Half a Million Euros for Climate Protection Through Wrestling: How the EU Funds Absurd NGO Projects

499,950 euros for wrestling matches to combat climate change — no, this is not a joke, but a documented fact. The funding was awarded to the Gambia Wrestling Association under an EU development cooperation programme, as revealed by a recent report from Ngotransparency.eu.

The project, which ran from May 2020 to May 2023, was officially titled:

“Promoting Investments in Culture, Creative Arts and Sports to Enhance Resilience against Climate Change in Local Communities.”

Funded by the European Commission

The initiative was authorised by the European Commission’s Directorate-General for International Partnerships (DEVCO) and financed through the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI), a central EU funding channel for overseas development projects.

According to project documentation, the aim was to strengthen the resilience of local communities against climate change through the promotion of traditional wrestling competitions, a culturally significant sport in The Gambia. The project culminated in the construction of three wrestling arenas, which were paid for by EU taxpayers.

Cultural Resilience or Misallocation?

The “Gambia Wrestling Forum” case illuminates the generosity — or carelessness- of EU funding mechanisms in financing NGO projects that are questionably relevant to their declared development objectives.

Critics argue that cultural investment and community engagement are valid goals, but it remains unclear how traditional wrestling directly contributes to combating climate change. The episode has sparked renewed calls for greater transparency, accountability, and scrutiny in allocating EU development funds.

Broader Context

This project has been highlighted thanks to platforms like Ngotransparency.eu, which track and evaluate how public money is spent under the banner of international aid and sustainability.

With climate change continuing to be a central theme in EU foreign aid policy, this case raises a critical question: Where does meaningful investment end and absurdity begin?