Lisbon Treaty would mean UK losing veto on EU sports plans
28 November 2008
EU Sports Ministers meeting in Biarritz yesterday decided to reject proposals put forward by the French EU Presidency which would have introduced a Europe wide 'super-regulator' for football and other sports.
Among the opponents of the plan were English sports associations such as the Football Association (FA), the Rugby Football Union (RFU), as well as the UK Government. [1] If the Lisbon Treaty comes into force, national governments will lose their veto right in this area, with sport becoming an EU competence for the first time. This could mean the UK will be unable to stop similar proposals in the future.
Open Europe's Pieter Cleppe said:
"We welcome the decision to reject the plans for an EU wide sports regulator, which the UK Government strongly opposed for good reason. There may be issues to be addressed concerning the oversight of football clubs, but this is not a decision for the EU."
"This is an important example of why the Lisbon Treaty would be bad for Britain. Under the Treaty, sport would become an EU competence for the first time, allowing EU ministers to decide by majority vote on proposals like this one."
"We may have been able to stop these damaging proposals this time, but under Lisbon, the UK would lose its right to veto, which could spell disaster for UK sports."
Notes for editors
For more information please call Pieter Cleppe on 0032 477 68 46 08
Supporters of Open Europe include: Sir Stuart Rose, Executive Chairman, Marks and Spencer plc; Sir Crispin Davis, Chief Executive, Reed Elsevier Group plc; Sir David Lees, Chairman, Tate and Lyle plc; Sir John Egan, Chairman, Severn Trent plc; Lord Kalms of Edgware, President, DSG International Plc; Alun Cathcart, Non-Executive Chairman, Avis Europe; David Ross, Chairman, National Express Group plc; and Bobby Hashemi, founder, Coffee Republic.
A full list can be found at http://www.openeurope.org.uk/
Background information
1. What the Lisbon Treaty says about sport
As was announced on the website of the French presidency, at the Biarritz summit, "the main focus will be on preparing for the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty". [2] Lisbon was due to enter into force on 1 January 2009, but due to the rejection of the Treaty by Irish voters, this plan has faltered.
The Lisbon Treaty would insert the following phrase into Article 149 of the EC Treaty:
The Union shall contribute to the promotion of European sporting issues, while taking account of the specific nature of sport, its structures based on voluntary activity and its social and educational function. [3]
Although the French plans (see section 3) have been rejected, similar proposals are likely to return. Should the Lisbon Treaty come into force, national governments would no longer have a veto on such measures.
2. What the Commission has got planned - what to expect if Lisbon is ratified
The French Presidency cites [4] the recommendations of the Commission's "White Paper on Sport" [5] and the "Pierre de Coubertin" action plan [6] as inspiration for its proposals. These reports recommend EU involvement in tackling corruption, match-fixing and betting scandals, racist or violent behaviour by fans, legal frameworks covering the sports arrangements, possible power abuse by football federations, IP Protection and the selling of television rights. Some key proposals include:
- Licensing systems "to ensure that all clubs respect the same basic rules on financial management and transparency" would be "promoted", and "could also include provisions regarding discrimination, violence, protection of minors and training".
- "Solidarity mechanisms to compensate clubs, including amateur clubs, for training costs" would be created. This would mean that after the European Court of Justice has banned small clubs from profiting from the sale of talented players to big clubs (through the Bosman ruling), the EU would intervene not through a market process but through a bureaucratic procedure.
- The amount European football clubs can spend on players' wages and transfer fees would be restricted, which again would undo the effects of the Bosman ruling through bureaucratic intervention.
- The joint selling of media rights by sports organisations such as leagues or associations would be restricted, distorting normal bargaining processes.
