CHAPTER 4: Funding and Supporting Grassroots
Sports
49. In order to deliver on its potential, grassroots
sport needs to be adequately supported and resourced. This chapter
examines how the EU can act in two fields, volunteering and financial
support, which we consider to be essential for the successful
delivery of grassroots sports. The EU impacts on financial support
for grassroots sports in three main ways. In increasing order
of financial significance these are: through a dedicated sports
funding programme (yet to be agreed); through other EU funds,
including the structural funds; and through regulatory impact
on income derived from the sale of intellectual property rights,
principally media. These are considered in turn.
Volunteering
50. Grassroots sport is heavily reliant on volunteers.
Ninety percent of grassroots sport clubs use volunteers with an
average of 21 per club and more people in the UK volunteer in
sport than in any other sector.[74]
In football alone, the FA estimate there are over 400,000 volunteers.[75]
The Football Foundation stated "quite simply, volunteers
are the life-blood of everything we do."[76]
In addition to ensuring that grassroots sport can be delivered,
a number of witnesses highlighted how volunteers can also provide
a valuable extra dimension to activities, serving as community
role models[77] or by
providing opportunities for inter-generational interactions.[78]
As discussed in chapter 2, many of the benefits of participating
in grassroots sport also extend to volunteers.
51. Some witnesses expressed the view, repeated
by the Minister, that volunteering is essentially a national,
indeed, local activity.[79]
However, our evidence suggested a number of ways in which the
EU might use its new competence in order to encourage and support
volunteering.
52. Regulatory burdens were seen as one of the
greatest threats to volunteering. The experience of the EFDS was
that "even small increases in administrative burdens can
have a devastating effect on a club's ability to recruit and retain
volunteers"[80]
and this was a view shared by the majority of our witnesses.[81]
The Government stressed that factors associated with individuals
choosing to volunteer or not were complex in nature but agreed
that there was some evidence that the bureaucratic load was deterring
some volunteers.[82]
The Minister, along with others such as the Sport and Recreation
Alliance, believed that a review of EU legislation impacting on
volunteers would be a constructive way forward.[83]
We discuss more widely the desirability and functioning of mechanisms
through which the Commission can consider the impact of general
legislation on sport in chapter 5.
53. The Commission Communication addresses the
issue of volunteering primarily through the proposal to "support
the inclusion of sport-related qualifications when implementing
the European Qualifications Framework"[84]
and to "promote the validation of non-formal and informal
learning gained through activities such as voluntary activity
in sport."[85] We
heard evidence that these actions would be welcomed by grassroots
sports organisations and were aligned with the aspirations of
volunteers. The Football Foundation highlighted the findings of
research they had conducted into volunteers, explaining that "what
they are looking for is quite simple. They are just looking to
feel valued, to move forward and be trained in the area in which
they volunteer ... it is a question of providing opportunities
and, perhaps, funding for people to go on courses, whether they
are on book-keeping or simply sports and recreational development."[86]
The Volunteer Coordinator we spoke to in the course of our visit
to Swiss Cottage School also stressed that the opportunity to
up-skill and gain qualifications was one of the key factors in
attracting volunteers. Other bodies stressed the importance of
personal development in addition to formal training.[87]
The Government expressed their support for the Communication's
proposals in this area.[88]
54. In addition to the actions proposed in the
Communication, the Commission highlighted work being done to promote
and validate learning as part of the 2011 EU Year of Volunteering.
These include a proposed Council Recommendation, the establishment
of Europe-wide networks for cooperation to enable better training
and accreditation of volunteers and the introduction of a European
Skills Passport to enable people to record skills acquired through
volunteering.[89]
55. The Commission have also supported volunteering
projects through the Preparatory Actions. Sport Wales described
one such project they are involved in, led by the Flemish Sports
Federation, which aims to consider the existing knowledge base
regarding volunteering, to develop it further through exchange
and to spread best practice.[90]
Other witnesses similarly highlighted the potential for the EU
to add value to their work by championing best practice across
the EU in areas such as engaging and retaining volunteers in sport.[91]
In his evidence to us, the Minister focused on initiatives to
increase volunteering as part of the London 2012 Olympic Games
rather than on any EU dimension.[92]
However, the Minister had previously noted that the EU could usefully
develop "better evidence on how major international sporting
events can be translated into lasting participation and further
encouragement for professional sports to play their part in boosting
participation."[93]
It may therefore be that lessons learnt regarding how to increase
and retain the number of volunteers could form part of this. The
functioning of various mechanisms for the sharing of best practice
is discussed further in chapter 5.
