
