The costs have invested until now for an illustrious event now reach the top; while that’s true there was time enough to prepare for them, therefore the original budget – right at the beginnings – proved untenable.

Why is this information interesting? Especially in the light of that, that each and all errors, deficiencies and the consequent seemingly inevitable scandal did not or just barely exceed the pragmatic threshold of the general public in Hungary.

Not as it did by one of the readers of CIVILHETES – daily Internet newspaper in Hungary – who found himself in a rather uncomfortable position at the time of the announcement of the name of the Danube Aréna – thanks to the recent years practice of the government of Hungary – the essence of which is:

"If something is good, it must be obtained at any cost."

Here too it happened.

Our reader contacted with us with his letter of complaint in March to this year.

As it turned out, Mr. Gustáv Oláh – the author of the name and logo idea Duna Aréna – in February of the year 2015 – at the beginning of the organization of the FINA 2017 event - when he announced the intention to rebuild the earlier pool so called „Dagály Swimming Pool”, he sent his own idea to all persons which one of them he considered competent for decision in the deal.

At first he sent his idea and graphic-plan to the architect-designer, then to the head of the construction company and finally - after a long search for the contact dates – to the government commissioner, Dr. Balázs Fürjes.

The idea – now officially the name of the swimming pool complex – the central venue of the Swimming World Cup – was the name and the logo of the Duna Aréna; the two dolphins – reminding for the colors of the Hungarian national flag and the graphic artwork of the name idea: DUNA ARÉNA.

Here are the submitted name and graphics of idea owner:

From the government commissioner he did not receive any response for his offer until March of 2017. In July 2015 he asked by E-mail János Lázár the chancellor of ministries as the assumed superior of Dr. Balázs Fürjes about the fate of his idea. He did not receive any answers either.

So the case could have even ended.

The creator’s surprise was the biggest, when it turned out that the decided official  name of the renovated building has been the basis of a public announcement called the DUNA ARÉNA.

This is how – apparently – a complaint has been sent to the event HQ – to the owner of the event, the Fédération Internationale de Natation the FINA's Representation in Hungary MÚSZ – in 2017 – to the Hungarian Swimming Federation, who informed Mr. Balázs Fürjes, Government Commissioner about his inquiries.

Dr. Balázs Fürjes instructed the CEO of the Non-Profit Ltd. of the Major Government Investments Center, Dr. László Mihályfi to contact the real owner.of the idea.

Following the personal discussion of their two upon a pleasant negotiation atmosphere and then, after their verbal agreement, a few days after the meeting – the idea owner in writing – offered an alternative „name usage fee proposal” to Dr. László Mihályfi, KKBK Chief Executive Officer, acting as the legal representative of commissioner via his lawyer's countersign.

Dr. László Mihályfi seemed ready for compromise during their personal meeting - as the authorised representative of the government commissioner. The name usage fee proposal offer - however - has not been answered for months!

Finally, in May of this year, the owner of the idea requested an urging letter to the KKBK’s CEO, - acting on behalf of the government commissioner (Dr. László Mihályfi) – to respond for his name usage fee proposal.

Dr. László Mihályfi denied the request of the owner of the idea for any kind of format for name usage fee instead of the earlier expressed friendlier and compromise-ready attitude during their personal meeting – in March 2017 – in a response of sobering, deliberate, telling, arrogant, somewhat threatening,

For us however it is not necessarily understandable that if – as Mr. Oláh claims – he can prove by his correspondence that the name and logo are his primary contract for the payment of a consensual name usage fee, Why would not there be any remedies, whether or not the name and the logo were protected during the precedent?

It is all the more embarrassing, because if the case is brought in front of an international court, anyone who has ’nodded’ that he instructed the usage of the name of the DUNA ARÉNA (Danube Arena) without having to pay for it for the creator of the idea, would sooner or later have to answer for very unpleasant questions.