56. It is clear to us that volunteering is vital
to the success of grassroots sport. The Commission should recognise
the importance of recruiting and retaining volunteers, ensuring
future legislation does not adversely impact on volunteers.
Our recommendations in chapter 5 are pertinent in this respect.
57. The opportunity to gains skills and qualifications
through volunteering is an important factor in attracting and
retaining volunteers. Volunteering also has the potential to contribute
to Europe 2020 objectives, assisting individuals into education
and training. We welcome the proposals to incorporate sport-related
qualifications when implementing the European Qualifications Framework
and to promote and recognise formal and informal learning gained
through volunteering.
58. Volunteering is an area which could benefit
from the sharing of best practice at a European level and the
Commission should facilitate this.
59. We consider the EU Year of Volunteering
to be a valuable platform for promoting volunteering in sport
and considering how to create a favourable climate for it. The
integration of sport into such initiatives is important, recognising
the ability of sport to contribute to a wide range of policy objectives.
Sports Programme
60. A full Sports Programme, a dedicated funding
stream for sport, has yet to be agreed. However, a Preparatory
Action programme was launched in 2009 to cover the period until
2012. Preparatory Action programmes can run for a maximum of three
years and are designed to pave the way, in terms of good practice
and analysis, for bigger programmes. Special annual events such
as the Mediterranean Games and the Special Olympics[94]
were also funded from this budget. A requirement of funding was
that projects have a transnational network from a minimum of five
Member States. Two examples of projects funded under the Preparatory
Actions are provided in Box 4. The initial intention was that
this would be followed by a two year mini-programme covering the
years 2012 and 2013 before a full programme in 2014. However,
the mini-programme has since been cancelled. Decisions on the
future, structure and priorities of the programme from 2014 have
yet to be taken but there is an understanding that resources are
not likely to be great.[95]
Excluding money dedicated to supporting events, the Preparatory
Actions had a budget of 7.5 million.
61. In its Communication the Commission set out
a number of areas in which it proposes to fund transnational projects.
These include:
- Health enhancing physical activity
- Participation in sport of people
with disabilities
- Women's access to leadership positions
in sport and access to sport for women in a disadvantaged position
- Social integration of vulnerable
and disadvantaged groups
BOX 4
Examples of projects funded under the
Preparatory Actions
Women's International Leadership Development Programme[96]
UK partner, Sport and Recreation Alliance
The aim of this project is to increase women's access to decision-making positions in sport, train future women leaders, provide an information platform to help create future projects and analyse the current status of women in leadership positions in sport. It also aims to create a multi-media platform from which partner countries can continue training programmes after the project is completed.
All for Sport for All: perspectives of sport for people with a disability in Europe[97]
UK partner, sportscotland
This project aims to assess the state of sport for people with disabilities, and consider issues including levels of participation, infrastructure and events.
|
62. Whilst the Government stressed that they had yet to take
a financial decision on a Sports Programme, they expressed a certain
degree of scepticism as to its potential value. They made particular
reference to the transnational requirement, commenting that "although
this may be effective in showing additional 'European' value,
it does not add much value in terms of grassroots participation."[98]
63. By contrast, many of our witnesses highlighted the benefits
of transnational links and expressed enthusiasm for developing
them. Some organisations had already developed, independently
of the EU, their own informal links with similar groups in other
Member States. For example the Dudley Community Sport and Physical
Activity Network drew attention to the longstanding partnership
between Sport Dudley and Bremen Sportjugend in Germany and how
their exchange programme over the course of 30 years had managed
to engage a number of sports clubs and highlight models of best
practice.[99] The Dwarf
Sports Association UK also highlighted the value of their interactions
with similar organisations elsewhere including the holding of
world games and the sharing of best practice. They considered
that such links contributed to broader aims promoted by the EU
such as a shared sense of belonging and participation, a view
shared by the Rugby League European Federation.
