The Heads of Government are not satisfied. Here is sport, once more on the EU agenda on the explicit request of the Heads of government. To the general surprise, both the "conclusions" of the Feira Summit and the speech by Jacques Chirac presenting to the European Parliament the French Council Presidency's programme, cited sport among the problems to be resolved. The French President did so with a very strong sense of urgency: "We must ensure that the European Union better take into account the specificity of sport and its social function. Here lies a real problem that must be studied and resolved." The Summit made a true warning to the institutions: "The European Council calls on the Commission and Council to take into account, in the management of common policies, the specific characteristics of sport in Europe as well as its social function."
Thus it seems obvious that the Heads are not satisfied, or at least that they are not reassured by what is presently happening. And they have good reason. It is true that the European Commission recognised in the most explicit manner possible the importance and meaning of sport; Mrs. Viviane Reding spoke on this issue with vigour and eloquence, and began a previously non-existent (or nearly) dialogue with the Member State sporting authorities. Unfortunately, there exists no relationship between these good provisions and what is being prepared. The latest positions taken by Mrs. Reding go - in our opinion - in the wrong direction and what is being prepared - according to available information - in the Commission competition services is far from reassuring.
A truly curious situation. Mrs. Reding and Mr. Monti have shown they understand that sport must be taken seriously by a Europe that wants to be close to the citizen. Though at the same time we get the impression that they are stuck in the vague reasoning and the sophisms from those who are ignorant of sporting realities and the nature of sport. Mrs. Reding initially brought a welcome breath of fresh air to the ways of looking at this field, which is part of his direct responsibilities. For example, when presenting himself before the European Parliament for the "approval", she spoke explicitly of the negative repercussions of the Bosman ruling to which a solution will have to be brought. It is not a case of returning to this unfortunate ruling, which is there and with which we will have to live, but what surrounds it as false reasoning that misunderstand" the specific characteristics of sport as well as its social function" (to speak like the Heads of government).
When Mrs. Reding looses her way. What did Mrs. Reding say in her speech on June 30 in Luxembourg? Passing by the usual phrases on doping, against violence, on the need to be attentive over the interests of the youth. All this is expected. Concretely, two passages from the speech caught our attention.
Here is the first: "the Bosman ruling bases itself on two fundamental principals written down in the European treaties, on two basic laws for all citizens: that of free movement and that of non-discrimination," which apply "to all the citizens, including athletes, as well as footballers." However the simple fact of speaking of non-discrimination means being ignorant of the ethics of sport. The loyalty of competitions imposes on the contrary all the "discriminations" that are banned in economic life: discrimination based on sex (men are not admitted in women's competitions, and vice versa, is obvious proof of this), as with discrimination based on age (still strong athletes cannot take part in junior or senior competitions, that age categories are rigorously separated) and also discrimination based on… weight, which anywhere else would be simple ridiculous and even so it still a rule in many sporting disciplines. Just as necessary is discrimination base on nationality: when a competition has as aim to designate a national champion from the organising country. Of course there exists numerous competition open to athletes of all nationalities; the rules of participation depend upon the nature of the event. Though asserting as a principal that discriminations are banned has no meaning, as what is discriminatory elsewhere is necessary to the aim and the loyalty of sporting competitions.
As for the free movement of persons, who has never doubted that it would apply to athletes as with all other EU nationals? It is completely incorrect to claim that this principal was asserted by the Bosman ruling. The ruling talks of free movement exclusively over "transfer fees" in cases of a footballer changing club. The Court of Justice judged that in cases of a transfer from a club in a Member State to a club in another Member State, these fees represent a barrier to free movement, which in itself is not in question. Though the Court then told us, for some years, to further articulate the reasoning: it first asks itself if a given measure represents a barrier to free movement (goods or persons), and if the answer is positive it asks itself if this barrier answers to an aim of general interest that justifies it. If this interest exists, the barrier is authorised. The examples are numerous (in one case, last year, even against the Commission's opinion) the last is this month (1). This double examination is carried out as a general rule, in all the fields, even without taking into account the specificity of sport from now on asserted at the highest political levels.
Euro 2000 close shave. The second part of the speech by Mrs. Reding that is thought provoking is as follows: "Football needs teams with which spectators can identify. Furthermore, the Euro 2000 has just shown this in a spectacular manner." One cannot do better. Though is Mrs. Reding is aware that the Euro 2000 is the only large sporting occasion of the year that escapes the Bosman ruling? Does she know that the nationality rule was applied? That in each team, only players who have the nationality of the country concerned may play? And that this rule forms a central part of the success of the European championship and of the rivalry that is expressed?
We must not think that the hardcore lawyers have accepted with joy the derogation to the continental flatting of sport. Here is what the ineffable Advocate General in the Bosman case, Carl Otto Lenz, wrote on the derogation in favour of national teams: "it is not simple to justify it. If we take into account, in particular, the fact that presently the matches opposing national teams have considerable financial stakes, it would be very difficult to consider that it is not a case of an activity, it too, economic." Luckily, he added with resignation: "given that the question is not pertinent to the decision to be made, it is not necessary that we continue to ponder context." The Court, for whom the conclusions of Mr. Lenz obviously represent all the baggage in sporting matters, therefore dropped this aspect. And thus the Euro 2000 was able to take place in the conditions we know, remarkable not only for the popular impact, but also for the spirit when the national squads had assimilated numerous player of extra-European origin in their midst: three quarters of the semi-final teams (Netherlands, Portugal and France) included in their ranks several players of African, North African, West Indian and other origin. The remarkable example of successful integration, started at the time when the "transfer fees" were not damned and enabled clubs to welcome hundreds of youths taking them from the streets and teaching them discipline, loyalty, solidarity and a taste for effort.
The first phase of the passage cited from the speech by Mrs. Reding ("football needs teams with which spectators can identify") leads us to the aspects of sport that came under the competence of Competition Commissioner Mario Monti, and which deserve specific thought that will be made tomorrow, together with some conclusions. For the moment it will be enough to note that the radical easing of links between players and teams has broken, in a manner that is difficult to repair, the identification of the public with the teams. The footballer agents exercise a form of blackmail or at least permanent pressure in favour of breaking or revising contracts (for which they get a percentage), so much so that today no team is certain of being able to finish a season with the same players with which it started. It is strange to hear assertions of identification by the public with his team from a convert to the benefits of the Bosman ruling
Till tomorrow in this same section
Ferdinando Riccardi
--------------------------
(1) see our Bulletin published on July 13 page 13, as well as in the conclusions of the Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo in favour of a derogation of the free provision of services of "imperious reasons of general interest, in our Bulletin of 7 June page 11.