3. What the French plan aimed to do
The plans put forward by the French Presidency aimed to install an EU body regulating professional sports. European football association UEFA would have served to enforce guidelines regulating sports, although it now has turned its back on the plans. [7] For rugby, the little-known Association Européenne de Rugby was meant to have taken a similar role. [8]
The proposals would have exempted sports from the freedom of movement rules, thereby allowing sports associations such as UEFA to set their own rules. However these sports associations would only get the exemption if they agree to enforce certain EU guidelines.
The proposals included a ban on transfers of under-18 players.
The plans contained regulations concerning financial soundness of clubs, which were seem as an attempt to crack down on football clubs that are bought by wealthy individuals. Clubs would only be able to use their "natural resources", such as match tickets or sponsorship to fund themselves.
The UK opposed the proposals, with UK Sports Minister Gerry Sutcliffe claiming that he could not support a European regulator "because it will affect independence within the sport and decrease the amount of space needed to maintain proper governing". [9]
4. Why the plans were rejected
In order to predict how an EU regulator for sports might influence the sport, one can look at France, where a similar organisation is already in place, the "Direction Nationale de Controle de Gestion (DNCG)". Its powers include imposing fines, freezing of transfers, docking of points and mandatory relegation. It has not been shy of using these powers, leading to French football suffering from 76 court cases between 2002 and 2007, as opposed to only 15 cases in an earlier period where no such regulator existed. [10] The French example does not seem to have produced a competitive football league, as the same team has won the last seven national championships in France.
The move to forbid transfers of players under 18 have been seen as an attempt to level the playing field, preventing the most successful teams from hiring players at a young age.
The proposed rules on "financial soundness" for clubs would mean that they would only be able to use their "natural resources", such as match ticket sales or sponsorship in order to fund themselves. It would also mean the end of foreign takeovers by wealthy individuals. Again this is something which has so far mainly benefitted English clubs. The fact that many English clubs are in debt does not mean that they enjoy "unfair" advantage, as they tend to own their stadiums privately, unlike many of their continental counterparts who have received state support for this. French Sport Minister Bernard Laporte bluntly explained that "the EU should help address the dominance of English soccer teams in the Champions League." [11]
Perhaps most significantly, the plan allows for the Commission to specifically exempt sports from the freedom of movement rules enshrined in the EC Treaty. The Commission has to some extent paved the way for this by declaring that UEFA rules stipulating that each football squad must contain at least a number of players developed by the club's own academy are compatible with EU law. Under the normal jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice, this could be deemed in breach of the provisions in the EC Treaty governing the freedom of movement in the EU.
The above propsoals constitute an attempt to regulate football indirectly, but once the Lisbon Treaty is ratified, direct regulation of football by the EU will become possible.
[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/government-told-to-resist-uefa-plans-1033837.html and http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/7749433.stm
[2] http://www.ue2008.fr/PFUE/cache/offonce/lang/en/accueil/PFUE-11_2008/PFUE-27.11.2008/reunion_des_ministres_des_sports_de_l_union_europeenne;jsessionid=24CD1C64E046904A423A3C2BC2CED8CF
[3] http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/comparative.pdf
[4] http://www.ue2008.fr/PFUE/cache/offonce/lang/en/accueil/PFUE-11_2008/PFUE-27.11.2008/reunion_des_ministres_des_sports_de_l_union_europeenne;jsessionid=24CD1C64E046904A423A3C2BC2CED8CF
[5] http://ec.europa.eu/sport/white-paper/whitepaper8_en.htm
[6] http://ec.europa.eu/sport/white-paper/doc/sec934_en.pdf
[7] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/7749433.stm
[8] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/premierleague/3463911/English-football-on-a-collision-course-with-Uefa-president-Michel-Platini-Football.html
[9] http://www.eufootball.biz/Administration/6427-platini_european_super_regulator.html and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/premierleague/3484602/Premier-League-in-battle-to-prevent-Euro-takeover-Football.html
[10] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article5209129.ece and http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/martin_samuel/article5182894.ece
[11] http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=aAJ8jpN3FnU0&refer=europe