[100]
64. The Commission was keen to stress that it
would only support projects where there was clear EU added value,
and that an impact assessment for a future funding programme was
currently underway. Mr Paulger also commented that the financial
pressures on the budget would mean that there would be competition
for resources and that projects would only be funded where there
was a strong case for doing so. However, he believed that the
pilot projects had demonstrated real added value.[101]
65. Many witnesses, though, found the logistics
of fulfilling the transnational requirement problematic and argued
that it acted as a disincentive, being both costly and administratively
burdensome, particularly for smaller grassroots organisations.
The LTA described it as "onerous and prohibitive given the
relatively small level of funding available"[102]
and the Sport and Recreation Alliance felt that whilst such projects
strengthened the "European framework in sport" it meant
that some resources were diverted from the grassroots where they
could be more beneficially spent.[103]
The practical difficulties of making such links were emphasised
by Sport Wales which suggested that there was a danger of partnerships
being formed which were not necessarily the most productive.[104]
How links and networks can best be formed between grassroots organisations,
including in order to satisfy the transnational requirement within
any Sports Programme, is discussed further in chapter 5.
66. Regarding the future structure and priorities
of a Sports Programme, a number of witnesses argued that there
needed to be a clearer focus on and requirement to demonstrate
value to grassroots sports than had been the case with the projects
under the Preparatory Actions. The Sport and Recreation Alliance
suggested that "all funding through the sports programme
should be required to demonstrate both pan-European value and
a clear grassroots element" whilst The European Non-Governmental
Sports Organisation (ENGSO) were keen to ensure that the funding
be equally as accessible to smaller and medium sized organisations
and initiatives.[105]
67. ENGSO also highlighted that whilst they considered
the Preparatory Actions had been useful for the Commission, "a
thorough analysis of the projects would be needed in order to
really enable contributions to the preparations of the EU Sports
Programme." They expressed concern that timings of proposals
may mean that it is difficult for this to be done in time to impact
upon the programme for 2014.[106]
Mainstreaming sport into EU funding
68. There are a number of different EU funding
streams to which sports projects are eligible to apply. These
are set out in Box 5. Many of these funding streams have significantly
greater resources than would be allocated to a dedicated Sports
Programme and thus can be considered to offer greater potential
to grassroots sports in terms of levels of funding. In addition,
the majority of these funds do not require transnational networks.
BOX 5
Funding streams for which sports projects
are eligible to apply[107]
- Europe for Citizens
- European Integration Fund
- European Qualifications Framework
- European Social Fund
- European Regional Development Fund
- Life-long Learning Programme
- Youth in Action
- PROGRESS (for projects supporting EU objectives in the field of employment and social affairs including gender equality and social inclusion)
- DAPHNE III (for projects contributing to the protection of children, young people and women against violence)
- Fundamental Rights and Citizenship
- Prevention and Fight against Crime
- LIFE + (for environmental projects)
|
69. The availability of these funds was welcomed by our witnesses,
although the Sport and Recreation Alliance felt that some of the
streams highlighted in the White Paper held limited potential
for sport in practice.[108]
A number of suggestions were made by witnesses of ways in which
such funding streams could be used to support the priorities identified
in chapter 2. The RFU recommended that greater use should be made
of the structural funds to make facilities more accessible to
under-represented groups and disadvantaged communities[109]
whilst StreetGames highlighted use of the European Social Fund
in projects assisting individuals to make the transition into
work.[110] Where organisations
had experience of funding through other streams they were generally
positive.[111] However,
there was widespread feeling that more could be done to integrate
sport into these streams.[112]
The Government commented that "so far, sport has not really
been able to exploit these available funds."[113]
The Sport and Recreation Alliance drew attention to the fact that
sport is not mentioned in the Leonardo or Comenius programmes
or in the 2010 and 2011 work programmes of Europe for Citizens.
They also suggested that there had been retrograde steps in the
last few years, with sport being removed from funding priorities
within several programmes.[114]
70. The Commission dismissed fears that a dedicated funding
stream for sport could lead to the marginalisation of sport in
other funds. Mr Paulger believed that a Sports Programme "would
be a sort of recognition that would help in the mainstreaming
of sport."[115]
He provided an example of the Commission's active consideration
of where mainstreaming could take place, saying that they intended
to propose that sport be an annual priority within the Youth in
Action programme in 2012 and 2013.[116]
The Government found this "encouraging," telling us
that "where there are opportunities to mainstream within
funds, we will continue to press for those."[117]
71. Whilst we accept that the resources are likely to be
small, we nevertheless believe there to be value in a Sports Programme
and in the transnational links it promotes. In particular, we
support the funding of projects in the areas outlined in the Commission's
Communication as in line with areas where evidence shows sport
can deliver significant outcomes against wider policy objectives.
