Memorandum submitted by the Central Council
for Physical Recreation (CCPR)
ABOUT THE
CCPR
1. CCPR is the representative body for sport
and recreation in the UK, counting over 260 national governing
bodies of sport and other national sport and recreation organisations
within its membership. CCPR exists to promote, protect and provide
for sport and recreation in the UK by demonstrating the benefits
that sport and recreation bring to society, working to reduce
adverse impacts from legislation or other causes, and providing
a range of high quality services to enable its member organisations
to operate effectively.
2. CCPR is also an active member of the
European Non-Governmental Sports Organisations (ENGSO) which represents
more than forty national (EU and non-EU) umbrella sports organisations
across Europe and also a member of the EU Sports Office.
OVERVIEW
3. CCPR welcomes the White Paper on Sport
and expresses its willingness to work with the Commission to implement
the positive actions in the Paper alongside national government,
fellow sporting bodies in the UK and other Member States.
4. CCPR understands that sport remains outside
the competency of the EU and that for this reason it is not easy
for the Commission to introduce legislative proposals and secure
budget through the Paper. However, given the time and effort put
into the Paper, it is nevertheless disappointing that no specific
funding has been made available to sport and that the specificity
of sport has not been clarified.
5. CCPR is also concerned that the Paper
treats grassroots sports and professional sports as distinct entities.
Sport must be regarded holistically if it is to thrive.
6. However CCPR does hope that the Paper
heralds the first steps towards the Commission promoting sport
in Europe, working more closely with national sports organisations;
guaranteeing the specificity of sport in Europe; clarifying sport's
position with respect to EU law and opening EU funding streams
for sport.
STRENGTHS AND
OPPORTUNITIES OF
THE WHITE
PAPER ON
SPORT
The White Paper on Sport contains many positive
actions, and the European institutions and member states should
work together to develop many of the ideas outlined. These positive
proposals are highlighted in this section and where issues have
specific actions associated with them as laid out in the action
plan by Pierre de Coubertin which accompanied the White Paper,
they are noted in the comments.
7. Promoting voluntary non-profit sport organisations
has the potential to benefit grassroots sport enormously. By identifying
key challenges and the main characteristics of services provided
by sports organisations (Action 10) and launching a study on volunteering
in sport (Action 14) a better understanding of the needs of voluntary
clubs can be established. CCPR is uniquely placed to analyse non-profit
sport in the UK and has already completed a comprehensive sports
club survey.
8. Carrying out a study on the financing
of grassroots sports in the member states (Action 37) is a positive
step and will hopefully allow the European institutions to understand
and protect how local level sport is funded. CCPR's members have
offered help in creating a full analysis of the economic impact
of sport (Action 35).
9. Supporting the EU Health-Enhancing Physical
Activity (HEPA) network will be beneficial. CCPR agrees that sports
organisations can be very influential and play a significant role
in encouraging greater levels of physical activity in the community
in addition to their core sporting purpose. CCPR encourages the
creation of smaller networks to focus on this topic (Action 2)
and notes that the UK can help to develop European physical activity
guidelines in line with its current standards (Action 1). Such
networks on a European level emphasise the need for sport to be
considered cross-departmentally, for example being an integral
part of Department of Health policy.
10. Organising structured dialogue with sports
stakeholders (Action 49) will aid the development of European
sporting policy. CCPR is encouraged by the Commission's new determination
to hold structured dialogue with national umbrella organisations,
but also notes that Europe should engage with more individual
sports as currently European lobbying is dominated by football.
At a national level, working groups in Brussels are nominated
by DCMS and CCPR hopes DCMS will continue to include us as a key
partner and nominate the CCPR in appropriate fields such as the
working group for non-profit sports organisations where CCPR is
the expert in the UK field.
11. Defending VAT rates for sport (Action
38) is crucial for grassroots and governing body development.
However, more should be done to share and encourage European best
practice. Current UK taxation for sports and sports organisations
is less positive than many European countries (eg Denmark, where
sports clubs have preferential tax arrangements).
12. Development of education, training and
the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) in sport (Action 7)
will aid mobility of sportspeople and the transferability of skills.
