Brussels, 26/02/2009 (Agence Europe) - At the European Parliament on Thursday 26 February, FIFA (Fédération international de football association) and the think-tank INEA (Institute for European Affairs) presented a report by a team of legal experts on the compatibility of the “6+5” rule with European freedom of movement and competition rules. This rule, which was adopted by FIFA in May 2008, stipulates that, at the start of the match, a football club must field at least six players who are eligible for selection for the national side of the country in which the club plays. The specialists say that this rule is not incompatible with European law. Because of sport's social role, “European law recognises and supports the independence of the basic regulations of sporting associations,” they say, adding that the Lisbon Treaty also highlights sport as a special case separate from the purely economic approach of fundamental freedoms and competition regulations. The foundation stone of the “6+5” rule is, the study says, the creation and guarantee of sporting competition, the basic idea being that “sport must remain sport”. Through this rule, inequalities are reduced, purely sporting competition would continue to be foremost and the coaching and training of young players would effectively be encouraged. Furthermore the “6+5” rule would help protect national identities, taking account of football as a part of national culture. The right to freedom of movement is not affected by the rule, the experts say. It would simply be a rule of the game designed in the interest of the sport to improve the balance between clubs and associations, and to ensure fair sporting competition between clubs. According to the report, although the Bosman ruling still applies, arguments that were relevant in the past have been overtaken “because the reality is quite different from the predictions of the time of the European Court of Justice”. The “6+5” rule could, at most, be a form of “indirect discrimination” since, unlike previous clauses on foreigners, it is not directly linked to the nationality of professional footballers. The rule takes account only of players' eligibility for national sides and any possible indirect discrimination can only be invoked for overwhelming reasons of general interest. The report shows that the rule is also compatible with European competition law. According to the INEA, in principle, the rule can be applied to other team sports, such as handball, basketball or ice hockey. “This rule thus has an important protective role to play for all international sport, so that sport remains sport,” said one of the authors of the report. Returning to the Bosman ruling, the experts believe that this judgment “brought concentrations on the sporting and financial levels that are still visible today”, leading to “a dramatic transformation of the balance of sporting competition”. Ivo Belet (EPP-ED, Belgium), who was the 2007 rapporteur on the future of professional football, made no direct comment on the study. He reacted cautiously to FIFA's adoption of the “6+5” rule, deeming that, while the aim was just, it was contrary to European rules on the freedom of movement of workers and competition. He backed rather the “home-grown players” rule, that would require a team to field at least eight players who had been trained locally, by the club or by clubs in the same league. Parliament supported this measure last May, through its adoption of the own initiative report on sport in Europe. (I.L./transl.rt)