# EUR-Lex - 52014DC0022 - EN

*|*

# 52014DC0022

**REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on the implementation of the European Union Work Plan for Sport 2011-2014 /* COM/2014/022 final */**

			*

			*

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE
AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

on the implementation of the European
Union Work Plan for Sport 2011-2014

1.           INTRODUCTION

Following inclusion
of sport in the Lisbon Treaty and in line with article 165 TFEU, the European
Union (EU) and the Member States strengthened their cooperation in an effort to
develop further the European dimension in sport.

Following the 2011 Commission
Communication on sport[1],
the Council's Resolution on a European Union Work Plan for Sport (2011-2014)[2] opened a new chapter of
European cooperation on sport policy. For the first time, Member States, the
Presidencies of the Council and the Commission were invited to work together along
agreed guiding principles, to focus on priority themes ('integrity of sport',
'social values of sport', 'economic aspects of sport') and to implement specific
actions[3].
In an area where the EU has a supporting competence this Work Plan provided a
valuable framework for all actors to cooperate in a coordinated way and in
mutual respect of national and EU competences.

In order to support
the implementation of the Work Plan, working methods new to the field of sport
were introduced, notably Expert Groups as well as strengthened dialogue structures.
The Commission was asked to produce a report on the implementation of the Work
Plan as a basis for a new Work Plan from mid-2014 onwards.

This report assesses
the progress towards the implementation of actions in line with the priority
themes identified in the Work Plan and reviews the use of working methods
introduced, inter alia drawing upon the work of the Expert Groups[4], written contributions
submitted by Member States[5]
and consultations with stakeholders[6].
In light of this assessment, the Commission has drawn its conclusions.

2.           PROGRESS TOWARDS THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIFIC ACTIONS OF THE WORK PLAN

Overall, activities
carried out under the Work Plan led to very good results in the defined
priority areas. This is confirmed by the consultation: The vast majority of
Member States agreed that the Work Plan had a positive impact for the sport
sector in their country (24 MS) and that it was of relevance for the
development (24 MS) and for the implemention (19 MS) of sport policy at
national level. The Work Plan generally met the expectations of the governments
(25 MS), focused on the right priorities (25 MS) and led to fruitful outcomes
for policy processes (24 MS). This positive assessment was generally shared by
sport stakeholders. Member States valued less positively the influence of the
Work Plan on sport policy processes outside the EU (16 MS). The following
sections describe the progress achieved in implementing the priority actions,
also indicating where sport aspects have been taken into account in other EU
policies.

2.1.        Action 1: Prepare draft EU comments to the revision of
the WADA Code

The EU and its Member States remain firmly committed to the fight against doping and to ensuring its
proportionality and respect for EU and national values, legal traditions and
applicable law. The Commission's remarks in its 2011 Communication on sport remain
relevant. While the ambition of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) is to
ensure a harmonised approach to doping control, the individual rights of
athletes may enjoy protection in the EU; thus flexibility is needed and
adaptations must be made to comply with EU and national law.

Comments from the
Expert Group on Anti-Doping (XG AD) to the revision of the WADC were prepared
and submitted to the Council in four successive waves, following the
consultation phase rhythm of WADA.[7]
Similarly, International Standards pertaining to the Code were commented on by
the EU in three waves.[8]
In its fourth contribution, the EU has extended a comprehensive proposal to
WADA to work on appropriate non-binding guidance texts to accompany the
relevant Code and International Standards provisions as part of the post-2015
implementation.

2.2.        Action 2: Present a set of
recommendations on combating doping in recreational sport that can be applied
at both EU and national level

In 2012 the Council
voted to extend the mandate of the XG AD "to collect, including through
cooperation with relevant stakeholders, best practices in the fight against
doping in recreational sport in EU Member States, and on this basis, by
end-2013, to present a set of recommendations that can be applied at both EU
and national level." A proposal has been prepared by a Group of Experts
"Doping in Recreational Sport" and will be submitted to the Council.

