An Examination of Beliefs About Romanian Legislative Regulations Specific to Sports
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
AN EXAMINATION OF BELIEFS ABOUT ROMANIAN LEGISLATIVE REGULATIONS SPECIFIC TO SPORTS Daniel BRĂTIANU1 Abstract Romanian Sport Legislation is not widely analysed in the literature with regards to the effects it has on the activities specific to sports, its organisations and management of sports entities. There are on the other hand studies in the specialised literature which underline the Legislation gaps, or issues caused by lack of clarity and not in harmony with European Sports Regulations. The actual Romanian legislative regulations specific to Sports needs to be amended to better respond to the sports environment and its needs, leading to higher participation in sport and less litigation. This research was carried out using the questionnaire method, statistical processing and analysis and bibliographic study. The questionnaire was administered online, it consisted of 10 questions, to which the respondents could answer with yes, no or no opinion. The respondents’ answers indicate that they have a positive perspective with regards to changing some of the actual sports regulations. The results showed no significant differences between men and women but found some differences between the levels of studies. The relationship between the answers and the level of studies was significant at p<.05. Keywords: sports legislation, sport regulation, Romanian sports law JEL Classification: Z2, K1; K40 DOI: 10.24818/mrt/2020.0120201 1. Introduction Since the European Union was established, sports regulation has gained an international dimension, but unlike other industries regulated by International Laws, sports is different due to the fact that it has not only an economical dimension, but also a cultural and a social one. The juridification process in sports began during the 90s when the sport become a relevant industry. This term was used by Gardiner et al (1998) do define the process in which the laws of a country interfere with the internal laws of sport (Parrish, 2003; Mańkowski, 2018). Nowadays, regulation of sport is also presented in the White Paper on Sport, where it addresses all three dimensions – the economic, the social, and the cultural one. The objectives from the White Paper on Sport include establishing strategic 1 Daniel Brătianu, National University of Physical Education and Sports, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport, Bucharest, Romania, [email protected] 78 Vol XII • Nr. 2 • 2020 Marathon guidelines, encouraging legal clarity with the purpose of improving sports governance in the EU, identifying the specific needs of sport and the visibility of sport in the European Union’s decision making process (Boyes, 2012;Foster, 2019;Garcia, 2017). Although these objectives are formulated in order to regulate sport at European Level, each country should make sure that the same principles are applied at the national legislative level specific to sports. Failure in respecting the same principles would lead to legislative gaps or to conflicts which must be mediated by the European Court of Justice – as actually happened in the past with the Bosman case, Olypmic Lyonnais, Bernard vs Newcastle, the Delige case etc (Weatherill, 2014), (Miettinen and Parrish, 2007), (Papaloukas, 2007). The European Sports Charter from 1992, also provides a framework for legislation specific to sport to which all European states subscribed. Based on the subscription, all European states should develop internal policies that are concordant to the European policies and principles in the field of sport. Romanian Sport Legislation in report with its effect on management of sport structures (such as associations, clubs and other sport entities) is not widely analyzed in the literature. However, there are several studies which underline some of the aspects of the Legislation gaps that affect the sport field. The common issue underlined in these studies is the elaboration of efficient legislative regulations that would enhance the efficiency of the activities conducted in the sports field (Todan and Roibu, 1997). It is important to understand the environment in which sport conducts its activities, that is why before developing new strategies, it is important to evaluate the environment. A similar concern is expressed in a study conducted by Hanu and Misca (2015) which investigated the role of the external environment in relation with the development of private sports entities. Private sports entities and their management have an evolution marked by understanding and amplifying the independencies with the environment in which they operate. Activities conducted in the sports field should be sustained by an efficient legislation and also by clean practices (Jonson and Hoye, 2011). Specialists from the National University Of Physical Education And Sports (UNEFS) have raised concerns with regards to gaps in legislation specific to sport in Romania and international provisions, as pointed out by Grigore et al (2018). In Romania, the Law no 69/2000 regulates sports and all the activities conducted in the field. Since 