Grassroots Sport and the European Union - European Union Committee Contents


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 activities—both 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 sport—the issues unravelled
Territoriality

According to this principle, a sporting event has a different value according to where it is broadcast—for example a match between two French clubs is likely to command a higher price in France than in the UK—and 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


 
previous page contents next page

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

© Parliamentary copyright 2011