2.3.        Action 3: Develop a
European dimension of the integrity of sport with the initial focus on the
fight against match-fixing

The fight against
match-fixing, as one of the most serious threats to the integrity of sport, is
part of the Commission priorities in the areas of sport, the fight against
corruption, and online gambling as regards betting-related match-fixing.[9] The European Parliament
also adopted a number of relevant resolutions.[10]
The Council adopted Conclusions in this area in November 2011.[11] The work of the Expert
Group on Good Governance (XG GG) represented an important step in the process
towards improving cross-sector cooperation and coordination at EU and
international level, as it gathered for the first time all relevant
stakeholders at EU level. The Group's recommendations formed the basis for the
Presidency Conclusions adopted in November 2012[12] and were also
instrumental in facilitating the endorsement of the Nicosia Declaration on
match-fixing at the 2012 EU Sport Forum[13].
The Group worked in close coordination with parallel initiatives undertaken by
the IOC and the Council of Europe; it expressed support for having an
international Convention against the manipulation of sports competitions
adopted under the auspices of the Council of Europe.

The Commission
represents the EU in the ongoing negotiations on that Convention on the basis
of two Council decisions laying down the relevant negotiating directives.[14] The Convention is
expected to be open to signature and ratification in the course of 2014; it may
represent a useful framework for strengthening international coordination and
cooperation of relevant stakeholders. As for anti-match fixing measures, the
Commission plans to adopt a Recommendation on best practices in the prevention
and combatting of betting-related match-fixing in 2014 which should facilitate
cross-border and cross-sector cooperation between sport bodies, betting
operators and regulators. In this regard the Commission has launched two studies
which broadly concern 1) the sharing of information and reporting of suspicious
betting activity across the relevant stakeholders and 2) risk assessment and
management of conflict of interest provisions.

2.4.        Action 4: Develop
principles of transparency concerning good governance

The 2011
Communication on sport states that good governance is a condition for the
autonomy and self-regulation of sport organisations. Against this background,
the work of the XG GG focused on identifying a list of principles for the good
governance of sport. Input came from Member States as well as from good
practices collected amongst sport stakeholders and other organisations. The
proposed principles represent minimum standards that can be met by a variety of
sport bodies. A flexible approach is proposed to take into account the diverse
recipients to whom the principles are addressed. Rather than proposing strict
enforcement measures, such as making financial support offered by public
authorities conditional on the respect of the principles, the Group suggested a
gradual approach based on a first phase of education and information of
relevant sport bodies. Stronger compliance tools can be envisaged at a later
stage, if needed.

2.5.        Action 5: Address the
issues identified related to access to and to supervision of the profession of
sport agents and to transfers in team sports

The 2013 results of
the independent study on the economic and legal aspects of transfers of players[15], the study on sports
agents in the EU[16]
and the outcome of the EU conference on sports agents[17] constituted the basis
for the work of the XG GG relating to action 5. The recommendations adopted by
the Group should be seen in the context of the ongoing work undertaken by FIFA
to overhaul its system for the licensing of players' agents. Whilst football was
the main focus of the Group's work, other team sports were also part of the
discussions.

The Group's recommendations
are addressed mostly to sport stakeholders, in recognition of the importance of
the autonomy of sport in setting its regulations, whilst recalling that
applicable law, notably EU law, has to be respected. The sport movement is
invited to improve transparency in transactions involving players and agents
and to increase protection of the youngest players. The Commission considers
that the relevant EU sectoral social dialogue committees are an appropriate
forum to discuss how the recommendations relate to the application of labour
law.

2.6.        Action 6: Prepare a
proposal for European guidelines on dual careers

A rising number of
athletes, increasingly at a young age, face challenges to combine their
sporting career with education or work. In response to the European Council's
call in 2008 to strengthen the dialogue on "dual careers"[18] the Commission proposed
in its 2011 Communication on sport to develop guidelines on dual careers. Following
the Council’s mandate, the Expert Group on Education and Training in Sport (XG
ETS) prepared, with the help of specialised experts in the field, EU Guidelines
on Dual Careers of Athletes. Measures identified should ultimately help
European athletes to perform well, to compete at a high international level, to
avoid dropping out of education and sport and to prepare for a job after their
sport career. The Council, welcoming the guidelines in its 2013 conclusions on
dual careers, proposed concrete actions aimed at improving the opportunities
for athletes to combine study or work and sport career.[19] The Council recognised
the European dimension of dual career arrangements, given that talented and
elite athletes are often abroad. International arrangements will require more
cooperation between sport organisations, educational institutes, national
training centres and support services.