72. Creating the right transnational networks will be crucial
to the success of a Sports Programme. We urge the Commission
to learn lessons from the Preparatory Actions and in particular
to explore how the transnational requirement can be made easier
for grassroots organisations to fulfil.
73. In light of the wide range of policy objectives which
sport can deliver, general EU funding streams offer significant
potential to grassroots sports. Many of these streams have significantly
greater resources than would be available through a dedicated
Sports Programme. The existence of any specific funding stream
for sport should not mean that it is marginalised in other funds.
Indeed, sport should be further integrated into EU funding streams.
We welcome the Commission's commitment to the principle of mainstreaming
sport in funding but found the evidence of the Sport and Recreation
Alliance, that in recent years sport has been marginalised in
many funds it is eligible to apply to, worrying. We hope that
the EU's new formal competence in sport will help redress this
situation.
Funding for grassroots sports from the sale
of intellectual property rights
74. In its Communication, the Commission noted that revenue
derived from the exploitation of intellectual property rights
in sport is often partly redistributed by professional sports
to grassroots sport.[118]
The primary source is the sale of broadcasting rights, as we were
told by the Sport and Recreation Alliance.[119]
Another source of funding highlighted in the Commission's Communication
is gambling activitiesboth sport betting and lotteries.
In order better to understand the issues surrounding the financing
of sport from the sale of intellectual property rights, the Commission
has launched a study on the funding of grassroots sport.[120]
BOX 6
Sale of broadcasting rights in sportthe issues
unravelled
Territoriality
According to this principle, a sporting event has a different value according to where it is broadcastfor example a match between two French clubs is likely to command a higher price in France than in the UKand the rights to show it may therefore be sold for broadcast exclusively in the territory of one Member State.[121]
Collective selling
This allows an organisation such as the Premier League to sell its matches collectively (rather than by each club individually), and the revenues to be re-distributed among the clubs and to grassroots sport.[122] To limit the anti-competitive effects of such exclusivity, the European Commission requires the collective selling entity to unbundle the media rights into separate packages thus ensuring more than one broadcaster per territory has access to the rights.[123]
Piracy
Clubs and organisations are increasingly concerned about the growth in digital piracy of sporting events.
|
Broadcasting rights
75. Our evidence indicated that grassroots sport receives
considerable funding from the sale of broadcasting rights. In
December 2010 the Sport and Recreation Alliance introduced a Code
of Conduct under which several major sports in the UK committed
to ensuring that at least 30% of the net revenues derived from
selling the UK broadcasting rights to their events are reinvested
in grassroots sport.[124]
This proportion rose in December 2010 from the previous 5%, a
six-fold increase on the previous commitment. It is estimated
that the new code should provide around a quarter of a billion
pounds a year to UK sport.[125] The
Minister described the code as "entirely the right direction
of travel."[126]
Best practice such as this might be shared at the EU level, suggested
the Sport and Recreation Alliance. They proposed that non-profit
sports organisations across the EU look specifically at grassroots
funding.[127]
76. Representatives of tennis, rugby union and football all
confirmed the importance of the sale of broadcasting rights for
their contribution to grassroots organisations. The LTA noted
that the Wimbledon championships "generate a substantial
percentage of our sport's income that we are then able to invest
... into the grassroots of our sport." All of those representatives
agreed that the particular value lay in live sport. This was part
of the Football Association's "virtuous circle", whereby
live sport generates interest and encourages participation, which
then further enhances the value of the live sport and the amount
of funds generated for distribution to grassroots sport.[128]
The Football Foundation described itself as a "good example
of how TV rights money ... is a successful model of funding grassroots
sport."[129]
77. On behalf of its wide membership of sporting organisations,
the Sport and Recreation Alliance called for the principle of
collective selling to be safeguarded (see Box 6).[130]
In its Communication, the Commission noted that collective selling
inherently restricts competition within the meaning of the Treaty
but that it brings advantages which outweigh the negative
effects, and can therefore meet the criteria for an exemption
under the Treaty.[131]
