Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Influence of EU Law on Sports Governance

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
European Sports Law

Part of the book series: ASSER International Sports Law Series ((ASSER))

Abstract

The competence of the EU to intervene in pattern of sports governance is deeply contested. This is at heart a constitutional matter. Article 5(1) EC stipulates that the EC shall act within the limits of the powers conferred upon it by the Treaty. It is equipped with no explicit powers in the field of sport. More than that: the EC Treaty does not mention sport. So one might argue – and governing bodies in sport frequently do argue – that sport is none of the EC’s business. But ab initio in Walrave and Koch the European Court rejected a line of reasoning that would have rigidly separated sports governance from EC law. That would have sheltered a huge range of practices with economic impact from the assumptions of EC law, damaging the achievement of the objectives of the Treaty. Admittedly the EC has no explicit authority under its Treaty to adopt legislation dictating how governing bodies in sport should act, but it derives a supervisory jurisdiction of sorts from the broad functional reach of the relevant rules of EC trade law (free movement and competition law, most conspicuously, buttressed by the basic prohibition against nationality-based discrimination). So sports governance becomes a matter for examination in the light of EC law because its practices may collide with the basic integrative and pro-competitive economic project mapped by the Treaty. Accordingly the Court, and more recently the Commission, have attempted to develop an approach which makes sense of the intersection between the demands of EC law and the aspirations of sport, notwithstanding the constitutional limitations under which they labour. One might argue – and governing bodies in sport frequently do argue – that the institutions of the EU have done a pretty bad job in shaping a ‘policy on sport’. This paper will not accept this verdict, but it will test the coherence of the EC’s intervention into sport, with particular reference to matters of governance. The story is necessary incremental – the shape of Treaty ensures this. It is incomplete too – litigation is the main source of hard data and the stream of litigation meanders and is occasionally dammed. But it is a story that reveals much about the EU institutions’ view of the necessary shape of sports governance.

First published in: S. Gardiner, R. Parrish and R.C.R. Siekmann (eds), EU Sport Law and Policy: Regulation, Re-regulation and Representation, TMC Asser Press, The Hague 2009, Chapter 5, pp. 79–100.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Case 36/74 [1974] ECR 1405.

  2. 2.

    See, e.g., Parrish 2003; Weatherill 2007A; L. Barani 2005, 42; Dimitrakopoulos 2006, 561; Szyszczak 2007.

  3. 3.

    Case C-519/04 P [2006] Meca–Medina and Majcen v Commission ECR I-6991.

  4. 4.

    COMP 38.158, 1 August 2002.

  5. 5.

    Case T-313/02 [2004] ECR II-3291.

  6. 6.

    For criticism of the CFI judgment, see Weatherill 2005A, 416.

  7. 7.

    Case T-313/02 [2004] ECR II-3291.

  8. 8.

    Para. 37.

  9. 9.

    Para. 49.

  10. 10.

    Accordingly the ‘Arnaut Report’, considered below, which makes a partisan case in favour of maximising the autonomy of sports governing bodies, relies heavily on the CFI ruling, to the almost complete exclusion of the ECJ’s.

  11. 11.

    Case C-519/04, supra n. 3.

  12. 12.

    Para. 27.

  13. 13.

    Para. 28.

  14. 14.

    Weatherill 2007B, Ch. 3, 48–73.

  15. 15.

    Para. 48.

  16. 16.

    Para. 47.

  17. 17.

    Para. 45.

  18. 18.

    Para. 42. The important decisión in Wouters is there cited – Case C-309/99, J.C.J. Wouters, J.W. Savelbergh, Price Waterhouse Belastingadviseurs BV v. Algemene Raad van de Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten [2002] ECR I-1577.

  19. 19.

    There are some ambiguities in the analysis which trouble competition lawyers but it is submitted that these quirks make no practical difference in the particular case of subjection of sport to Article 81: see Weatherill 2007B, 60–62.

  20. 20.

    See Paras. 46–55 of the ECJ’s judgment. Cf Van Vaerenbergh 2005, connecting sport to the general literature on ‘global administrative law’, on which see, e.g., Krisch and Kingsbury 2006.

  21. 21.

    See, largely approving of this shift, Weatherill 2006A, 645; Szyszczak, 2007A, 95; Wathelet 2006; Wathelet 2007, 3; Rincon 2007, 224; and, criticising the Court’s choice, Infantino 2006; Zylberstein 2007, 218.

  22. 22.

    Parrish and Miettinen 2007; Van den Bogaert and Vermeersch 2006, 821.

  23. 23.

