SPORT 1913 - 2013

Table 5. The annual budget of the CSIT member organizations (N=20) in millions of euro with the country at the end of 2010 with ranking order (RO) (Olin 2012).

Estonian JOUD (0.320 million euro), the Mex- ican INDET (0.290 million euro), the Tunisian ONCST (0.240 million euro), the Belgian AF- STB (0.220 million euro), the Russian MKSO (0.200million euro), the Romanian CSE (0.050 million euro), the Algerian FAST (0.040 mil- lion euro) and the Bulgarian BWSU (0.010 mil- lion euro) remained remarkably smaller than the above listed budgets. (See Table 5.) By and large, there are reasons to state that the differences between annual budgets of the CSIT member organizations are quite big. One could even argue that within the CSIT family there are rich and poor members if the assets of the organizations are counted on bas- es of their annual budgets. But as written above, the size of the budget is related to the number of individual members as well as the volume of the action programs of the sport or- ganizations. Thus the differences are certainly connected with the number of sport branches the organizations are carrying out. The more they have, say, team sports in their programs, the more they need money for the purpose. It is necessary to state that comparisons between the 1990 budgets and the 2010 budgets could not be made because only 11 unions answered to this item in 1990 and they were not neces- sary the same member unions which gave an- swers in 2010. When it comes to an estimated structure of the income finance, 17 member organiza- tions could be divided into three categories (table 6). The first category consists of the or- ganizations which received a very big percent-

age – that is, from 70 to over 90 percentage of their annual turnover – from the public sector. This means the financial aid from the state and/or the municipalities. Because the focus of the interest was on national federations, the municipal financial support should not have any bigger role to play at all. The Danish DAI (90 %), The Algerian FAST (90 %), The Austrian ASKÖ (85 %), the Finnish TUL (75 %), the Israeli HAPOEL (75 %), Estonian JOUD (71 %) and the Belgian FROS (70 %) belonged to the first category and they got the biggest percentage of support from the state/public sector. The Belgian AFSTB got 59 percentage of its income finance also from the public sector. The second category could consist of the organizations (the Italian ACSI 35 %, the AICS 32 % and the UISP 30 % and the Bulgarian BWSF 30 %) which received roughly one third of their income finance from the state, another third from the membership fees and then the rest from their own business and other sources. (See Table 6, page 123.) The third category consists of five mem- ber unions. They received only around 10 per cent of their income from the public sector and around two thirds from the membership fees: the Swiss SATUS, the Dutch NCS, the French FSGT, the Tunisian ONCST and the Ro- manian CSE. Worthwhile to notice is that the membership fees even contributed to 93 per cent of the income of the Tunisian ONCST. From the point of view of voluntary so- cial movements, it is acceptable that the state

Country

Member Millions of Euro

RO

Israel

HAPOEL 10.000 1.

Italy

UISP ASKÖ AICS FSGT TUL ACSI

8.000 2. 8.000 2. 4.800 4.

Austria

Italy

France Finland

3.910

5.

2.200 6.

Italy

2.070 1.100

7. 8.

Belgium FROS

Denmark Bulgaria

DAI

1.000 9. 0.580 10. 0.450 11. 0.350 12. 0.320 13. 0.290 14. 0.240 15. 0.220 16. 0.200 17. 0.050 18. 0.040 19. 0.010 20.

BWFS

Netherlands NCS

Switzerland

SATUS

Estonia Mexico Tunisia

JOUD

INDET ONCST

Belgium AFSTB

Russia

MKSO 1)

Romania Algeria Bulgaria

CSE

FAST BWSU

Total

43.830

1) Data from Rogatin (2012).

122