The Ministry of Sport and Tourism is under pressure over a report on the Pl brand that drew sharp criticism for errors, odd language and false claims after it was linked to 200 thousand złotych in public spending. Tomasz Terlikowski, writing in WP Opinie, called it a “raport wstydu” and said removing it from ministry pages was not enough.

The money was tied to work described as the broad study “Strategia Marki Polska,” along with research interviews, focus research, Design Thinking workshops, the conference “Przyszłość Marki Polska,” expert workshops, discussion panels and expert help in building the sub-strategy. That makes the spending more than a line item: it was payment for a package of research and promotion work around the national brand, and the question now is who signed off on a document that later came under such heavy fire.

Related News

Laurel Mississippi hotel fire leaves Heirloom opening date in limbo

Anthony Albanese Capital Gains Tax row turns viral as ministers fight back

Big Boss Diamond sinks near Paradise Island with 148 on board, all evacuated

The criticism was not about style alone. The text was said to contain language errors, calques from English and corporate jargon, and it also included the claim that Poland had five Nobel laureates. Phrases such as “tradycyjna chlebowość,” “era FATIGUE KONSUMENCKA” and “SYNDROM IMPOSTORA na POZIOMIE NARODOWYM – Despite RZECZYWISTYCH OSIĄGNIĘĆ” also appeared, giving the report the look of a draft that should never have reached an official seal.

That is where the ministry’s position collides with the spending itself. The ministry said its logo appeared on the report, but it also said it did not commission it, even though it said it paid for the work. Barbara Mróz-Gorgoń, named as the main coordinator and a government plenipotentiary for promoting the Polska brand, said artificial intelligence was used only for transcription, summary and editing, and that it did not shape the research or produce the conclusions. She also said the work followed social-science methodology and was carried out carefully.

For now, the central unanswered question is not whether the report was embarrassing. It is who approved the payment, who accepted the finished document and why public money was spent on a study that the ministry later distanced itself from. Until that is answered, the controversy over the Pl report is not about a bad publication alone; it is about oversight, responsibility and how an official brand strategy can end up looking indefensible on the page.