Memorandum submitted by the Football Supporters'
Federation
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Football Supporters' Federation
(FSF) represents over 142,000 fans of clubs and national teams
at all levels throughout England & Wales.
1.2 The FSF was pleased to have presented
both written and oral evidence to the Independent European Sport
Review (IESR) under the chairmanship of Sr Jose-Luis Arnaut, an
initiative launched under the last British Presidency of the European
Council.
1.3 The so-called Arnaut Report led to the
European Commission producing a White Paper on Sport which was
published in July 2007.
1.4 This summary of evidence concentrates
on professional sport, and, in particular, association football.
That does not mean our members place no value on amateur and community
sport. The opposite is the case.. Many of our affiliates and members
participate or were former participants in the game as players,
match officials, coaches and administrators at amateur/community
and, in some cases, professional level.
1.5 We also include amongst our members
former and current high level administrators of the game at professional
level in both England & Wales.
1.6 For the convenience of the Committee,
we have arranged this summary of evidence in the same broad order
as the issues raised in the White Paper (WP), concentrating on
the game at professional level.
1.7 Each member state of the European Union
(EU) brings to the practice of sport at both professional and
amateur/community level its own unique cultural, social, political
and legal characteristics. Sport is a reflection of the society
in which it is practiced. As the Canadian social commentator Marshall
McLuhan once shrewdly observed, "culture is what people do".
1.8 For example, the radical changes in
the organisation and practice of elite sport in EU Member States
which were formerly part of the Soviet "bloc" and/or
under Communist rule (Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary, Bulgaria,
Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Poland and that
part of eastern Germany which was the former German Democratic
Republic [GDR]), reflect the radical transformation of those societies
since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the former
Soviet Union (of which the three Baltic nations were formerly
constituent republics) and the subsequent accession of those nations
to the EU. It could not be otherwise.
1.9 For all the social, cultural, political
and legal differences however, professional football in our continent
shares certain distinguishing characteristics in its history and
organisation. Amongst these are:
— the growth of elite football clubs
from community roots;
— the concept of an open, merit-based
"pyramid" structure;
— the concept of sporting and social
solidarity; and
— the strong identification of fans
with their clubs as community and cultural as much as sporting
institutions.
1.10 Speak to any Barcelona supporter and
they will speak of their club as "Mes que un club"
("More than a club"). It is a fundamental part of the
Catalan regional/national identity. Similarly the German Bundesliga
(Federal League) club Schalke 04 from the city of Gelsenkirchen
in the Ruhr valley is known as "Die Knappen"
("The Miners") reflecting the roots of the club as a
team formed by colliers. Arsenal fans here in Britain know their
team as the Gunners reflected also in the cannon badge of the
club, displaying the team's roots as a works football side formed
by employees in the Dial Square factory in the former Woolwich
Arsenal state munitions factory.
1.11 These distinguishing characteristics
and history mark out European football from the game on other
continents. It is these characteristics and history which the
FSF believes need to be at the heart of any discussion of the
societal and legal contexts within which professional football
operates in Europe.
1.12 We now turn to the WP itself.
2. DISABILITY,
RACE, IMMIGRATION,
VIOLENCE AND
SOCIAL INCLUSION
2.1 We have seen in Great Britain the positive
role that professional football can play in promoting diversity.
This is true elsewhere in other European nations too. There was
much comment on how the composition of the French national team
that won the World Cup in 1998 European Championship reflected
the diversity of the "new France".
2.2 Many EU Member States have recognised
the powerful role that sport and in particular football can and
should play in promoting diversity and combating discrimination.
2.3 For example Spain approved a new law
last year. King Juan Carlos formally promulgated the ley contra
la violencia, el racismo, la xenofobia y la intolerancia en el
deporte (law against violence, racism, xenophobia and intolerance
in sport) on 12 July 2007 after the completion of its passage
through both houses of the Cortes Generales (Spanish parliament).
2.4 The law prohibits all forms of discrimination
(including, interestingly, discrimination on the grounds of sexual
orientation, disability and age). It defines as infractions and
offences:
Las declaraciones, gestos o insultos proferidos
en los recintos deportivos con motivo de la celebración
de actos deportivos, en sus aledaños o en los medios de
transporte públicos en los que se puedan desplazar a los
mismos, que supongan un trato manifiestamente vejatorio para cualquier
persona por razón de su origen racial, étnico, geográfico
o social, así como por la religión, las convicciones,
la discapacidad, edad, sexo u orientación sexual así
como los que inciten al odio entre personas y grupos o que atenten
gravemente contra los derechos, libertades y valores proclamados
en la Constitución.
Statements, gestures or insults proffered in
sporting venues or their surrounds during sports events, or on
public transport serving them, that may manifestly humiliate any
person by reason of their racial, ethnic, geographic or social
origin, or their religion or creed, disability, age, sex or sexual
orientation, and/or such as might incite hatred between persons
or groups or which gravely infringe against the rights, liberties
and values proclaimed in the Constitution.