78. The Communication by contrast is silent on territoriality.
The Sport and Recreation Alliance emphasised that it wanted "to
keep television rights territorially specific to the UK because
we are concerned that if it becomes pan-European, it becomes more
difficult" to distribute funding to grassroots[132]
and the Premier League noted that there was little appetite among
broadcasters for pan-European rights.[133]
In the course of our inquiry, the Advocate General of the European
Court of Justice issued an opinion in favour of a UK pub landlady
who had purchased a Greek decoder card in order to access foreign
satellite transmission of Premier League matches rather than pay
for a subscription in the UK.[134]
Commenting on the Opinion, the Minister cautioned that the implications
were unclear but noted that if there were to be an overall fall-off
in revenue "there is no doubt that that will impact on the
grassroots."[135]
79. We heard some calls by sporting organisations for future
EU policy work to defend sports property rights. It was clear,
though, that new regulation would not be welcome at the EU level
and that there was support for each Member State being free to
pick the rules that best suit their countries in terms of funding
grassroots sports.[136]
The Commission pointed out that in any event the new Treaty article
would require EU institutions to take into account the specificity
of the sports sector, adding that this would apply to competition
issues. In their evidence, the Government were clear that it is
a supporting competence and thus did not oblige the institutions
to take account of sport, a view shared by the Sport and Recreation
Alliance.[137] The
concept of the specificity of sport is outlined in Box 7.
BOX 7
Specificity of Sport
The Treaty explicitly recognises the specific nature of sport. This is significant in that it could be used to justify the partial exemption of sport from the principles of EU law in certain areas, such as free movement and competition. Sports stakeholders hoped that the creation of a treaty base for sport would mean that this would allow the Court of Justice and other European institutions to recognise sport's specific nature more systematically.
Examples of the specificity of sport previously cited by the Commission include:
- the autonomy and diversity of sport organisations
- solidarity in sport
- the organisation of sport on national basis
- the principle of a single federation per sport
- the pyramid structure of sport, from grassroots to elite level.[138]
Whilst it is widely accepted that in some instances sport operates under different conditions to those found in normal industries, the boundaries of the specificity of sport are contested. The Court of Justice has had an important role in contributing to the debate on what constitutes the specificity of sport but the Commission, Member States, the European Parliament, sports stakeholders[139] and the Court of Arbitration for Sport have all had input too.
|
80. Finally, there were calls for Article 165 to be used to
tackle the increase in the number of websites making sports content
available illegally, and such content being shared among users.
The Premier League argued that the Commission should use Article
165 "to work on initiatives to protect the content industry
in general." Otherwise, they warned, redistribution mechanisms
would dry up and Europe would lose its leading position in the
market for the creation of audiovisual content.[140]
The Premier League and the Sport and Recreation Alliance particularly
hoped that Article 165 would help to ensure that sport was considered
within EU discussions[141]
on copyright and content distribution in the EU.[142]
The RFU noted that piracy prevented the full value of an event
accruing to the sport.[143]
Lotteries and gambling
81. A number of different countries use national lotteries
to fund grassroots sports.[144]
Our evidence did not question this source and use of funding.
Debate centred on whether a proportion of profits derived from
betting on sports should be invested into grassroots sport. France
has introduced such a levy. A set percentage of money derived
from betting transactions is paid into a fund and is then allocated
by the French government among grassroots sports.[145]
Owners of sports rights and their representatives recommended
that other Member States, including the UK, consider the introduction
of a similar statutory framework.[146]
In advocating this approach, witnesses argued that it would represent
a fair market return for the use of sporting competitions on which
betting is based, and that it would improve the integrity of sporting
competitions by acting as a disincentive to fix matches.[147]
82. In response, Party Gaming, an online gaming company, dismissed
the idea that there was a link between a sports' rights levy and
integrity and regretted that there had not been any balanced consultation
on the issue. It argued that a levy on regulated betting operators
would reduce the availability of options on peripheral and less
popular events, thus forcing consumers to use unregulated operators
and possibly damaging the integrity of those events. In terms
of whether betting companies should offer a "fair return"
to sport, Party Gaming was clear in its view that the gambling
industry "has little or nothing to do with grassroots sport."
