When sport is more than just a game

Two MEPs discuss sport.

Ivo Belet

Going beyond the view of sport as an economic activity was at the core of the Belet report, which was adopted with an overwhelming majority by the European Parliament. Although its focus was on football, many of its concerns have wider implications than football alone and many of the report’s recommendations have a broader perspective.

The Parliament attaches great importance to the societal importance of football and sport in general and to the duty that politicians have as a result to take into account the specificity of sport when applying EU rules. EU laws (on competition and free movement) cannot be applied in the same way to sports clubs as they are applied to the food or steel industry. Sport is a specific sector, requiring a specific approach. While it is not easy to develop such a European set of rules for sport, things are starting to move slowly in the right direction.

The European Commission has now recognised the need for a specific approach for sport. But while the white paper undoubtedly contains positive elements, it does not give satisfactory answers to the questions raised by the Parliament and the sport sector. Afraid to antagonise those who promote the free market, the Com-mission does not draw the logical conclu-sion that the rules on the internal market and competition cannot be applied to sport in the same way as to other sectors.

It is very encouraging that the Commission, after a long period of non-committal statements, is finally taking a clear and positive stance on the ‘home-grown rule’ (ie, sport organisations can require teams to have a minimum number of locally trained players). This is an element the Parliament is adamant about as talented players now often lack opportunities because, instead of investing in expensive training, clubs simply buy comparatively cheap players from abroad. Also, the Commission is announcing that it will increase its efforts in the fight against racism and violence and the use of doping. In both fields, European co-ordination and eventually regulation will benefit both athletes and fans. We hope that the suggestions from the Commission to open community programmes and funds for social-inclusion projects through sport will bear fruit.

While these are all elements from which European sports will greatly benefit, the white paper still has a number of shortcomings. With the Belet report, the Parliament clearly wanted to go further than the Commission. The Parliament asked, for example, for clear rules on players’ agents, but the Commission is only carrying out a study: a missed opportunity, especially since football recently suffered from a number of scandals about players’ agents. A thorough spring-clean would definitely improve football’s reputation.

It is also regrettable that the Commission does not speak out more clearly in favour of greater solidarity in sport. On the sale of television rights the Parliament is asking for a much clearer signal. The financial race that increases the gap between the large, rich clubs and smaller, not so wealthy ones needs to stop. This can only be done by opting for the collective selling of TV rights.

The fact that the Commission has published a white paper on sport is in itself an important signal and a step in the direction of a more balanced approach to sport. As European policymakers we should not leave it at that, however. I hope that the new reform treaty, which contains an explicit paragraph on sports, will provide us with a new chance to realise further steps which can lead to more balanced competition, better-run clubs, a better distribution of wealth between clubs, more transparency and above all more fair play in the field of sport. Sports fans do not want to see their sports ruined by pure commercial interests. They want a fair and exciting competition.

• Belgian centre-right (EPP-ED) MEP Ivo Belet drafted the Parliament’s report on the future of professional football in Europe.

Toine Manders

When talking about sport within the context of the European Union, it is very important to make a clear distinction between amateur sport and professional sport. In addition, it should be realised that most sports do not cause many problems with EU law. Professional football is a wholly different story. Incompatibility between the rules of football’s governing bodies UEFA and FIFA on the one hand and EU social and competition laws on the other is more likely to occur in this branch of sport because of its international dimension and considerable financial importance.

It is very important to bring an end to the myth that the Nice declaration on sport concerns professional sport and exempts this area from EU rules, quite apart from the fact that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has made it quite clear that professional football is subject to EU law.

It is somewhat strange that I was ridiculed when I drew attention to the particular situation of professional sport some years ago. Over and over again I was told that I was trying to kill football and aiming to change football rules - on the pitch - drastically. This of course did not reflect my intention at the time I raised the issue. I do not argue that the EU has anything to do with the rules concerning sporting matters. But it is up to the EU to uphold its own rules. It is a good signal that more and more people realise that creating legal certainty through the European Commission, Council of Ministers and European Parliament is a better way forward than leaving it up to the judges of ECJ in Luxembourg to decide on the future of professional sport in Europe.

The legal uncertainty comes from UEFA and FIFA, which see themselves as the government of football - based in Switzerland, able to act wholly independently and creating rules that are incompatible with EU social rules and competition rules. They ban their members from going to any court other than their own, breaching common principles of our judicial systems. Football is big business and commercial practices should be subject to competition law and rules for state aid. In the past, taxpayers’ money has been used to help clubs which generate billions of euros annually, but which get into trouble because they pay their players enormous salaries. This distorts the competition for clubs which do not get such support from their (local) governments.

Having read the recently published white paper on sport, I do think that the efforts of the Commission in the field of amateur sport are laudable, but the real questions concerning professional sport are not answered. It remains too vague on essential matters such as legal certainty. I see three ways forward: the Commission remains inactive, we create a block exemption for professional sport from EU laws, or we create a set of rules especially for professional sport in a stakeholder dialogue to bring an end to the legal uncertainty, so that the ECJ can stick to interpreting the law instead of making it.

I would prefer the last option and could live with the second. Unfortunately the Commission seems to have chosen the first option. Nevertheless it is a good sign that the Commission is focusing on independent sources such as the fact-based study on professional sports from Parliament’s internal market committee rather than the so-called independent sports review from UEFA. I want to urge the Commission to take a firm stance on professional sport in the coming years. A second Bosman rulling by the ECJ will once more turn the world of professional sport upside down, which is of no interest to any of the parties involved.

• Dutch Liberal (ALDE) MEP Toine Manders was the initiator of the Parliament’s report on professional football.

Two MEPs discuss sport.

• Primary Source