2000, the Sports Law has been amended various times, in order to correct weaknesses. Despite amendments, modifications have been made in a sequential manner, without previously conducting a correlation analysis of the entire normative act. The sport field has been changed by the various modifications over time, but according to a study conducted by Mihaila and Paraschiva (2019), the legislative modifications have not taken into account various factors, thus did not lead to an increased performance, and one of the Vol XII • Nr. 2 • 2020 79 An Examination of Beliefs about Romanian Legislative Regulations Specific to Sports suggestions for further research was to take into account which sports entities took into consideration both novelty and traditional aspects in management, which benefited for larger financial income and which had a higher selection base Tax Regulation plays an important role in the way in which sport activities are conducted and it can also affect performance in sport – by not allowing sport organizations to develop and prosper due to lack of funding. Due to the Bosman Ruling in 1995, which removed transfer fees for players who wanted to transfer to other clubs between European Union countries, sport organizations, especially football clubs, have now access to players around the entire world (Simmons, 1997; Binder et al 2008). Due to globalization and technological development the demand for sport competitions has increased and the salaries of professional popular players have increased as well. In this context, tax regulations gaps allow for foreign players to avoid or even evade taxes (Schweiger, 2012; Kleven et al, 2013; Garcia and Meier, 2016). Public financing is also different in European countries. For example, in the Czech Republic and Slovakia financing in sports comes from public administration (Halaskova, 2020). According to a survey conducted by Andreff in 1994, in 1990, sports financing were at the lowest per cent of GDP, respectively, 0.56 in Denmark, and the highest per cent of GPD, respectively 3.47 per cent, was registered in Switzerland. In Germany, France and Italy financing can be facilitated by governments or industrial corporations such as Fiat, Philips and others (Andreff, 2000) In other countries in which local funding to sport clubs is forbidden, usually donations or member subscriptions represent a popular form of financing. Nowadays revenues from sponsorship and Television advertising are common forms of sport financing in Europe (Andreff and Staudohar, 2000). Another study of Wladimir Andreff, from 2009, shows that on average, European sport financing comes mostly from household expenditures (49.7%). The rest comes from local authorities that handle the sport budget (24.3%), from enterprises in sport finance (14.1%) and the smallest part comes from the government (11.9%) (Andreff, 2009). In the same study, results showed that Sport participation is correlated with the level of economic development. Romania was the only European Country which showed a decrease in sport participation, unlike most of the countries who were in a post-communist transition period (Andreff, 2009). This however, does not mean that there are no ways of financing sport clubs in Romania, the issues seems to be that the sponsorship methods are not known and are rarely applied (Iacobini and Voinea, 2016). The sponsorship law in Romania is not at all attractive, neither for the sponsor, nor for the sponsored. The solution for micro-enterprises to sponsor only the accredited entities on the list of MMJS that provide social services is not a satisfactory solution, as specified in the explanatory memorandum that supports the amendment of the sponsorship law in Romania. The law on sponsorship in Romania (Law no 32/1994 with subsequent additions) has not received much attention and not enough changes have been made to support sponsors and their beneficiaries. 80 Vol XII • Nr. 2 • 2020 Marathon The new Fiscal Code, amended in 2016, raised the sponsorship grants for companies from 0.3% to 0.5 %. Another Sponsorship option is to redirect part of the annual tax to different organizations, including sports entities. This is facilitated by Law no 571/2003. In this research, question 10 from the questionnaire addresses the Sponsorship Law and inquires whether it is adapted to the needs of sponsors and those who are sponsored. According to Sports Law no 69/2000, articles 63-65, the performance athletes who have won gold, silver or bronze at the Olympic Games or the gold medal at the World and European Senior Olympic championships is entitled for an annuity. Life annuities were introduced in the Sports Law no 69/2000 in Title X, with the title Social protection of performance athletes. The life annuity is calculated based on the several provisions and can start from 1,5 average gross salaries per economy. The funds for the payment of the annuities are allocated from the state budget. According to the phrase “performance athletes with deserving results (raking 1st, 2nd and 3rd place)” other athletes who have had results and ranked 4th, 5th or 6th, but have represented Romania for more than a decade would not be deserving of the annuities.