2.5 The law provides for fines of up to
€650,000 (approximately £500,000) for "very serious"
breaches of its provisions, stadium bans of between one and six
months (minor infractions), six months and two years (serious
infractions) and two and five years for very serious infractions.
2.7 The law also provides, perhaps most
interestingly, for a form of "restorative justice" for
individuals committing such offences. They may be required to
perform sports related community service for the term of any stadium
ban.
2.8 The FSF supports in principle the recommendations
of the WP regarding exchange of best practice and co-operation
within the EU (recommendations 18, 19 & 20). The specific
mention of Football Against Racism in Europe (FARE) is welcome.
The involvement of supporters needs to be widened and strengthened
however, and not only in the field of diversity. Fans who feel
genuinely involved, who believe themselves to be genuinely valued
as members of the "football family" show a much heightened
tendency to "self-police".
2.9 Whilst not wishing to diminish the importance
of the fight against racism and xenophobia, the FSF believes that
the positive values of diversity in all it forms should be promoted
and all forms of discrimination fought. The FSF approved a resolution
at its annual Fans' Parliament in 2006 calling for action against
homophobia. We are pleased that the FA has taken action on this,
making homophobic abuse and chanting an offence against ground
regulations.
2.10 Nor must we ever forget the rights
of disabled supporters, whatever their disability. All too often
disabled supporters are equated to wheelchair users. Whilst their
interests and social inclusion are crucial, there are also "invisible"
disabilities such as hearing impairment/deafness, epilepsy, diabetes
and so on. Stadium design, including public transport access incorporating
the needs of disabled supporters should never be forgotten. Football
cannot genuinely be the "peoples' game" without that.
2.11 Where the WP refers to "stakeholders"
this MUST include supporters. We also need to bear in mind that
when supporters refer to "Europe" they mean the continent
of Europe, not just the EU Member States. As important a role
as the EU should and must play, there is a crucial role for the
Council of Europe (CoE) too.
3. SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT
3.1 Recommendations 29-32 of the WP deal
with the environment impact and sustainable development of sport.
Although it is implied there is no explicit mention of reducing
the "carbon footprint" of those travelling to major
sporting events, the largest group of which are fans.
3.2 Facilitating and promoting the use of
the most environmentally sustainable forms of transport to matches
and tournaments and exchanging ideas and best practice in this
area should always be a consideration. This includes accessible
public transport of all forms for supporters. We commend particularly
the practice in Germany where all tickets for Bundesliga games
include a small levy of just over €1 (around 77p) which is
paid to the local transport community (broadly the equivalent
of Passenger Transport Executives in Britain). In return supporters
with match tickets can travel to and from the game for free—an
excellent idea.
4. THE SPECIFICITY
OF SPORT
4.1 This is perhaps the most crucial issue
facing the EU and its institutions. The FSF gave both written
and oral evidence to the IESR calling for clear and limited legal
exemptions for football (and all other professional sports) from
the full force of EU competition and employment law.
4.2 We will not repeat in detail here the
evidence which we have already submitted. We invite members of
the Committee to re-visit our written submission. However, we
believe that, whilst many members of the European Council (EC),
many officials at the European Commission (EC) and many members
of the European Parliament (MEPs) from various member states recognise
the issues, some do not. Specifically the EC Competition Directorate
seems to remain committed to the completely free play of classic
competition theory in professional sport. The recent jurisprudence
of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has also created an unhelpful
uncertainty.
4.3 In this context the FSF cannot agree
with the analysis and conclusions of the WP contained in section
4.1. Football and indeed all professional sport cannot plan with
certainty whilst faced with possible challenges to key income
streams like the collective selling of broadcasting rights. We
have seen what the collapse of collective sales has done to football
in Italy. This has so disturbed the Italian government that the
cabinet (or consiglio dei ministri—council of ministers)
has approved a return to collective sale of television rights
for the elite Serie A from the 2010/11 season. This follows a
recommendation last year in favour of permitting collective sales
by Italy's Autorita" Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato
(AGCM) or Anti-Trust Authority.
4.4 Whilst this change will not eliminate
the gross disproportion of income between the bigger and smaller
clubs in Italy, it will substantially reduce it and thus promote
competitive balance in the league.
4.5 Michel Platini in his capacity as president
of football's European governing body UEFA (he is also a vice-president
of the world governing body FIFA) wrote to the Prime Minister—along
with the 26 other EU heads of government—on 7 September
2007 pleading for support. We attach a copy of this letter as
an appendix [not printed].
4.6 Asked about this letter at a prime ministerial
press briefing at 10 Downing Street on 19 September 2007 a spokesperson
said, " . . . that he was not sure that the Prime Minister
had had a chance to examine the letter with the seriousness which
it deserved. No doubt the Government would consider Monsieur Platini's
proposals, and then consider its response". (10 Downing Street
website).