It made the point that other industries, such as news and clothing,
also derive an income from sport but have not been asked to pay
such a "fair return."[148]
83. Interestingly, Betfair, an online gambling company, believed
by contrast that all licensed gambling companies "have a
responsibility to put something back into the community"
and recommended that the idea of such schemes across the industry
"be developed further." However, it stressed that this
should be a voluntary arrangement and that the EU should not involve
itself in any statutory arrangements for the funding of sport.
For its part, Betfair invested at least £40,000 per annum
in grassroots sports clubs through its "Cash 4 Clubs"
programme. As an international company, operating across the EU,
it was considering the possibility of extending the scheme elsewhere
in Europe, but it noted that there were a range of considerations
to be taken into account before doing so. These included partnership
with a relevant body; resources; and public relations activity.[149]
84. On the subject of a possible EU response, Keith Newman
of the EU Sports Platform told us that there was a "discussion"
in Brussels on a fair return from gambling.[150]
This was confirmed by the European Commission which told us that
it was preparing a Green Paper regarding online gambling in the
internal market, which would include consideration of re-investment
by betting operators in sport. It might lead to legislation on
the subject.[151]
85. It is clear to us that the sale of broadcasting rights
provides an important source of income for some grassroots sports.
We were pleased to note the recent strengthening of the UK
Sport and Recreation Alliance's voluntary Code of Conduct on the
reinvestment of broadcasting revenues into grassroots sports.
Such models of good practice could usefully be shared among Member
States, and a Council Recommendation might be considered to achieve
this.
86. Commercial arrangements have developed allowing sports
to derive substantial income from broadcasting, namely collective
selling and territoriality. Both have been the focus of attention
for their compliance with the competition and internal market
aspects of EU law. In our evidence, we heard a difference of views
on the extent to which Article 165 requires the specific nature
of sport to be taken into account when assessing such arrangements
for compliance with EU law. We conclude that the inclusion
of the specificity of sport in the Article and therefore in the
Treaty may inform the EU's legal assessment of commercial arrangements,
such as collective selling of broadcasting rights and territorial
restrictions, which often lead to the re-investment of revenues
at the grassroots.
87. We welcome the Commission's recognition in its Communication
of the potential benefits to be derived from collective selling,
while complying with competition law. On territoriality, we take
note of the Advocate General's recent Opinion, in which the principle
was not upheld, and observe that the implications for the funding
of grassroots sports, if supported by the Court, are not clear.
88. As case law develops following the entry into force
of the Lisbon Treaty, we recommend that the Commission analyses
the Court's judgments relating to the specific nature of sport
within Article 165, with a view to producing its own interpretation
of the principle. This, we consider, would offer a useful basis
for further discussion and movement towards a consensus among
the other EU institutions and stakeholders.
89. Digital piracy of sporting events is clearly a matter
of concern. We recommend that sport be included within the
Commission's work on the Digital Agenda, including its forthcoming
Proposal for a Framework Directive on the management of copyright.
90. Our evidence was divergent on the question
of requiring the gambling industry to pay a fair return for its
use of sports' intellectual property. The Commission should
analyse the evidence in this area, particularly the levy introduced
by the French government and with reference to the results of
the forthcoming study on the funding of grassroots sport. Some
witnesses were concerned that consultation has been unbalanced.
We recommend that the Government and the Commission consult
both sports bodies and the industry on the merits of such a system.
91. Online gambling services do not respect national
borders, and may often be based outside the EU. Should concerns
be identified and upheld, including in relation to the link between
gambling and the funding of grassroots sport, there might consequently
be a case in principle for the EU to act. Any future EU action
relating to online gambling services in the Internal Market should
address sport, and particularly the funding of grassroots sport,
into account.
74 GSEU 1 Back
75
GSEU 16 Back
76
Q 107 Back
77
GSEU 11 Back
78
GSEU 30 Back
79
GSEU 1, Q 230 Back
80
GSEU 14 Back
81
For example GSEU 1, GSEU 27, GSEU 7 Back
82
Q 234 Back
83
GSEU 1, QQ 10, 234 Back
84
The European Qualifications Framework (EQF) "acts as a translation
device to make national qualifications more readable across Europe
with the aim of promoting workers' and learners' mobility between
countries and facilitating their lifelong learning." http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc44_en.htm Back
85
EM 5597/11 Back
86
Q 107 Back
87
GSEU 35 Back
88
EM 5597/11 Back
89
Q 185 Back
90
Q 221 Back
91
GSEU 29 Back
92
Q 229 Back
93
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/lords-select/eu-social-policy-and-consumer-affairs-sub-committee-g/scrutiny-work1/correspondence-with-ministers/
Back
94
Olympics for those with intellectual difficulties. See www.specialolympics.org
Back
95
For example Q 195 Back
96
GSEU 1 Back
97
GSEU 5 Back
98
GSEU 9 Back
99
GSEU 10 Back
100
GSEU 4, GSEU 26 Back
101
Q 195 Back
102
GSEU 27 Back
103
GSEU 1 Back
104
Q 225 Back
105
GSEU 30 Back
106
GSEU 30 Back
107
Funding streams explicitly mentioned in the 2007 White Paper.
