This column is sometimes criticised for being too deferential towards the European institutions and adhering to the principle of if it is a European project, it must be good and those criticising or rejecting it must be the bad guys. I acknowledge that in my opinion it is necessary to be “positive” about Europe and that the tendency to always denigrate it is over the top, inappropriate and dangerous but I can also remember positions that took an opposite line in this column. Today, I will be illustrating three orientations that in my opinion ought to be modified.
A. The specificity of sport. Since the very day Europe began to discuss the issue, the official position has been to highlight the legal aspects of sport for youth, education and health. There has been much purple prose given over to this aspect but in practice and in the decisions made, application of Community rules on the free movement of people, non-discrimination and free competition is what prevails. Moreover, these rules in sport are sometimes irrelevant with regard to nationality, age and gender.
Let's look at things a little closer. In individual sports, a “national championship” is reserved to citizens of the country that organises it, this is not discrimination but the competition objective. There is a difference with international competitions. In tennis, for example, the real name of the Roland Garros tournament is the international French championships and all the players from the world (Community and otherwise) are allowed to play in it but the national championship is reserved to the French. The same goes for Wimbledon and other competitions. This also applies to cycling and other sports. Should there be opposition to women not being admitted in male competitions and vice-versa? And what about age categories, which in other activities would not be allowed, or rules on weight, which elsewhere would be ridiculous? The only reasonable line to take is to recognise that the concept of non-discrimination, including that on nationality, is not possible in sport as it currently stands.
The second misconception is that professional sport, in which players are paid, should automatically become an economic activity like all the others and be subject to competition rules, as if the sports factor had simply disappeared. The situation finally appears to be shifting and an increasing number of MEPs appear to understand what the spirit of sport actually means (I do admit that the formula in itself is sometimes hypocritical because it can cover inadmissible behaviour). Last week's speech by Michel Platini to the European Parliament (summarised in EUROPE 9883) was given a warm welcome. It might even usher in a shift in consciousness and an about-turn. The lines taken by the European Commission and the European Court of Justice have not yet been clarified. This column will be returning to the matter.
B. Gaming and betting. The main goal for the European Commission, until proved otherwise, remains the application of rules and principles for the single market: free competition, opening up of the market, elimination of exclusive rights enjoyed by national lotteries and other public bodies. Gaming and betting is not, in my opinion, another economic sector just like the others.
National regulation in some member states proved that initially they had a favourable view of this sector's specificity but must have given up a lot of ground over the years to the “legal thesis”. The majority at the European Parliament, obsessed by the principles of free competition and the borderless market, has in the past, largely prioritised the trend towards liberalisation and free competition. The huge wave of online-gaming, however, as well as other opportunities opened up by technological progress, have encouraged a certain repentance and rethink. The European Parliament's internal market committee approved by a very clear majority an own-initiative report requesting that member states themselves take charge of regulation for on-line gaming (EUROPE 9840 reported on this ten days ago). The rapporteur, Ms Christel Schaldemose (Socialist, Denmark) underlined that on-line gambling is easily accessed, dangerous for young people and threatens the integrity of sporting competitions. Opposition, however, to the new trend is still sharp: a minority opinion will also be submitted to the plenary session, affirming that on-line gaming represents an economic activity like any other and should be subject to internal market rules, particularly the free provision of services.
Sector professionals are fiercely lobbying, although the most able and honest among them are stepping up action to regulate the profession with, for example, player age checks through the “responsible game” objective, and last July they even adopted nine principles they intend to respect (summarised in EUROPE 9710). I believe that despite these efforts, the dangers are quite real. Several of them derived from on-line gaming for sports competitions bear this out. A lot of money in Asia was staked on football matches between practically unknown European teams (in the minor leagues). And what about tennis matches between a star and a modestly ranked player? Hefty amounts were bet on the latter winning, who then actually won because at a certain moment in the match, the star player began to limp. These anomalies have been investigated but fraud is difficult to prove.
In addition to fraud in sport, many other factors suggest that the specificity of gaming and betting be subject to specific consideration or at least that the national authorities be given significant autonomy in regulating these areas: youth protection, the support national lotteries bring to social objectives, the role played by horses in rescue operations (man's friend for thousands of years and who, according to Jonathan Swift, is much better than man) and so forth. Several Scandinavian countries have provided, in my opinion, persuasive arguments for national restrictions and controls but had not, until yesterday, met with much success. Today, the situation might begin to change.
In two weeks' time in Strasbourg, a majority at the European Parliament may decide to follow the line of its internal market committee. After which, the European Commission might take the social and moral consideration more into consideration involving youth protection, despite the haughty vigilance of some of its legal experts. The European Court of Justice might also change, as it has done in the past with regard to the free movement of goods and environmental and social requirements.
C. Letters not weighing more than 50 grams. Postal services have mainly been liberalised in the EU. Private operators compete with public competitors in member states where the latter previously held a monopoly. A certain level of liberalisation was justified by the poor performance of the public monopoly in some member states where inefficiency reached unimaginable proportions. Competition has improved the situation because failing public operators were compelled to improve their provision of services in areas that were totally unsatisfactory.
Without wishing to go over the gains that have been obtained (and which are still contested by some political forces), the current row is about the final derogation to free competition: letters that do not weigh more than 50 grams constitute a “reserved area” and are still allowed under the public postal system. Removing this derogation has been decided. After difficult negotiations that went on for around 15 years, the Council decided that liberalisation would occur a little latter than the timetable previously planned: the 2009 deadline was postponed to 2011 as a general rule, 2013 for Greece and a few other countries that have a “special topographical” dimension, as well as for new member states.
In my opinion, this compromise has no sense. Liberalisation is appropriate and useful and the delay is unjustifiable or it is damaging and creates complications that are practically irresolvable, and this additional but short deadline is therefore unreasonable. Nonetheless, this unsatisfactory compromise obtained consensus at the Council and a majority at the European Parliament, to the great satisfaction of Commissioner Charlie McCreevy. Universal service is now the problem. What private operator will be prepared to take responsibility for post to remote localities, like areas Jacques Tati's Mr Hulot delivered to on his bicycle? It is not post between Paris and Brussels that is creating problems, nor that between Milan and Rome. There will be more than enough competition for these journeys because the price of the stamp largely covers the costs. For covering the real cost of a letter to post, however, in high mountainous areas, many stamps are needed, whereas the very concept of universal service only demands a single one. Sacrosanct “real costs” should not have a role to play in this context.
I am not unaware of the Council's regulation imposing a “universal service” and other obligations, including that of postal deliveries five days a week, but a company could get round them by paying an indemnity. The national post office would therefore have the right to compensation under universal service provision, which it would respect. I am now examining some of the methods to apply when assessing compensation under “universal service” but it is of astonishing complexity and manna from heaven for armies of lawyers. All this to save a principle: introducing free competition for letters weighing just a few grams! Whatever the interests at stake, it is unreasonable.
(F.R./transl.rh)