Select Committee on European Scrutiny Thirteenth Report


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


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2000
Prepared 26 April 2000