2.7.        Action 7: Follow-up to the
inclusion of sport-related qualifications in NQFs with reference to EQF

In 2010, EU Sport Ministers
expressed their will to continue implementation of the European Qualifications
Framework (EQF) in the field of sport and called upon Member States to bring
qualifications in sport in line with this framework.[20] The Council decided to
give follow-up on this in the Work Plan. The XG ETS delivered a comprehensive
report in autumn 2013 on the inclusion of qualifications to be obtained through
educational providers, including individual country reports. The report
concludes that the process of including sport qualifications in the NQF in the
field of formal education is in progress and that the inclusion of sport
qualifications obtained in the education system of national sport organisations
in NQFs has raised important challenges at national level. It illustrates the
need for support to sport federations to develop expertise on the
transformation of existing education programmes and the development of new
programmes. Action at national and European level will be necessary, including
the matching of national qualifications with the international qualification
standards of international sport federations. In the Group’s view, the Council should
take action in this field and support further the inclusion of all sport
qualifications in NQF’s. This could be considered in the context of creating a
European area for skills and qualifications.

2.8.        Action 8: Explore ways to
promote health-enhancing physical activity and participation in grassroots
sport

Under the current
Work Plan for Sport, progress was sought in increasing the profile of
health-enhancing physical activity (HEPA) in the EU's policies, in light of the
high physical inactivity rates in the Union which imply significant direct and
indirect economic costs. The Council in its 2012 conclusions on promoting HEPA
acknowledged the need for additional action.[21]
Building on the input from the Expert Group on Sport, Health and Participation
(XG SHP), on contributions from stakeholders and on the results of a study, the
Commission developed a new policy initiative on HEPA.[22] Based on this, the
Council adopted a Recommendation on promoting HEPA across sectors in November
2013, which will support Member States in their efforts to develop and
implement effective HEPA policies taking into account the EU Physical Activity
Guidelines.[23]
The Recommendation builds on existing initiatives regarding physical activity. Its
implementation as of 2014 will require policy coordination at national level
and cooperation with relevant EU structures and with the World Health
Organization (WHO).

Physical activity
has also received increased attention in the Union's activities relating to
active ageing, notably in the context of and follow-up to the 2012 European
Year for Active Ageing and Solidarity between Generations. The Council's
Guiding Principles of 6 December 2012[24]
call on actors to provide opportunities for physical and mental activity
adapted to the capacities of elderly people. The XG SHP developed principles on
the contribution of sport to active ageing which fed into this process and were
welcomed by the Council in its 2012 conclusions on healthy ageing[25]. The latter calls on
the Commission to support better use by the Member States of the EU Physical
Activity Guidelines and calls for strategies for combating risk factors, such
as the lack of physical activity.

New provisions for
developing quality statistics on physical activity were included in the
European statistical programme 2013-2017.[26]
The Commission launched a Eurobarometer survey on sport and physical activity,
results of which should become available in early 2014.

2.9.        Action 9: Recommend ways
to promote data collection to measure the economic benefits of the sport sector
in line with the Vilnius Definition and evaluate results