    On Overlapping Legal Orders, Weatherill 2007B, 64–67.

  24. 24.

    Case 36/74 [1974] ECR 1405.

  25. 25.

    Case C-415/93 [1995] ECR I-4921.

  26. 26.

    See also Case C-438/00 Deutscher Handballbund eV. v. Kolpak [2003] ECR I-4135.

  27. 27.

    Parrish and Miettinnen 2007.

  28. 28.

    White Paper on Sport, COM (2007) 391, 11 July 2007.

  29. 29.

    COMP 37.806 ENIC/UEFA, IP/02/942, 27 June 2002.

  30. 30.

    Case C-176/96 Case C-176/96 Lehtonen et al. v. FRSB [2000] ECR I-2681.

  31. 31.

    Independent European Sport Review.

  32. 32.

    Cf. Moorhouse 2007, 290.

  33. 33.

    E.g., Paras. 3.19, 3.26, 3.40–3.41, 3.89, 5.55, 6.28, 6.60, 6.70. The Arnaut Report is stated to have been prepared with the advice of José Luis da Cruz Vilaca. It seems implausible that such a distinguished jurist could have approved the final text of the Report.

  34. 34.

    See only a bland reference on p. 13 in n. 7.

  35. 35.

    So the ECJ, in Paras. 32–33, is merely drawing attention to the inadequacy of Para. 42 in the CFI’s judgment.

  36. 36.

    See Nazzini 2006, 497. Also on convergence, see Mortelmans 2001, 613. Cf Weatherill 2003, 51, 80–86; O’Loughlin 2003, 62.

  37. 37.

    Case C-438/05 Viking Line judgment of 11 December 2007, Para. 79; Case C-341/05 Laval judgment of 18 December 2007, Para. 105.

  38. 38.

    I argue that this is a reason for scepticism that the EU Charter effects a qualititative change in EC trade law in ‘The Internal Market’, in Peers and Ward (2004) Ch. 7. For an extended investigation see De Vries 2006.

  39. 39.

    Case C-415/93 supra n. 25, Para. 106.

  40. 40.

    Cases C-51/96 & C-191/97 Deliege v. Ligue de Judo [2000] ECR I-2549.

  41. 41.

    Case C-519/04 P supra n. 3, Para. 48.

  42. 42.

    Supra n. 41.

  43. 43.

    Case C-176/96 Lehtonen et al. v. FRSB [2000] ECR I-2681.

  44. 44.

    The reference was accepted as Case C-243/06, referred to the European Court by Tribunal de Commerce de Charleroi in May 2006. For background see Weatherill 2005B, 3.

  45. 45.

    This is reported on G-14’s website, and also attracted some media comment (e.g., ‘G14 disbands but wins wider role’, The Guardian Sport section p. 4, 4 December 2007). However, at the time of writing (March 2008) the reference in Case C-243/06 remains listed as Pending on the Court’s website [withdrawn; Eds.].

  46. 46.

    Supra n. 33.

  47. 47.

    Case C-519/04 P supra n. 3, Para. 42.

  48. 48.

    For this proposal advanced without the advantage of hindsight see Weatherill 2007B, at 67–72.

  49. 49.

    Cases C-51/96 & 191/97 supra n. 40, Paras. 41–42 of the judgment; Case C-176/96 supra n. 43, Paras 32–33 of the judgment.

  50. 50.

    This is not a sports-specific issue: cf elsewhere in EC trade law Case C-379/98 Preussen Elektra [2001] ECR I-2099.

  51. 51.

    COM (2001) 428.

  52. 52.

    OJ 2007 C306.

  53. 53.

    Football tends to dominate the debate but there are plenty of other examples of such conflict: see, e.g., Cygan 2007, Ch. 4.

  54. 54.

    Decision 2003/778 Champions League OJ 2003 L 291/25, Paras. 125–131. See Weatherill 2006, 3; Massey 2007, 87.

  55. 55.

    Para. 122 of the Decision supra n. 54.

  56. 56.

    Supra n. 28.

  57. 57.

    Supra n. 29.

  58. 58.

    Cf Weatherill 2008, 3.

  59. 59.

    The notion of supporters as stakeholders also appears at pp. 56–57 of the Staff Working Document.

  60. 60.

    On the February 2008 deal see the text attached to n. 46 supra.

  61. 61.

    Case C-519/04 P supra n. 3.

  62. 62.

    Eastham v. Newcastle United FC [1964] 1, Ch. 413.

  63. 63.

    Case C-415/93 supra n. 25.

  64. 64.

    Though, of course, debate about the legal requirements remains live: see, e.g., Drolet 2006, 66; Gardiner and Welch 2007.

