We're coming from a long way behind. The European Parliament has decided to open the football dossier. At last! Ten years ago, at the time of the Bosman ruling, most MEPs just didn't understand. They were held in thrall by the guidelines from the Court of Justice and the Commission, which had only one thought in mind: establishing the single market and removing borders without any account taken, in sport, of the social and cultural implications for young people. The priority given to the large market with no borders was understandable: it is the very base on which Europe is built. But sometimes it was taken to extremes, and I remember some of the views expresses in Parliament which bordered on the ridiculous (for example, calling major football players “modern day slaves” because clubs could ask for compensation if they were transferred to another competing club).
In general terms, the Court of Justice gradually understood that some requirements, especially environmental, could justify here and there bending the sacrosanct principles of the single market. Some such rulings form the pillars of European case-law and have allowed some Commission services to become more flexible. On 26 January, I gave a summary, with examples, of how the Court has evolved on the second page of this column in edition no. 9117. The Parliament has not only followed this trend, it has sometimes led the way or encouraged it itself, for example in services of general economic interest, where the opening of markets is now subordinated to principles such as “universal service” and having the necessary public funding in place to ensure it.
Within this evolution, sport was left behind. There were, of course, other necessities, such as the protection of the environment or access to healthcare, education, water and electricity. But at a time when a lack of purpose in the lives of young people is becoming the biggest problem in our society, the role of sport is beginning to be understood. I will not repeat what I wrote at the start of the year (EUROPE 9105) on the tenth anniversary of the Bosman ruling, when I spoke of the destructive effect of that ruling for the integration of the children of immigrants, as well, in more general terms, for the physical, civic and moral education of our young people. I note with satisfaction that the new initiative from the European parliament responds to the same concerns and follows the same path.
A good start to reflection … Parliament has decided to draw up an own-initiative report to enable it to adopt a stance before the end of the year on such major questions: Are Community rules in their current form applicable to professional football? Does football offer a model of social integration? Has the Bosman ruling had a beneficial or negative effect? Four committees have been charged with the preparatory work. Last week (see yesterday's edition), they organised a hearing attended by players, club director and representatives of associations and federations in this sector. Overall, those in charge of the world of football re-stated that the Bosman ruling had had disastrous effects. The representative from UEFA (the European football association), the concept of a unified internal European market in sport is an error. A few MEPs also spoke. Ivo Belet (EPP, Belgium) came out in favour of a European statute for football affording it exemption from the free movement of workers, and French Socialist MEP Benoît Hamon criticised the purely legal and economic approach of the Commission and Court of Justice, and agreed with the UEFA line imposing on clubs a certain quota of players who had come through its own youth training programme. Read in yesterday's edition what the young African footballer Salou Ibrahim and a representative of Scottish club Glasgow Celtic had to say: it is very informative.
… but there are still three dangers. I nonetheless see three remaining dangers. The first lies in the fact that the four Parliamentary committees concerned are not in agreement over their respective areas of responsibility or who is to be the main rapporteur: it would be inadmissible for such quarrels were to hold back the Parliament's stance. The second danger is in submission to the Bosman ruling: “It's there, we have to accept it,” one of the rapporteurs told me. I disagree: Parliament has to take a political position stating what it thinks, and then we'll see. The third danger is the temptation to set detailed rules for how football should work. Parliament must not interfere with the detail; it must set out the principles and leave it to the authorities to implement them.
(F.R.)