4.7 The following morning Paul Kelso was
reporting in The Digger column in The Guardian that
M. Platini's arguments had "been rejected wholesale by Downing
Street". M. Platini belatedly received a reply to his letter
some two months after it was written and then it was from the
Minister for Sport, not the Prime Minister himself. (Surely it
is common courtesy to ensure that the reply to a letter is in
it author's hands before briefing the media?) Aside from the merits
or otherwise of the arguments advanced by the President of European
football's governing body, we are concerned about the style and
timing of the British government's response (two months after
the receipt of the letter and the press briefings and from a junior
minister. More than twenty other EU heads of government sent a
timely reply). Such rudeness is unlikely to enhance this country's
influence and reputation in Europe.
4.8 The Premier League Chief Executive in
an interview in The Financial Times published on 26 September
2007 said, commenting on Platini's views expressed in his letter
to the Prime Minister, said "they don't rise much above the
view of people in the corner of the pub". Again, such a patronising
and simplistic response expressed in the media is both impolite
and politically unwise.
4.9 It is worth observing that M. Platini
is generally considered to have been one of the 20th century's
greatest players. His career saw him win the Ligue 1 title in
France with St Etienne, two Italian Serie A scudetti with
Juventus of Turin, where he also won the European Cup Winners'
Cup in 1984 and the European Champion Clubs' Cup (forerunner of
the UEFA Champions League) and the World Club Championship in
1985. He also captained the French national team to victory in
the 1984 European Championships, participating also in the 1978,
1982 (fourth) and 1986 (bronze medal) World Cups.
4.10 He also played in the football tournament
of the 1976 Montréal Olympics. He was coach of the French
national team 1988-92. As an administrator he was co-president
of the national organising committee for the World Cup in France
1998, and a vice-president of the FFF (Fédeération
Française de Football, or French Football Federation),
before joining the executive committees of both UEFA and FIFA
before his election to his current positions. The FSF believes
his opinions can safely be said to warrant careful attention on
football matters.
4.11 We share the UEFA view of the unique
nature of professional sport. This needs to be enshrined in European
law and jurisprudence. The WP asserts that certainty exists in
this area where clearly it does not.
5. FREE MOVEMENT
AND NATIONALITY
5.1 This issue exercises many in football
at the moment. It is the subject of much comment by all who love
the game and wish to see it thrive in these islands and in the
rest of Europe.
5.2 The FSF argued in its evidence to the
IESR the case for the governing bodies of professional sports
to be permitted some limited scope to require by regulation limits
to the number of non European Economic Area (EEA) nationals. Indeed
we believe that in the specific case of sport, national associations
and professional leagues should be permitted (although NOT required)
to introduce rules requiring a minimum quota of nationals of that
country.
5.3 UEFA approved its current "home-grown
player" regulations for its own competitions at its 2004
annual congress at Tallinn, Estonia. For legal reasons these do
not refer to nationality, merely to where the player was developed.
These rules, part of the policy document Vision Europe were
approved with only one vote against amongst the then 52 members
of UEFA, that of the Football Association (England).
5.4 The FSF believes that the way forward
is to see professional football as a cultural as well as a sporting
phenomenon. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organisation's (UNESCO) 2005 Convention on the Protection and
Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, promoted by
France and Canada, was approved by 185 votes to two (the USA and
Israel) with four abstentions (Australia, Honduras, Liberia and
Nicaragua). The UK ratified the Convention on 7 December 2007.
The EU acceded to the Convention on 18 December 2006. The so-called
"cultural exception" is also recognised in World Trade
Organisation (WTO) rules under the General Agreement on Trade
and Tariffs (GATT), although this under some pressure from the
US Trade Representative.
5.5 We comment on WP recommendations 39
and 40 on restrictions to the freedom of movement and non-discrimination
in the light of our view that football and other professional
sports should enjoy a limited "cultural exception" to
the general rule of freedom of movement. The FSF believes supporters
must be involved in this issue. They will no doubt be the subject
of discussion, both formal and informal, at the forthcoming inaugural
European Fans' Convention on Sunday 6 July 2008 at the Emirates
Stadium in London organised by Football Supporters' International,
of which the FSF is a partner and proud host organisation.
5.6 This should in no way be taken as stemming
from sentiments of xenophobia or racism. It is simply a matter
of balance. English and Welsh players of black and minority ethnic
descent were discriminated against for a large part of the last
century. Racism and xenophobia amongst fans was all too frequent.
The FSF and its founding partners were proud to have fought such
discrimination and to proudly promote diversity in the stands
and on the field (we need more in the technical areas and in the
boardroom, this is an unfinished task).
6. GENERAL/CONCLUSIONS
6.1 The FSF welcomes the WP in that it takes
us further forward than we were. It also drives the debate on
the future of sport at both amateur/community and at the elite
professional level.
6.2 We are, however, concerned to ensure
that this opportunity to construct a lasting and fair settlement
of the issues in professional sport that the WP addresses is not
lost.
6.3 The FSF is pleased to have had the opportunity
to submit this summary written evidence. We would be delighted
to have the opportunity to address oral evidence and to answer
any questions members of the Committee may have.
January 2008
| 
