Memorandum submitted by Chris Heaton-Harris
MEP
I was first elected to the European Parliament
in 1999 for the East Midlands region of the United Kingdom, and
was re-elected in 2004. I am currently Conservative Party spokesman
on Culture, Education, Media & Sport issues in the European
Parliament, and I am current president of the Sports Intergroup
of the European Parliament—a collection of MEPs interested
in sports and the regulatory and governmental issues that surround
them.
In addition to these roles, I was shadow rapporteur
in the Internal Market Committee for both the Belet report on
professional football in 2006-07, and on the Mavrommatis report
on the White Paper on Sport in 2008.
My evidence is summarised below:
1. Page 1 is a review of the role of the
European Parliament in the process leading up to the White Paper
on Sport, and the developments since. It is also a reminder that
the European Parliament is likely to have significant influence
on the direction of any future EU sports policy-making. This is
something I believe the Committee should consider carefully, in
particular in light of the often heavily prescriptive positions
that the Parliament has taken.
2. Page 2 is a brief evaluation of what
I believe to be the key principles at stake: the autonomy of sports
organisations and governing bodies; and the subsidiarity principle,
namely that decisions should be taken at a national, not supranational
level. It is my judgement that both of these principles are likely
to be eroded by the legislative and other processes resulting
from the publication of the White Paper on Sport.
I believe strongly that the autonomy and self-governance
of sport must be protected from political interference, and that
the lip-service paid to that principle in the White Paper and
the Parliamentary reports is insufficient when one considers the
impact of the actual proposals.
Sport should continue to govern itself, as independently
of politics as possible, and should be run by those who know it
best—the competitions, clubs, and governing bodies. I hope
the Committee would agree with that.
1. THE ROLE
OF THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
— The White Paper on Sport should
not be read or interpreted without a full understanding of the
role of the other European institutions regarding the actions
set out both in the White Paper itself, and in the Pierre de Coubertin
Action Plan. The European Parliament has been, since early 2006,
actively engaged in the ongoing debate on the European Union's
foray into sports governance, and will influence the direction
of the European Commission's sports policy when Article 149 of
the Lisbon Treaty is implemented.
— There are two main Parliamentary
Reports, both non-legislative, which illustrate the Parliament's
thinking on the key issues surrounding both the White Paper on
Sport, and the wider debate on sports governance. These are: the
Belet Report on the future of professional football; 22 and the
Mavrommatis Report on the White Paper on Sport. 23 Using the texts
of these reports as an informed guide, the Parliament's position
on key issues can be summarised thus:
The Parliament is supportive of a Treaty competence
in sport for the EU and expects, and has demanded, an active and
interventionist policy from the Commission across a sweeping range
of areas inter alia:
— the sale and marketing of media
rights;
— regulation of sports players'
agents;
— licensing of sports clubs;
— the creation of an independent
Europe-wide financial monitoring body for sports/football clubs;
— development of a "cost-control"
system for European sports clubs; and
— creating (or enforcing) a "competitive
balance" across European football competitions.
It is only when European Union involvement in
these areas is contemplated that the extent of the White Paper
on Sport's potential influence on the future governance of sport
in the EU, and by extension the UK, can be accurately calculated.
2. THE PRINCIPLE
OF SUBSIDIARITY
AND THE
AUTONOMY OF
SPORTS ORGANISATIONS
— The Committee should consider
what I perceive to be a credibility gap between the prominent
references to the principles of "autonomy" and "subsidiarity"
in the White Paper itself, the Action Plan, 24 and the Parliamentary
reports mentioned above, and the substance of the various actions,
intentions and requests contained within these documents, which
reveal a significant accumulation of powers by the EU—in
most cases the Commission—often at the expense of sports
bodies or national authorities.
— It is unclear to me what added
value the involvement of the European Commission and European
Parliament brings to the field of sport. On many subjects, it
is already apparent that the involvement of many MEPs is motivated
either by local nimbyism (ref: the arguments over which is the
"best" method of selling media rights) or political
prejudices (ref: the desire of some to curb the earnings of both
top players and top clubs), and that the outcome will significantly
increase the politicisation of sport, at the expense of the autonomy
of sports organisations and governing bodies.
— In the less controversial areas
of sport that the White Paper (and the Parliamentary reports surrounding
it) advocate EU involvement in, such as campaigns against obesity,
racism and violence, or sport as a tool for social inclusion,
25 it is clear to me that decisions would be made best at a national
level—closer to the realities on the ground, and requiring
less complex administration. While most of the actions, campaigns
and guidelines suggested in this section of the White Paper are
worthy and/or desirable, it is not apparent why there is a pressing
need for them to be implemented or administered at a European
level.
The Committee should once again consider the
contrast between the stated acceptance of the principle of subsidiarity,
and the practicalities of implementing the Action Plan, which
would certainly infringe that principle considerably.
April 2008
22 Passed by the European Parliament in March 2007
with a large majority.
23 To be voted on by the European Parliament in May
2008*
*predicted date of vote in plenary session. The report
has already been passed by a large majority in the Culture, Media
& Sport Committee, and is expected to be approved by a large
majority in Parliament.
24 Pierre de Coubertin Action Plan, annexed to the
White Paper on Sport.
25 These subjects are detailed in Section 2 (The
Societal Role of Sport) of the White Paper on Sport.
|