References

  • Barani L (2005) The role of the European Court of Justice as a political actor in the integration process: The case of sport regulation after the Bosman Ruling. Journal of Contemporary European Research 1:42–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cygan A (2007) Competition and free movement issues in the regulation of formula one motor racing, in Bogusz B, Cygan A and Szyszczak E, eds, The regulation of sport in the European Union, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing, Ch. 4, pp. 74–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vries SA (2006) Tensions within the Internal Market: the functioning of the Internal Market and the development of horizontal and flanking policies, Groningen, Europa Law Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dimitrakopoulos DG (2006) More than a market? The regulation of sports in the EU. Government and Opposition 41:561–580.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drolet JC (2006) Extra time: Are the new FIFA transfer rules doomed? International Sports Law Journal 2006(1–2):66–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardiner S and Welch R (2007) The contractual dynamics of team stability versus player mobility: who rules the “The beautiful game”? Entertainment and Sports Law Journal 5:1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Infantino G (2006) Meca-Medina: A step backwards for the European sports model and the specificity of sport?, UEFA paper 02/10/06.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krisch N and Kingsbury B (2006) Symposium: Global governance and global administrative law in the international legal order. European Journal of International Law 17(1) Special Issue.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massey (2007) Are sports cartels different? World Competition 30:87 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moorhouse HF (2007) Financial expertise, authority and power in the European football “industry”. JCER 3(3):290–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mortelmans K (2001) Towards convergence in the application of the rules on free movement and on competition. CMLRev 38:613–649.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nazzini R (2006) Article 81 EC between time present and time past: a normative critique of restriction of competition in EU law. CMLRev 43:497–536.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Loughlin R (2003) EC competition rules and free movement rules: An examination of the parallels and their furtherance by the ECJ Wouters Decision. European Competition Law Review 24(2):62–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parrish R (2003) Sports law and policy in the European Union, Manchester, Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parrish R and Miettinen S (2007) The sporting exception in European law, The Hague, T.M.C. Asser Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peers S and Ward A, eds, (2004) The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: Politics, Law and Policy, Oxford, Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rincon A (2007) EC competition and internal market law: on the existence of a sporting exemption and its withdrawal. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 3:224–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szyszczak E (2007A) Competition and sport. ELRev 32:95 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szyszczak E (2007B) Is sport special? In Bogusz B, Cygan A and Szyszczak E, eds, The regulation of sport in the European Union. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing, Ch. 1, 3–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bogaert S and Vermeersch A (2006) Sport and the EC Treaty: a tale of uneasy bedfellows. ELRev 31:821–840.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Vaerenbergh A (2005) Regulatory features and administrative law dimensions of the Olympic Movement’s anti-doping regime, IILJ Working Paper 2005/11, New York University School of Law.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wathelet M (2006) L’arrêt Meca-Medina et Majcen: plus qu’un coup dans l’eau, Revue de Jurisprudence de Liége, Mon et Bruxelles 41:1799–1809.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wathelet M (2007) Sport governance and EU legal order, the ‘Wathelet Report’. International Sports Law Journal 2007(3–4):3–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill S (2003) “Fair play please!”: Recent developments in the application of EC law to sport. CMLRev 40:51–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill S (2005A) Anti-doping rules and EC Law. European Competition Law Review 2005:416–421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill S (2005B) Is the pyramid compatible with EC law? International Sports Law Journal 2005(34):3–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill S (2006A) Anti-doping revisited – the demise of the rule of ‘purely sporting interest’? European Competition Law Review 2006:645–657.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill S (2006B) The sale of rights to broadcast sporting events under EC law. The International Sports Law Journal 2006(3-4):3–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill S (2007A) European sports law, Den Haag, T.M.C. Asser Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill S (2007B) On overlapping legal orders: what is the “purely sporting rule”? In Bogusz B, Cygan A and Szyszczak E, eds, The regulation of Sport in the European Union, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing, Ch. 3, 48–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill S (2008) The White Paper on Sport as an exercise in “better regulation”. The International Sports Law Journal 2008(1-2):3–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zylberstein J (2007) Collision entre idéaux sportifs et continges économiques dans l’arret Meca-Medina. Cahiers de Droit Europeen 43(1-2):213–237.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Somerville College, Oxford, UK

    Stephen Weatherill

Authors
  1. Stephen Weatherill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen Weatherill .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the authors

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Weatherill, S. (2014). The Influence of EU Law on Sports Governance. In: European Sports Law. ASSER International Sports Law Series. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-939-9_17

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation