Islj 2009 3-4 - TMC Asser Instituut

The Future EU Sports Policy: Hollow
Words on Hallowed Ground?
by An Vermeersch*
The Treaty on the functioning of the European Union stipulates that the
Union will “contribute to the promotion of European sporting issues” and
that the Union’s action “shall be aimed at developing the European
dimension in sport” (Article 165 TFEU). Can this lead to a concrete EU
sports policy? In reality, the answer lies in setting priorities and finding the
legal tools necessary to achieve the goals set. To answer the question, a
comparison is made between the priorities of the actors involved and the
results in practice. In order to assess the Union’s future action in the field
of sport, the current and future priorities and the legal framework provided
by the TFEU are analysed.
Introduction
The evolution of the European Union’s sports policy is characterised
by the dual mechanism that traditionally guides the European integration
process: negative versus positive integration. 1 Negative (indirect)
integration relates to measures increasing market integration by
the removal of (national) trade barriers and obstacles to free movement
and competition. Positive (direct) integration relates to common
European policies with aims that go beyond the removal of these
obstacles. In relation to the indirect EU sports policy, in particular the
application of the European rules concerning free movement and
competition to sport, a clear legal framework emerged. Even if this
framework needs further refinement, with a prominent role for the
case-by-case approach, it is unlikely that it will be subject to major
changes. The future of the EU’s direct sports policy seems less obvious.
Whereas it is clear that the EU is ‘active’ in the field of sport,
these actions are very divers and can hardly be defined as a comprehensive
European sports policy. 2
This paper explores the possibility of a future (direct) EU sports
policy. Rather than analysing the theoretical explanation for the evolution
of the EU’s sports policy 3 or the changing relationship between
the EU and the world of sport 4 , this paper focuses on the concrete
actions in practice. Thus, a tentative agenda for the future (direct) EU
sports policy will be outlined. First, a comparison is made between
the priorities set forward by the different actors involved and the
results in practice. Second, the limits of the future EU policy will be
analysed on the basis of a (new) legal framework.
Priorities versus results
Search for priorities
The origins of the direct sports approach go back to the 1984
Fontainebleau European Council 5 and the Adonnino Report of the
* Assistant Professor, European Institute,
Ghent University. The author would like
to thank Borja García, Kirstyn Inglis and
Astrid Vervaet for their comments on an
earlier version of this article. The usual
disclaimer applies. Comments are welcome
at An.Vermeersch@Gent.be.
1 Parrish, ‘The Politics of Sports
Regulation in the European Union’,
(2003) Journal of European Public Policy,
p. 250; Sharpf, ‘Negative and Positive
Integration in the Political Economy of
European Welfare States’, in Marks,
Scharpf, Schmitter and Streeck (eds.)
Governance in the European Union
(SAGE Publications, London, 1996), p.
15. On the distinction between indirect
and direct sports policy, see Tokarski,
Steinbach, Petry and Jesse, Two Players -
One goal? Sport in the European Union
(Meyer & Meyer, Oxford, 2004), p. 61.
2 Van den Bogaert and Vermeersch, ‘Sport
and the European Treaty: A Tale of
Uneasy Bedfellows?, (2006) E.L.Rev., p.
821-840.
3 For an overview see Meier, Emergence,
Dynamics and impact of European sport
policy - perspectives from political science’,
in Gardiner, Parrish and Siekmann
(eds.) EU, Sport, Law and Policy.
Regulation, re-regulation and representation
(T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague,
2009), p. 7-33.
4 García, ‘From regulation to governance
and representation: agenda-setting and
the EU’s involvement in sport’, (2007)
Entertainment and Sports Law Journal.
5 Conclusions of the Fontainebleau
European Council (25-26 June 1984),
European Parliament on ‘A People’s Europe’. 6 At that time, the
Community’s policy concentrated on the potential of sport to achieve
‘European goals’. Sport was in the first place considered as a forum for
communication among peoples, as a tool to strengthen the image of
the EU in the minds of its citizens. 7 Concretely, the Community’s
involvement in the field of sport remained for the most part limited
to the funding of international sporting competitions like the
European Sailing Regatta or the Tour de l’Avenir in cycling. 8 After the
adoption of the Single European Act in 1986, Community interest in
the field of sport moved on to a broader social, educational and cultural
plane and the first pleas for the development of a European
sports policy emerged. 9 This evolution was further induced by the
Bosman judgment, 10 and the reactions from the sports world to this
case in particular. 11
In order to get an overview of the - past and current - priorities of
the EU’s involvement in the field of sport, an analysis is made of the
‘sports agenda’ of the European institutions and the Member States.
Three preliminary remarks should be made in this respect. First, this
overview aims at illuminating general tendencies, rather than aiming
at an exhaustive and detailed listing. As Commissioner Reding correctly
pointed out in 2002, the latter would be difficult. 12 Second,
whereas the correlation between the activities of the different actors
should not be ignored, this overview makes a distinction between the
priorities set forward by the Member States, the European Parliament
and the European Commission respectively. Third, the sports world is
not mentioned as a separate actor. This is not to say that the sports
world does not play a role in the agenda-setting at EU level.
The table 13 on page 4 lists the main agenda items of the successive
EU presidencies over the 2000-2011 period. Three findings emerge.
First, the activities of the Member States cover a great number of topics,
ranging from non-profit sports organisations to the economic
dimension of sport. Second, a number of issues can regularly be
found on the agenda, with the fight against doping (including the
relationship with WADA) and the broader discussion on the legal
framework and the future evolution of the sports policy (including
the follow-up of the Nice Declaration, the position of sport in the
Treaty and the White Paper) as two ‘permanent’ agenda items. Third,
a trend towards more coherence by the classification of topics can be
observed. This is illustrated by the joint initiative of the European
Commission and the Dutch presidency in 2004 to adopt a Rolling
Agenda for Sport to define the priority themes for Member State discussions
on sport at EU level. The Rolling Agenda includes the follow-
Bulletin European Communities, 6-1984.
6 Adonnino Report, ‘A People’s Europe’,
Bulletin European Communities, 6-1985,
Suppl. 7/85.
7 Ibidem, 5.9.; European Parliament,
Resolution on sport in the Community,
13 April 1984, [1984] OJ C 127/142.
8 Tokarski, Steinbach, Petry and Jesse,
above n. 1, p. 62-63.
9 European Parliament, Resolution on
sport in the European Community and a
People’s Europe, 17 February 1989, [1989]
OJ C 69/234.
10 Case C-415/93 Union Royale Belge des
Sociétés de Football Association ASLB v
Jean-Marc Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921.
11 See for instance Parrish, Sports law and
policy in the European Union
(Manchester University Press,
Manchester, 2003).
12 In answer to a written question of MEP
Theresa Zabell concerning a detailed list
of all measures and actions connected
with sport or with sportsmen and women
during the term of office, the
Commissioner stated: “[…] the
Commission has not performed a general
survey of all the sport-related initiatives
undertaken during the current legislative
period. This would be difficult to do,
given the wide range of policies and initiatives
concerned.”. See Written question
E-1470/02 by Theresa Zabell to the
Commission, Actions connected with
sport, 27 May 2002, [2002] OJ C
301E/154.
13 For the sources where this table is based
on, see Annex I.
A RT I C L E S
2009/3-4 3