Sports Law and Policy in the European Union

Parrish, Richard

doi:10.7228/manchester/9780719066061.001.0001

Cited by 98 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is of course opposed by those advocating the specific characteristics of sport (Parrish 2003a). This approach would see an active role for the EU institutions in sports matters and would also imply that governing bodies' autonomy could be reduced, perhaps to the level of being considered merely implementing agencies.…”

Section: 'Supervised Autonomy': a Lifeline For A Transformed Europeanmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…The European Council provided political guidance through the adoption of the non-binding Amsterdam and Nice declarations on sport (European Council 1997, European Council 2000. It has been argued that in all these documents there were two different and contrasting views of how sport should be approached by the EU: as an economic activity in need of regulation, or as a socio-cultural phenomenon in need of legal protection (Parrish 2003b, Parrish 2003a. It is in this context that the European Commission, as part of its reflections on how to treat sport, articulated the concept of the European model of sport.…”

Section: The European Model Of Sport: What Is It?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sport governance after the White Paper: the demise of the European model?

García

2009

International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 1998 the European Commission introduced into the political arena the concept of a 'European model of sport' in the build up to the Helsinki Report on Sport, the Commission's first attempt to formulate a comprehensive approach towards sport in the 'post-Bosman era'. In the recently adopted White Paper on Sport (July 2007), the Commission however considers it 'unrealistic' to define a single model of sport for Europe. This article argues that the Commission's departure from its previous position deserves attention because it is an explicit acknowledgement of the transformations in the governing structures of European sport over the last two decades. The article suggests two possible motives for the Commission's new understanding of European sport. First, the Commission is responding to the politicisation and redefinition of the concept of the 'European Model' by sport governing bodies, who are attempting to forestall legal intervention by the European courts and the Commission. Second, the Commission is just acknowledging the reality of the new governance of sport. In this respect, the article focuses on professional football to argue that the governance of the sport in Europe is transforming from the old pyramidal and vertical structure to more horizontal configurations of stakeholder networks. The White Paper is just another indication of this process, and the Commission has used it to position itself within the network structure. The Commission, it is argued, has opted for a supervisory role, offering governing bodies a degree of 'supervised autonomy' where the specific role of federation is recognised in exchange for greater stakeholder representation within governing structures.

show abstract

Section: 'Supervised Autonomy': a Lifeline For A Transformed Europeanmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: The European Model Of Sport: What Is It?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Sport governance after the White Paper: the demise of the European model?

García

2009

International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Outside European competition policy, and in particular among the Member States, UEFA had political legitimacy on its side because, for political stakeholders, UEFA represents best the idea that sport is more than a mere economic activity (Dimitrakopoulos 2006). Moreover, UEFA possessed organisational capacities to skilfully align its policy priorities with those of the Member States and a majority within the European parliament (Parrish 2003, García 2007b. As shown, UEFA has much to lose from public and private enforcement of competition law but the multi-institutional nature of the EU, however, …”

Section: Uefa: Adaptation and Strategic Reorientationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The EU incursions in sport have been labelled as 'indirect sports policy' (Tokarski et al 2004, p.55) representing an incremental accumulation of legal cases whereby the extent of the application of competition policy and the single market regulations to sport were considered (Parrish 2003;Dimitrakopoulos 2006;García 2007García , 2009Meier 2009). In the Lisbon Treaty however, the European Union has been equipped, for the first time, with a direct competence on sport, albeit only to 'to support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States' (see Articles 6 and 165 of the treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) (C-306/06, Official Journal, 17-12-07, p.1),, which is the lowest level of competences attributed to the EU (see Weatherill 2010, García & Weatherill 2012.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Limits of Interest Empowerment in the European Union: The Case Of Football

García

Meier

2012

Journal of European Integration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Sport bodies have long resented the intervention of EU institutions, for it constitutes a curtailment of the cherished autonomy of sport (see Chappelet 2010: 11-20 and 33-37). That autonomy is lost in so far as the EU treaties apply, and the consequence is the creation of two 'separate territories': a territory for sporting autonomy and a territory for legal intervention (Parrish 2003a: 3, Weatherill 2007. Although both the Court and the Commission accept that sport is in some respects distinct from 'normal' industries they have typically taken a much narrower view of the special character of sport than that pressed upon them by sports federations, who typically criticise intervention as inadequately sensitive to the peculiar characteristics of sport (for example UEFA 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Engaging with the EU in order to minimize its impact: sport and the negotiation of the Treaty of Lisbon

García¹,

Weatherill²

2012

Journal of European Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The absence of explicit reference to sport in the EU Treaties has allowed the Court and the Commission room to require sport to adjust to the standards required by EU law. Sporting federations typically assert a need for a wider zone of autonomy than the Court and Commission have been prepared to grant, but, unable to persuade the Member States that they deserve exemption from the application of the Treaty, sports bodies have increasingly been induced to develop strategies of coexistence with the EU. This article shows how they were able to exert influence in both the Convention on the Future of Europe and the subsequent intergovernmental conference in order to secure recognition of sport's special characteristics within the Treaty, albeit in ambiguous form. Sports bodies engage with the EU precisely in order to minimise its impact. The relevant provisions of Treaty of Lisbon dealing with sport are examined to show that they leave open scope for future contestation about the interaction between EU law and policy and systems of sports governance.

show abstract

Sports Law and Policy in the European Union

Cited by 98 publications

References 37 publications

Sport governance after the White Paper: the demise of the European model?

Sport governance after the White Paper: the demise of the European model?

Limits of Interest Empowerment in the European Union: The Case Of Football

Engaging with the EU in order to minimize its impact: sport and the negotiation of the Treaty of Lisbon

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About