All work and no play in IGC talks

Date: 26/09/1996

By Mark Turner

CALLS for sport to be given special treatment in the revised Maastricht Treaty have been left on the reserve bench as member states wrestle with loftier political issues.

But those campaigning for the most popular pastime of European males to be discussed at the Intergovernmental Conference are warming up on the sidelines.

The relationship between sport and the EU was brought into sharp focus last year when Jean-Marc Bosman successfully challenged soccer's transfer fee system in the European Court of Justice on the grounds that it breached EU rules on the free movement of workers.

At the time, Belgian Prime Minister Jean-Luc Dehaene publicly supported the idea that sport should be treated as a special case in future and that provision for this should be made in the revised treaty.

Since then, however, little has been said on the subject.

While the Irish presidency continually stresses the importance of bringing the EU closer to its citizens, it has failed to pursue an issue which almost certainly concerns most people more than many of the seemingly arcane topics which tend to dominate the IGC debate.

Irish officials say member states are free to raise the subject at the talks, but none have so far done so.

The European Commission too has refused to weigh into the debate. Should it try, officials fear the issue could expose some serious rifts between the services - notably DGX (sport and culture), DGIV (competition) and DGXV (internal market).

But non-governmental organisations have not abandoned hopes of getting sport back on to the fixture list. The Association of European Olympic Committees, together with the European Non-governmental Sports Organisation (ENGSO), have both been active behind the scenes.

ENGSO chairman Bengt Sevelius says they are making three key demands. “The first is to secure the right of sport to be taken into account when the EU takes decisions; the second is to give the EU some competence, but with a written safeguard for sports bodies to decide their internal affairs; the third is for a binding declaration granting special status to sport,” he said.

Carlos Ferrer, president of the Economic and Social Committee (ESC) and of the Spanish Olympic Committee, stresses that sport is an educational force just as much as it is an economic activity.

He believes that one positive step would be to include representatives from the world of sport on EU bodies. “If you had Steffi Graff as a member of the ESC, it would become very popular,” he quipped.

The Union of European Football Associations (UEFA), which was forced to change its rules in the wake of the Bosman ruling, also advocates a special treaty article.

“We, like many sports associations, are quite in favour of it,” says lawyer Alasdair Bell, adding: “We are interested in an article if framed in such a way that the identity of national structures is maintained.”

Whether or not the question is broached at this IGC, it is set to grow in importance.

Belgian judo champion Christel Deliège's recent challenge against her national team's decision not to pick her for a contest in France has highlighted a growing tendency for sports men and women to turn to the courts.

Although Article 128 of the EU treaty purports to safeguard national culture, Europe's citizens are becoming increasingly alarmed at where all this could lead.

“There is a growing feeling that the EU is being used for aims which were never intended,” said one diplomat. “Although no one would deny that a footballer is a worker, it is worth stepping back and deciding whether you want to treat sport as just another commodity.”

Advocates of special treatment for sport are hoping that Dutch State Secretary for Sport Erika Tertstra, a former Olympic swimming star, will champion their cause when her country takes over the EU presidency and the IGC chairmanship at the start of next year.