Final comment. This article may well be the last I write on sports issues. I certainly hope so, because that would mean that these issues had been settled at EU level, or almost settled. I felt it was useful to discuss them in the past (and proceeded to do so) because I felt that Europe had moved in the wrong direction by neglecting the importance of sport to young people, for health and for public opinion. The "specificity" of sport was practically denied and (aside from a few suitable phrases to keep up appearances) the EU applied the same rules to sport as to all economic activities, emphasising the growing (and undeniable) economic contribution made by sport. After a few years of slow maturing of ideas and attitudes, I note today that most of the battle has been won and (since you need a date for every battle in the history books) I think the decisive day was 18 October 2001 when Viviane Reding, European Culture and Sports Commissioner, and Jean-François Pons, Deputy Director General for Competition, each made an important speech at the 10th European Sports Forum.

This date I've selected is somewhat arbitrary because it was, in fact, a gradual change. Ms Reding had already taken a clear position, while Mr Monti was particularly involved in defining how competition rules were to apply to sport. But symbols are important. Ms Reding announced on 18 October that the Commission had decided to propose that 2004 be the European Education Through Sport Year and that this idea was not an isolated action, but part of a concerted action covering several other initiatives with regard to aid for training, the option of collective management of TV rights, anti-doping initiatives, etc. Taken together, these actions provide that the Commission recognises the specific conditions of sports organisation. Should we go further and include an article or a protocol in the future Treaty laying down the specific nature of sport? Ms Reding has not committed herself here, noting that the EU was considering the matter. She felt, however, that the discussions in the future on how competencies should be divided among the Union and its Member States should also cover the role of sport, which must not be absent from the Community debate. She added that sport had to be a vehicle for the values of tolerance, respect for other people and equal opportunities, thereby acting in favour of world peace.

Jean-François Pons' speech is essential for understanding the Commission's position, even though he gave his "personal opinions" in the speech. He has been dealing with the application of competition rules to sport for several years and therefore has an in-depth view of the subject. His starting point, naturally enough, was that the general Treaty rules applied to sport as to all other domains, but he immediately added that sport has its own specific nature that has to be taken into account when applying Treaty rules. Drawing on examples from the case law of the Court of Justice, Mr Pons retained a number of elements that can be seen as a kind of informal doctrine on the specific nature of sport:

a) none of the "sports" rules are covered by competition rules at all;

b) sport is the only sector of the economy where there is a level of solidarity between competitors. With economic competition, one attempts to eliminate competitors, while in sports competitions, participants have to be present throughout an entire season and without competitors, no competition would be possible. This peculiarity has to be reckoned with;

c) "sports" rules are not only rules covering how a match is organised (the duration of a match, the number of members of a team, the size of the field, the weight and circumference of the ball(s), etc), but go much further. The Commission, for example, noted that the obligation on a club to play its matches at home in its own stadium or in a stadium in the home country was a "sports" rule, and that restrictions on the broadcasting of matches and certain public subsidies for professional clubs are allowed. In the very complicated case of transfer fees for football players changing club, the Commission tried to strike a balance between the interest of sport and competition rules. Referring to the Bosman case, Mr Pons discreetly left out any reference to the Court of Justice's ban on transfer fees on the grounds that they are a barrier to the free circulation of workers, but this has lost much of its importance since the Commission kept the most important concrete aspect, namely that a) training fees not be calculated on the cost of training one transferred individual, but cover everyone's performance at the training centre where the transferred individual came from; and b) penalties and sanctions can be levied players who want to break a current contract they entered into freely.

All the same, I do not want to end my first sports commentary with rosy-tinted spectacles. The most recent rulings of the Court of Justice, the dynamism of Ms Reding moving in the right direction and Mr Monti's balanced view when assessing the relationship between sport and competition rules demonstrate that the period of misunderstanding is behind us (and I regret that the European Parliament has largely been absent from this area, which is so important for public opinion and for young people) but there are still dangers on the horizon. The option of challenging certain sporting rules for legal reasons is still widespread, in theory at least. Take the most popular tennis championship, the Davis Cup, for example, whose participation rules would make lawyers shudder. They aim to ensure a country cannot use the power of money to attract and "nationalise" the best players, but would the rules survive a purely legal challenge?

I believe that the final solution involves separating the option for professional clubs to sign contracts with athletes without limits on nationality or origin and the rules governing participation in a particular competition. Rules on age, gender, nationality and weight (for certain disciplines) have to be drawn up by organisers (usually national or international sports federations) transparently. Otherwise some danger of juridical "excess" will continue to exist.

(F.R.)