The Role of Member States in the Organizing and Functioning of Professional Sport Activities
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE ROLE OF MEMBER STATES IN THE ORGANIZING AND FUNCTIONING OF PROFESSIONAL SPORT ACTIVITIES REPORT FOR THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION TENDER No VT/2008/106 NOVEMBER 2009 T.M.C. ASSER INSTITUUT THE HAGUE, THE NETHERLANDS 2 Relationship between the State and Professional Sport The present report does not represent the viewpoint of the Commission. The interpretations and opinions it contains are solely those of its authors. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission may be held responsible for the use that may be made of the information contained in this publication. 3 Relationship between the State and Professional Sport CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 5 TEXT OF QUESTIONNAIRE .......................................................................................... 7 AUSTRIA........................................................................................................................... 9 BELGIUM........................................................................................................................ 12 BULGARIA .................................................................................................................... 15 CYPRUS.......................................................................................................................... 19 CZECH REPUBLIC....................................................................................................... 22 DENMARK..................................................................................................................... 25 ESTONIA.........................................................................................................................28 FINLAND ........................................................................................................................ 31 FRANCE ..........................................................................................................................34 GERMANY...................................................................................................................... 38 GREECE ..........................................................................................................................41 HUNGARY...................................................................................................................... 44 IRELAND ........................................................................................................................ 48 ITALY.............................................................................................................................. 51 LATVIA........................................................................................................................... 55 LITHUANIA.................................................................................................................... 59 LUXEMBOURG.............................................................................................................. 62 MALTA............................................................................................................................ 65 NETHERLANDS............................................................................................................. 68 POLAND..........................................................................................................................71 PORTUGAL..................................................................................................................... 75 ROMANIA....................................................................................................................... 78 SLOVAKIA ..................................................................................................................... 82 SLOVENIA...................................................................................................................... 85 SPAIN .............................................................................................................................. 88 SWEDEN ......................................................................................................................... 92 UNITED KINGDOM....................................................................................................... 95 CONCLUSIONS: STATE RESPONSIBILITY IN THE SPORT SECTOR .................. 97 ANNEX: LEGISLATION ON SPORT ......................................................................... 101 4 Relationship between the State and Professional Sport 5 Relationship between the State and Professional Sport INTRODUCTION Article 39 EC Treaty establishes the free movement of workers in the European Union. It prohibits all discrimination on the basis of nationality. The European Court of Justice in several judgments confirmed that professional and semi-professional sportsmen are workers within the meaning of this Article and consequently, Community law applies to them.1 This implies the application of equal treatment and the elimination of any direct or indirect discrimination on the basis of nationality. The Court particularly stated that Article 39 EC not only applies to the action of public authorities but extends also to rules of any other nature aimed at regulating gainful employment in a collective manner and that obstacles to freedom of movement for persons could not result from the exercise of their legal autonomy by associations or organizations not governed by public law.2 However, in light of recent developments in the field of sport, certain international sport authorities have advocated the adoption of rules that might be contrary to Community law and in particular to the free movement of workers principle. National sport authorities, being members of international authorities, should also apply the rules adopted at international level. Therefore, the implementation at national level of such rules will be contrary to EC law. For example, the European Commission has published an independent study on the “home- grown players’ rule” adopted by the European football governing body. This rule requires clubs participating in the Champions league and the UEFA Cup (as from the 2009/2010 season; Europa League) to have a minimum number of “home grown players” in their squads. Compared with the “6+5” rule adopted by the world football governing body FIFA, which is incompatible with EU law, the Commission considers that UEFA has opted for an approach which seems to comply with the principle of free movement while promoting the training of young European players.3 The “6+5” rule provides that at the beginning of each match, each club must field at least six who are players eligible to play for the national team of the country of the club. The European Commission as guardian of the Treaties and within the framework of its competences can initiate infringement proceedings before the European Court of Justice (ECJ) against Member States that have breached Community law. According to the case-law, an infringement procedure can be initiated against a Member State if government authorities of that Member State are at the origin of the infringement (Case C-95/97).4 As to the actions of private entities, the ECJ has indicated that Member States might be responsible for breach of EC law by private entities, recognised as having legal personality, whose activities are directly or indirectly under State’s control. Possible criteria that are mentioned in this context are, in particular the appointment of the members of the entity’s management committee by state authorities, and the granting of public subsidies which cover the greater part of its expenses. (Case C-249-81).5 Therefore, the fundamental element authorising the Commission to initiate an infringement procedure against a Member State is the existence of behaviour breaching Community law that can be attributed to the State. The same reasoning applies also in the field of professional sports activities, where in order for the services of the Commission to launch the infringement procedure, behaviour breaching Community law attributed to the State should be present. Consequently, it should be examined whether and to what extent, Member States participate directly or indirectly in the organisation of professional sports activities. 1 Case 13/76 Donà, ECR 1976, p. 1333 and Case C-415/93 Bosman, ECR 1995, I-4921. 2 Case C-415/93 Bosman, ECR 1995, I-4921. 3 Cf., IP/08/807 of 28 May 2008. 4 Case C-95/97 Région wallonne v Commission, ECR 1997, I-1787. 5 Case C-249/81 Commission v. Ireland, ECR 1982, 4005. 6 Relationship between the State and Professional Sport Community law on the free movement of workers and in particular Article 39 EC Treaty being directly applicable in the Member States' legal orders, means that every EU citizen that considers that his/her rights have been violated might go and seek a redress in front of the national administrative authorities and jurisdictions. If the application of EU law is at stake, national courts may request a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice, who is entitled to give rulings about the compatibility of sporting rules with the EU legal order. In the White Paper on Sport, adopted in 2007, the Commission reaffirms its acceptance of limited and proportionate restrictions (in line with EU Treaty provisions on free movement and European Court of Justice's rulings) to the principle of free movement in particular