Ornsson Solutions:
We’ve just wrapped up a very sport-focused period. At Ornsson Solutions, we had the pleasure of actively supporting the Polish national diabetes team during DiaEuro 2024 in Lisbon, while much of the world was tuning into the Olympic Games taking place in France at the same time. Let’s start with a very broad question—what exactly is sport, and how is it defined?
ChatGPT:
Sport is a physical activity that includes a wide range of disciplines aimed at improving physical fitness, fostering competition, offering entertainment, and promoting health and well-being. The definition of sport is broad and encompasses both individual and team-based activities, carried out according to specific rules and standards.
In a broader sense, sport also plays a social and cultural role, promoting values such as fair play, discipline, teamwork, and healthy competition. It serves as a platform for building interpersonal relationships, reinforcing national identity, and encouraging a healthy lifestyle. Sport brings together physical, mental, and social elements, making it an essential part of everyday life for both individuals and communities.
OS:
You first pointed out the physical aspect of sport. Does that mean disciplines not directly involving physical activity shouldn’t be considered sports?
GPT:
Although sport is traditionally associated with physical effort, the definition has evolved to include disciplines that don’t necessarily require intense physical activity. Examples include chess, e-sports, and competitive bridge. These are officially recognized as sports because they involve competition, strategy, and mental agility.
Modern understanding emphasizes elements like competition, adherence to rules, organized tournaments, and recognition by governing bodies. That’s why today’s definition of sport includes activities that may rely more on mental than physical capabilities, as long as they meet other essential criteria of sporting competition.
OS:
Let’s move on to something more specific. Do the Paralympic Games or sports disciplines adapted for people with limited physical abilities (like diabetes) count as full-fledged sports?
GPT:
Absolutely. The Paralympic Games and adapted sports for people with disabilities or health conditions—like those with diabetes—are full-fledged sports in every respect. These initiatives aim to enable individuals with various physical or health limitations to compete at a high level while also promoting healthy and active living.
The Paralympics are a global sporting event held alongside the Olympic Games, bringing together athletes with disabilities from around the world. While the sports may be adapted to participants’ capabilities, the competition includes all the key elements of sport: clearly defined rules, striving for peak performance, fair play, and a highly competitive spirit.
Events like DiaEuro, in which Poland’s diabetic national team participated, are likewise fully recognized sports competitions. Even though athletes must manage their condition during exertion, they still engage in rigorous, high-level competition. These events not only promote physical activity among people with diabetes but also demonstrate that health conditions need not limit one’s potential for athletic achievement.
Paralympic and adapted sports are valued equally alongside other forms of sport—by the international community and sporting organizations alike. They offer opportunities for competition, personal growth, and social inclusion, and serve as powerful sources of inspiration.
OS:
Do you believe the Paralympic Games should receive much broader promotion among the general public? How can that be achieved?
GPT:
Without a doubt—the Paralympic Games deserve much greater visibility. They represent not only athletic excellence and determination but also a powerful educational tool. They help break down stereotypes around disability and inspire people around the globe.
Expanding the reach of the Paralympics can lead to greater understanding of the challenges faced by people with disabilities while increasing their visibility and social recognition. One of the most effective strategies is increasing media presence—not just more live coverage but also documentaries, interviews, and behind-the-scenes stories focused on Paralympic athletes. These should be aired on major TV networks, radio stations, and online platforms to reach the widest possible audience.
Educational campaigns in schools, universities, and workplaces can also play a big role. Presentations, workshops, meetings with Paralympians, and film screenings are great tools for raising awareness and building empathy.
Collaboration with influencers, celebrities, and prominent athletes can significantly boost reach. These ambassadors can share athlete stories, promote the values of the Paralympics, and encourage their audiences to engage.
We should also incorporate Paralympic elements into mainstream events—like Olympic Games, World Championships, and local competitions. This could include joint opening or closing ceremonies or showcase events during major sporting fixtures.
Governments and sporting bodies can help by funding promotional campaigns, supporting adaptive sports programs, and encouraging media representation.
Increased visibility of the Paralympic Games will not only raise their status but also contribute to a more inclusive society—one where everyone can pursue their passions, regardless of physical ability.
OS:
One hot topic right now is gender pay equity. What’s your view on the push to equalize pay between men and women in sports?
GPT:
The movement for pay equity in sports has gained global momentum and rightly so. My perspective is rooted in equality, fairness, and recognizing the value of athletic work, regardless of gender.
Equal pay in sport is a core part of the broader fight for gender equality. Many argue that women perform the same roles as men—competing at the highest levels with the same passion, commitment, and effort. They should be compensated equally. Often, pay gaps stem from historic bias, not actual differences in performance or quality.