EU level work as of
2006 to develop a common European approach for measuring the economic impact of
sport had led to an agreement on the Vilnius Definition of Sport, as a basis
for the collection and production of data at national level and serving as a
harmonised framework for creating sport satellite accounts (SSAs). SSAs provide
macro-economic statistics about the sport economy. Further progress could be
achieved to improve the evidence-base on the economic importance of the sector
and its potential to contribute to wider policy goals, such as the Europe 2020
strategy. Encouraged by the 2011 Communication on sport, the Work Plan, the
2012 Council conclusions on strengthening the evidence-base for sport policy
making[27]
and following intense cooperation within the Expert Group on Sport Statistics
(XG STAT), six Member States (AT, CY, DE, NL, PL, UK) and CH have produced
national SSAs. Other Member States have also joined the process. The Group’s
deliverables, such as the manuals for the set up of SSAs, were instrumental in
this context. A study on the contribution of sport to economic growth and
employment in the EU was carried out in 2011/2012[28]. It shows that 1.76%
of EU-wide Gross Value Added and 2.12% of employment are sport-related[29]. The Council in its
2013 conclusions on youth unemployment[30]
underlined that growth in sport is employment-intensive and that sport
therefore has the potential to contribute to counteracting unemployment. The XG
STAT also presented proposals for future priorities, inter alia based on the
2013 study on a possible future sport monitoring function in the EU[31].

2.10.      Action 10: Recommend ways
to strengthen solidarity mechanisms within sport

Based on the EU
study on the funding of grassroots sport in Europe[32], the Expert Group on
Sustainable Financing of Sport (XG FIN) looked into the main public and private
funding streams that affect solidarity mechanisms in sport and identified the
opportunities the sport movement has to raise funds and utilise public and
private investment, as well as the barriers which prevent it from doing so. The
Group recommended in particular a) the need for progress regarding guidance on
the application of EU State Aid law to sport, b) the importance of guidance on
the VAT regime applicable to the non-profit sport sector, c) the worth of using
the EU structural funds to support sport, and d) considering the long-term
sustainability of sport’s finances, the need to implement reform measures to
ensure the protection of sports’ commercial property rights and to encourage a
return to grassroots sports. The Commission has launched a study to analyse
sports organisers’ rights in the EU.[33]
The exchange of views on the Group’s recommendations was further deepened
during the Irish Presidency.

Regarding State Aid,
the Commission set out a comprehensive reform programme on State aid
modernisation (SAM) which prompted the revision of a number of interrelated
instruments. Following this, in June 2013, the Council of Ministers formally
adopted two revised regulations on state aid exemptions (Enabling Regulation)
and procedures (Procedural Regulation).
The enabling regulation introduces new categories of aid, now also including sport,
that the Commission may decide to exempt from the obligation of
prior notification ("block exemptions").[34]  The Commission will
now be able to adopt regulations defining criteria under which aid in these
categories can be exempted from notification.

3.           WORKING METHODS AND
STRUCTURES

In addition to
existing EU cooperation structures for sport, the Work Plan introduced working
methods, in particular six Expert Groups (XGs), and called for a close and
structured cooperation with the sport sector. The Commission considers that the
Work Plan helped to strengthen cooperation on sport. This is further confirmed
by consultation outcomes: almost all Member States expressed general support
for the structures introduced by the Work Plan and agreed that it had improved
political coordination on sport at EU level as well as cooperation between the
EU and the sport movement. Member States also positively noted the support from
the Commission, the oral and written reporting arrangements and the involvement
of observers. Views expressed by sport stakeholders overall confirmed this
positive assessment. However, the Commission also shares the views of Member States and stakeholders that have identified limitations to these working
structures.

3.1.        The work of the Expert Groups

3.1.1.     General assessment

Generally, the
system of XGs appointed by Member States and reporting back to the Council, yet
supported by the Commission, has worked well: XGs have produced results in line
with their respective mandates, leading to policy outputs that informed Council
documents, providing input to the policy debate on sport at EU level or
influencing policy development and implementation in the Member States. This
was in particular due to a focus on a few priorities and a mandate for the XGs
that defined the actions, outputs and a timeline for delivery. The Commission
believes that a similar system could be used to great effect under a future Work
Plan, taking into account the specific issues hereafter.

3.1.2.     Specific issues

Assuring a high and
coherent level of participation in the work of six XGs on sport at EU level has
been a challenge. Member States’ sport departments could not appoint experts
for all groups; not all experts could attend all of the meetings and not all
experts were appointed public officials, some coming from the non-governmental
sector. While these latter representatives were supposed to reflect their
governments’ views, it appeared that they did not always have a clear mandate
to do so. The composition of groups was therefore not homogeneous, but showed
variety in the level of representativeness and the level of expertise. Despite
the novelty in the Groups’ Work Schedules to introduce lead experts for
specific deliverables, concrete work outcomes could often only be achieved by setting
up additional “Groups of experts” and through input from Commission staff
beyond its initial support role foreseen by the Work Plan. A new Work Plan
could introduce a system that would allow Member States to devote scarce
resources to the most relevant issues.