CCPR is pleased to see potential development of pan-European coaching
qualifications, development and sharing of best practice. In particular,
the Commission should work closely with ENSEE to develop their
coaching goals together and prevent overlapping work streams.
13. Prevention of racism and violence in
sport (Actions 18 to 24) is naturally a key area in which the
European institutions can make a positive impact. CCPR is encouraged
by the initial efforts of DG Culture and DG Justice in opening
up discussions to stakeholders and to take positive action in
addressing racism and violence in sport. It must be noted that
stakeholders from the UK have much to offer this debate in terms
of best practice and experience.
THREATS AND
WEAKNESSES OF
THE WHITE
PAPER ON
SPORT
A lack of legislative proposals and firm action
is notable in the White Paper. CCPR understands the difficulties
of creating positive legislation for sport given that it is not
a policy competence for Europe. It is hoped that, with the ratification
of the Reform Treaty, more emphasis will be given to sport in
Europe and the Commission can redefine the following issues that
were not addressed in enough detail in the paper:
14. The autonomy of sport is not guaranteed
by the Paper (Section 4.0) and the ability of national governing
bodies to define their own sporting regulations is not defined
in full. The White Paper on Sport suggests that governance is
"mainly the responsibility of sports governing bodies"—however
sporting governing bodies should be entirely responsible
for the running of their sports within EU and national law and
also be given the reassurance that changes made to protect sport
and fair competition or prevent negative aspects such as ticket
touting, money laundering or corruption will not suffer legal
challenges.
15. The specificity of sport is not defined
(Section 4.1). Sport has a specific nature which derives from
taking specific rules governing competitive structures. It should
therefore not be subject to all EU or national law with complete
rigidity. For example national sports teams do discriminate against
free movement of workers by preventing non-nationals competing
in national teams, but this has been sanctioned by the European
Court of Justice (Walgrave and Koch 1974). In the Meca-Medina
case (2004) the ECJ elaborated that, while there should be specific
consideration to sport, sporting law can only be defined on a
case-by-case basis. This simply does not meet the needs of sport.
The national governing bodies of sport must be able to act in
the secure knowledge that rule changes they make for the good
of sport cannot be challenged under EU law. The legal position
of sport in Europe with respect to both its autonomy and specificity
must be improved and defined.
16. The separation of grassroots sport from
professional sport in the White Paper on Sport is artificial and
potentially damaging. Income from professional sports is vital
in providing investment to grassroots sport. For example 80% of
cricket's income comes through streams related to the national
game, which also shows the genuine need to encourage home grown
players to create successful elite players.
17. Uncertainty over home-grown players and
quotas is set to be addressed, but care needs to be taken to properly
tackle the issues. It should be up to the autonomous national
governing bodies of sport to determine whether player quotas for
home-grown players or non-nationals are needed to develop and
promote their sport. The White Paper does afford sport some hope
in conceding that "certain quotas of locally trained players
could be compatible with the Treaty", which may well be in
line with previous European Court of Justice rulings such as Walgrave
and Koch (1974) which recognised that national teams need not
offer opportunity for non-nationals to represent their nation
and that sport lies outside the scope of the free movement of
personnel in this instance.
A Commission study is underway to analyse access
to individual competitions for non-nationals (Action 40) and access
for home-grown players (Action 9), but only the world of football
is being considered. This is unacceptable given the impact third
party nationals have on a variety of sports, most noticeably cricket
and the codes of rugby in the UK and the sports of ice hockey,
handball and basketball throughout Europe. There is also a lack
of clarity on the legal standing of quotas and EU agreements;
for example the Cotonou trade agreement would allow free movement
of many African, Pacific and Caribbean players (of particular
importance in rugby and cricket), if the criteria of the Kolpak
ruling were applied, but no guidance has been given as to whether
this trade agreement affects the free movement of sportspeople.
18. Lack of protection for sports media and
intellectual property rights means a failure to safeguard funding
for grassroots sport and must be explored in more depth (Action
48). The CCPR-led Voluntary Code of Conduct in relation to the
broadcasting of major sporting events ensures that signatories
provide at least 5% of TV rights income annually to directly fund
grassroots initiatives. Grassroots sport deserves a fair return
from media rights.