Cited in GSEU 1 Back
108
Q 16 Back
109
GSEU 7 Back
110
Q 15 Back
111
Q 15, Q 126 Back
112
For example GSEU 1, GSEU 11, GSEU 27, GSEU 30, Q 162 Back
113
GSEU 38 Back
114
GSEU 21. Leonardo and Comenius are part of the Lifelong learning
Programme. See Box 5. Back
115
Q 196 Back
116
Q 196 Back
117
Q 263 Back
118
COM 5597/11 Back
119
GSEU 1 Back
120
Q 172 Back
121
The Advocate General in Cases C-403/08 & C-429/08 argued that
territorial exclusivity amounts to a restriction on the right
to provide services by partitioning the internal market into separate
national markets. Back
122
Collective selling is compatible with EU law. See case 37398 (UEFA
Champions League), case 37214 (German Bundesliga) and Commission
press release IP/06/356 (FA Premier League). Back
123
See case 37398 (UEFA Champions League), case 37214 (German Bundesliga)
and Commission press release IP/06/356 (FA Premier League). It
should be noted that exclusivity is further restricted as Member
States may list particular events (such as the World Cup) as of
national significance, ensuring that the public has access to
these major events on free-to-air television. A listed event must
be available on free-to-air even if the exclusive rights have
been purchased. The General Court of the European Union ruled
recently on this issue: Cases T-385/07, T-55/08 and T-68/08 FIFA
and UEFA v Commission. Back
124
GSEU 1 Back
125
Signatories: FA, LTA/All England Lawn Tennis Club, ECB, UK Athletics,
Premier League, RFL, R&A and PGA European Tour. http://www.sportandrecreation.org.uk/news/22-12-2010/major-sports-commit-putting-30-broadcast-revenues-grassroots
Back
126
Q 239 Back
127
Q 33 Back
128
QQ 72, 76 Back
129
GSEU 20 Back
130
GSEU 1 Back
131
TFEU Article 101(3) Back
132
Q 25 Back
133
GSEU 17 Back
134
Cases C-403/08 Football Association Premier League Ltd &
Others v QC Leisure and Others and C-429/08 Karen Murphy
v Media Protection Services Ltd, 3 February 2011. The Opinion
of the Advocate General is non-binding. Back
135
Q 242 Back
136
GSEU 1, GSEU 7, QQ 27, 143 Back
137
QQ 203, 249, GSEU 1 Back
138
COM (2007) 391 Back
139
For example, the agreement between FIFPro Division Europe (professional
footballers' union) and UEFA (European football governing body)
on the definition of the specificity of sport (football). Back
140
Although sport is distinct because much of its value lies in the
live broadcasting, other industries such as film and music have
a similar interest in these issue. As highlighted by the House
of Lords Communications Committee, this is an area where there
are legitimate business and consumer interests to be balanced
(para 136, Communications Committee, 1st Report (2009-10): The
British film and television industries-decline or opportunity?
(HL Paper 37). Back
141
Proposals for a Framework Directive on the management of copyright
- to open up access to online content by improving the governance,
transparency and electronic management of copyright - are due
to be published in 2011. Back
142
GSEU 1, GSEU 17 Back
143
Q 78 Back
144
For example Finland and the UK Q 27, GSEU 29 Back
145
Q 27 Back
146
GSEU 1, GSEU 7, QQ 87-88, GSEU 17 Back
147
Q 78, GSEU 17 Back
148
GSEU 18 Back
149
GSEU 12 Back
150
Q 172 Back
151
Q 206, COM (2011) 128 http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/docs/2011/online_gambling/com2011_128_en.pdf Back
|