Priority actions
described in the Work Plan Annex provided a political mandate for the XGs, but
in some cases were not formulated in a sufficiently clear manner. Several
Member States found that there should be more time in meetings for topical
issues and for exchanging information and best practices. Some proposed to
strengthen cooperation and exchange between the Groups and to better target
outcomes at specific actors.

Deliverables of XGs,
as presented to the Working Party on Sport, in many cases informed the
political discussion on sport at EU level. Some of the outcomes originating
from the Groups, e.g. guidelines or recommendations, would need to be
implemented first, before their value for national policies can be properly
assessed.

The fact that sport
stakeholders could participate in the work of XGs as observers has been
welcomed on all sides. However, Member States also felt that the number of
observers in some of the Groups was too high leaving not enough room for debate
between the Group members. While the interaction with ‘other participants’
should continue, a new Work Plan would benefit from clarifying the role of
sport stakeholders, in the context of structures predominantly designed for Member State representatives.

3.2.        Structured dialogue with
the sport sector

3.2.1.     General assessment

The structured
dialogue with sport stakeholders was further strengthened in the context of the
Work Plan by introducing the practice whereby sport representatives have
exchanges with Member States in XGs and, albeit to a much lesser extent, through
high-level dialogue meetings in the margins of the Council. The established
Commission-led structured dialogue for sport has been maintained with continued
success, with the annual Sport Forum as the main EU platform for exchange with
sport stakeholders. In addition, an annual high-level dialogue between the
Commission and the International Olympic Committee was introduced in 2013 as a
means to deepen bilateral cooperation.[35]
In the Commission’s view, progress could therefore be achieved in the EU
dialogue with the sport sector, but there is room for further strengthening it
in the future by addressing the specific issues listed hereafter.

3.2.2.     Specific issues

With the EU’s
emerging sport policy role, the number of sport actors wanting to have their
say in EU level work has grown substantially over the past years. EU
institutions are faced with the challenge of leading an inclusive structured
dialogue on sport with relevant stakeholders, while ensuring continued
effectiveness. Despite its great value, only a few Member States established a
regular dialogue on EU sport issues with national sport stakeholders.

The Commission
shares the views expressed in consultations that the structured dialogue lunch
organised in the margins of the EYCS Council could be further improved, as it
is considered that it has not reached the objectives.

The views of the
sport sector must continue to play an important role when developing and
implementing EU policies and actions with relevance for sport. A new Work Plan
could establish improved dialogue structures providing for such possibilities.

4.           SOME LESSONS FOR THE
FUTURE

4.1.        Priorities for future work

Many of the
competences in the area of sport lie with the Member States. It is thus important
that priorities for a new EU Work Plan focus on actions delivering unambiguous
value-added at EU level. The Council will assess its priorities for a new Work
Plan in view of such actions. In the Commission's view, future priorities
should therefore a) be in line with and contribute to the overarching
priorities of the EU economic and social policy agenda, b) build on the
achievements made under the current Work Plan, in particular the implementation
of work outcomes, c) cover other relevant priority fields for cooperation (as listed
in the 2011 Communication on sport or topical issues) and d) reflect the need
for mainstreaming sport into other policies.With this in mind, a future Work
Plan could cover the following themes[36]:

1)   Sport and
society, including health-enhancing physical activity (HEPA):

· 
Social inclusion and sport: Future cooperation on sport should give attention to issues of
social inclusion, in particular to the follow up on work on gender equality initiated
in 2013. Expert work could deepen knowledge on the questions of participation,
coaching, leadership, harassment as well as stereotypes and feed the exchange
of good practices and ideas aimed at promoting gender equality in sport.