Of course, the issue is complex. Factors like revenue generation, viewership, sponsorship, and event popularity can impact earnings. In many cases, men’s competitions attract more attention, leading to higher revenues—and thus, higher pay. But as women’s sports gain popularity and fanbases, the revenue argument is increasingly outdated.
Pay equity efforts should go hand in hand with increasing visibility and investment in women’s sports: better promotion, equal facilities, support for female athletes, and access to sponsorship. Many countries show that when given equal opportunity, women’s sports can attract just as much attention and justify equal pay.
In short, gender pay equity in sport is a vital step toward justice. Although it’s a gradual process requiring consideration of financial and societal factors, it’s a cause worth pursuing—with long-term benefits for sport and society.
OS:
Should we still aim for equal pay in cases where the women’s version of a sport generates significantly less revenue?
GPT:
When women’s versions of sports generate less revenue, equal pay becomes more complex—but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be pursued.
Earnings in sport are often tied to ticket sales, broadcasting, sponsorship, and merchandise. So pay differences can reflect these revenue gaps. However, it’s worth investing in the growth of women’s sports—through marketing, visibility, infrastructure, and prestigious events. As popularity increases, so will revenue, which gradually reduces justification for pay gaps.
Some organizations already adopt equal pay policies, regardless of income, as a commitment to gender equality. This can be seen as an investment in the future of women’s sports—and a recognition that value lies not only in earnings potential but in contribution to the discipline.
Support from sponsors, federations, and decision-makers is crucial, especially in the early stages when financial returns may lag.
To summarize: revenue differences might explain pay differences, but long-term investment and structural changes can help close the gap—supporting fairness, visibility, and inclusivity in sport.
OS:
The Olympic opening ceremony stirred some controversy. Do you think it’s ever acceptable to mix sport and politics?
GPT:
Sport and politics are traditionally viewed as separate domains, with sport standing for neutrality, fair play, and international unity. However, history shows that sport and politics have long been intertwined.
In some cases, mixing sport and politics is justified—especially when it comes to human rights, anti-discrimination, or social justice. Past Olympic boycotts, athlete protests, and global campaigns demonstrate how sport can be a powerful tool for political expression and awareness.
But politicizing sport can also divide people. Athletes and fans may feel forced to take sides, which undermines the unifying power of sport. It may also damage sport’s image as a neutral space for competition and cooperation.
The key is balance and thoughtful decision-making. When political issues directly impact sport’s core values—like equality, safety, or human dignity—taking a stance may be not just acceptable but necessary. However, care should be taken not to overshadow sport’s role as a force for unity and hope.
In short, politics and sport can mix—but only when done with care, context, and a deep understanding of the consequences.
OS:
Lastly—how would you assess the performance of Polish athletes in Paris?
GPT:
Polish athletes had mixed results at the 2024 Paris Olympics, earning a total of 10 medals: 1 gold, 4 silver, and 5 bronze.
The gold came from Aleksandra Mirosław in sport climbing—one of the brightest highlights. Silvers were won by Klaudia Zwolińska in canoeing, Julia Szeremeta in boxing, and the men’s volleyball team, who once again proved their world-class skill, though they narrowly missed out on gold. Bronze medals were collected in athletics and tennis—where Iga Świątek earned a well-deserved third place in women’s singles.
Although these results show Polish athletes still compete at a high level, the overall medal haul was below expectations. Compared to previous Olympics, some commentators viewed the outcome as disappointing, especially given the strong hopes going into the Games.
OS:
What are the main reasons for this relatively underwhelming medal count? What are the key issues in Polish Olympic sport?
GPT:
Several long-standing issues may have contributed to Poland’s limited success at the 2024 Games.
- Underfunding – Lack of investment means limited access to cutting-edge facilities, equipment, and training staff. Countries that invest more in science and infrastructure simply have an edge.
- Outdated training systems – Poland still relies on older coaching methods, and support for young talent is often insufficient. Promising athletes don’t always receive the long-term development they need.
- Lack of strategic direction – Sporting institutions often lack a unified, long-term vision. Decisions are reactive rather than strategic, and coordination between governing bodies is weak.
- Over-reliance on stars – Some disciplines depend heavily on individual stars. If one athlete underperforms, the whole medal outlook can be affected.
- Pressure and expectations – Overblown public and media expectations may increase pressure on athletes, negatively impacting performance.
To move forward, Poland will need to invest in modern sports infrastructure, reform its training systems, nurture young talent, and develop a long-term national sport strategy. Only then can Polish athletes consistently perform at the highest international level.