19. Betting integrity is not explicitly addressed
in the White Paper and its danger only implied under the threats
of corruption and money laundering (Actions 44 and 45). Betting
integrity was, however, named specifically as a new and real threat
to European sport by Michel Platini, President of UEFA, at the
Commission's Violence in Sport Conference. Concrete steps need
to be taken to ensure that professional sport can address the
question of integrity; currently betting firms use sports' intellectual
property to create profits without supporting sport or contributing
to the costs of maintaining its integrity.
20. Limited EU funding programmes for sport
exist within the EU, despite the identification of streams applicable
to sport identified in the White Paper (Actions 3, 6 and 15).
In the streams identified, sport is not the explicit function
of any of the funding and therefore EU money is difficult for
sports organisations to obtain. CCPR understands that, as Europe
has no competence in sport as a policy area, it cannot offer funding
streams just for sport, but CCPR encourages the Commission to
create funding streams focusing on sport for sport's sake when
the Reform Treaty is ratified and Europe gains a supporting competence
in sport. In the meantime, the Commission should encourage cross
departmental dialogue to raise the opportunities for sporting
initiatives within the funding streams identified in the White
Paper (eg social cohesion, health, gender equality, qualifications
etc).
21. Gender equality in sport is not afforded
genuine help despite being highlighted in the White Paper. CCPR
is already primed to help in developing leadership positions for
women within European sport (Action 17) as it leads project ENTER!,
a pan-European venture to promote women's leadership in sport,
but European funding is vital for its success and the Commission
has confirmed that it cannot positively help the project until
the Treaty is ratified. CCPR urges the Commission to develop its
policy on promoting women in sport fully after ratification of
the Treaty and encourages a joint strategy with DG Employment,
Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities immediately.
22. Licensing systems for clubs and protecting
minors deserve more concrete action. The White Paper on Sport
does propose outlines for self regulatory licensing systems (Action
46 and 47) for sports clubs, although this is restricted to professional
clubs and initial work to football. Within England there is now
a well established set of criteria known as Clubmark which seeks
to ensure the clubs are safe, effective and child friendly. CCPR
recommends the EU also looks at a similar grassroots scheme, rather
than restricting itself to professional clubs. In relation to
protecting minors, the NSPCC Child Protection in Sport Unit can
provide input on effective ways to ensure children are protected
from abuse during sporting activities. The NSPCC recommends that
the European Commission promote the development of common EU standards
for creating safe environments for children as part of the follow
up to the White Paper.[1]
This would help ensure that all EU Member States put in place
proper procedures for safeguarding children in sporting organisations,
including pre-employment checks on those applying to work (in
a paid or unpaid capacity) with children. Supervision, short-listing,
referencing, evaluation, training, policies and ethical principles
are also required if children are to be protected.
23. The fight against doping must complement
not duplicate current efforts (Actions 4 and 5). The European
Commission has communicated with CCPR that it will become involved
with doping issues in sport at some point in the future. CCPR
hopes that the Commission will limit its role to a facilitating
one given the work of WADA and the high number of live committees
addressing doping.
24. Green issues should be examined more
closely. While CCPR agrees it is important to promote environmentally
sound management, some areas of green procurement policy have
been onerous in the past and it is important to strike the correct
balance which will allow sport to prosper. Environmental procurement
policy is almost exclusively a European policy and member states
have limited influence, it is therefore essential that sport has
a positive and direct input into European policy development in
this field.
CONCLUSION
25. CCPR welcomes the White Paper for sport
and looks forward to working with the Commission, Member States
and UK sporting organisations to do everything possible to further
the opportunities for sport in the UK and EU.
26. In particular CCPR will look to Europe
to increase funding streams for sport, guarantee the specificity
and autonomy of sport, clarify EU law with respect to sport and
understand that sport must be regarded holistically by including
both grassroots and professional sports together.
January 2008
1 NSPCC briefing, "Playing safe: Protecting Europe's
children from abuse in sport", October 2007: http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/policyandpublicaffairs/Europe/Briefings/childprotectioninsport_briefing_wdf52057.pdf Back
|
