THE HELSINKI REPORT ON SPORT
(20765)
—
COM(99) 644
|
Commission report to the European Council with a view to
safeguarding current sports structures and maintaining the social
function of sport within the Community framework: The Helsinki
Report on Sport.
|
| Legal base: |
— |
| |
| Department: |
Culture, Media and Sport |
| Basis of consideration:
| Minister's letter of 13 March 2000
|
| Previous Committee Report:
| HC 23-viii (1999-2000), paragraph 6 (9 February 2000)
|
| Discussed in Council:
| Helsinki European Council December 1999
|
| Committee's assessment:
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision:
| For debate in European Standing Committee C, together
with the Commission Communication: Community Support
Plan to Combat Doping in Sport (see paragraph 2.3 below)
|
Background
2.1 At the invitation of the Vienna European
Council, the Commission submitted this report to the Helsinki
European Council in December. It addressed a number of issues,
under headings such as:
- The development of sport in Europe risks weakening
its educational and social function
- Joining forces to combat doping
- Clarifying the legal environment of sport.
2.2 The Secretary of State for Culture,
Media and Sport (the Rt. Hon. Chris Smith) commented on aspects
of these issues but still left us in doubt about the Government's
view, in some respects. We, therefore, put some questions to him,
when we considered the report on 9 February.
The Minister's letter
2.3 In a letter dated 13 March, the Secretary
of State says that he will start by clarifying the Government's
position on the application of competition rules to sport.
The Government, he says, supports the position set out in the
Declaration on Sport attached to the Treaty of Amsterdam
which we quoted in our previous Report. This calls for special
consideration to be given to the particular characteristics of
amateur sport. The Minister says that this principle is echoed
in the two Decisions adopted on 10 December 1999 in which the
Commission accepts that competition policy applies only to "cases
that have a Community dimension and significantly affect trade
between Member States". He comments:
"We welcome this assessment,
that it is only the economic aspects of sport, not sport per
se, which should be affected by competition law."
2.4 Notwithstanding these Decisions, there
is insufficient case-law to fully assess the impact on sport of
the Commission's rulings in this area; the Minister says: "We
encourage early decisions on outstanding cases. Until then it
is too early to arrive at a definitive conclusion."
2.5 The Minister selects other aspects of
the Commission report with which the Government is in agreement,
including its statement that the bodies of the EU should listen
to sports associations when important decisions affecting sport
are being taken. The Policy Action Team 10 Report published last
year is evidence, he says, of the Government's strong interest
in the social significance of sport. The Report looks at how sport
can be harnessed to promote social inclusion.
2.6 Commenting on the Bosman judgment,
the Minister says that there is no evidence that it has adversely
affected the development of young football players in this country.
He refers to the steps taken by the English Football Association
and the Rugby Football League to bring their respective transfer
systems in to line with the judgment and to incorporate an element
of compensation to clubs for training and development costs for
players. The Government sees no need for further measures in consequence
of that judgment.
The way forward
2.7 We asked the Minister to express in
clear terms how the matter should proceed. He repeats the Government's
strong support for the principle of subsidiarity and says it is
not persuaded that a case has been made for a Treaty amendment
giving the EU a specific competency in sport:
"We encourage continued
constructive intergovernmental dialogue with our EU partners on
all aspects of sport, particularly the effective work which is
being done by Member States with the support of the Commission
on the World Anti-Doping Agency. We also encourage active dialogue
between the Commission and sport itself so that important decisions
and debate affecting sport are fully informed of the needs of
sporting bodies. We want to see EU rules applied in a way which
takes account of the special nature of sporting competitions and
does not interfere unnecessarily with their traditions. Sport
takes place at local, national and international levels and effective
co-operation already takes place at international level. It does
not take place at EU level. Existing national and international
sports federations are better placed than the EU to draw up and
enforce rules and regulations."
Conclusion
2.8 The Minister refers us to the Declaration
on Sport, but this makes no mention of sport as a profession
and it is clear that in the Helsinki Report the Commission was
seeking views on the extent to which it should treat sport as
a business and therefore subject to the competition rules. The
Minister has still not really answered this question with his
statement that "it is only the economic aspects of sport,
not sport per se, which should be affected by competition
law". The difficulty is where to draw the line between the
two.
2.9 This dilemma, which applies also
to the extent to which internal market legislation, such as free
movement of people, should be applied to sport, is the key issue
raised in the report.
2.10 When we considered the Helsinki
Report on Sport in February, we envisaged that we might wish
to recommend it for debate. We decided then to await the report
of the Employment Sub-Committee on work permits for overseas
footballers, but that is now not expected to be published
before mid-April.
2.11 Elsewhere in this Report[10]
we consider the Commission Communication on doping in sport, which
is referred to in the Helsinki Report on Sport.
The Secretary of State reiterates, in his EM on the Communication,
the Government's conviction that the Community should not be given
competence in sport and that the Commission is not the right body
to take forward work to combat doping in sport. He says that the
Commission is not likely to delay before putting forward the proposals
it trails in that document and that the French are keen to take
these forward during their Presidency in the latter half of 2000.
2.12 In these circumstances, we have
decided to recommend now that both documents raise issues of political
importance which should be debated in European Standing Committee
C.
10 (20988) - ; see paragraph 3.1 below. Back
| 