· 
HEPA: The
implementation of the 2013 Council Recommendation in close cooperation with the
  Member States at EU level and the WHO, as well as coordination with ongoing
processes, will be a priority. Areas that require political attention also
include physical activity in the education environment and cooperation with the
health care sector. Expert level work should focus on related HEPA issues, such
as sedentary behavior, injury prevention as well as specific at-risk groups.

· 
Education and training in sport: Work should continue, e.g. in the form of peer meetings, on implementation
of the Dual Career Guidelines and the inclusion of sport qualifications in
NQFs. The issue of international sport federations’ qualifications and the
relation to NQFs and EQF should also be addressed at EU level. An increased
focus should be put on the recognition of non-formal learning provided by sport
and the employability of young people through sport, including young talented
athletes’ educational part of their dual careers.

2)   Economic
dimension of sport:

· 
Evidence-base for sport: Work should continue at expert level to gather further information
and data on sport and physical activity, building on existing methodologies. Attention
should be given to strengthening evidence on the economic side, e.g. sport's role
in increasing employability and health care savings.

· 
Sustainability of sport: Further action at Council level could help ensure that the
sector’s interests are mainstreamed into EU policies that impact on the
financing of sport structures and activities. Expert work could further clarify
the impact of the developing EU legal framework (e.g. in the field of state
aid) on the financing of sport and may lead to specific guidance; dialogue with
sport organisations should continue to strengthen further solidarity mechanisms
within sport; expert work should explore the economic, social and environmental
sustainability of mega sport events.

3)   Integrity of
sport:

· 
Anti-doping: Work
should continue to focus on compliance with EU law and the protection of
athletes' rights. As part of the implementation of the WADC 2015 by Member
States, the EU should offer its assistance to WADA, the Council of Europe and Member States in developing appropriate non-binding guidance. Work on doping prevention
should be further developed based on the 2012 Council conclusions. Issues
identified in Commission documents, e.g. illegal trade and possible criminal
law initiatives, use of social dialogue, may be taken up again.

· 
Fight against match-fixing: Work will continue, notably to ensure the implementation of the above
mentioned Recommendation on best practices in the prevention and combating of
betting-related match-fixing and of the future Council of Europe's Convention
against the manipulation of sports competitions.

· 
Protection of the physical and moral
integrity of young athletes: Ways should be explored
to protect young athletes and to strengthen ethical behaviour in particular
regarding sexual harassment.

The Sport Chapter in
Erasmus+ will provide financial support for grassroots sport activities and
includes a range of instruments to support cooperation and action in most of
these areas.

4.2.        Working methods and
structures

To build on the
positive experience of the first Work Plan and, at the same time, address the
challenges identified above, the Commission sees value in an adapted form of
working methods that would allow relevant actors to cooperate effectively and
to cover the above priorities in the context of a new Work Plan. Based on its
own observations and in response to views expressed in the consultations, the
Commission concludes that the following improvements could usefully be
introduced and replace the current working arrangements:

· 
Instead of the current six Expert Groups, three
‘Sport Strategy Groups’ (SSG), each composed of Member State and Commission
representatives, should be established to cover the main broad priorities for
EU cooperation in sport, i.e. ‘Sport and society, including HEPA’, ‘Economic
dimension of sport’ and ‘Integrity of sport’. SSGs would steer developments
(i.e. implementation of results achieved under the current Work Plan) and
exchange views on progress made in implementing the new Work Plan. They would
also be the fora to address mainstreaming of sport, to discuss topical issues
and to exchange best practices, including results from the implementation of
Erasmus+. SSGs would prepare submissions to the Council structures, notably on
issues that require political support or follow up. The Commission would provide
support to the SSGs and participate in the Groups' work to give guidance and to
ensure continued involvement. SSGs should have a clearly defined mandate based
on deliverables requested by the Council with specific delivery target dates.

· 
For special tasks of a technical nature work
should be organised at expert level. “Groups of experts” (GoE), placed under
the aegis of SSGs, should be established to continue work initiated under the
current Work Plan and to carry out new tasks requiring special expertise.

· 
To associate sport stakeholders closely to the
implementation of the new Work Plan, dialogue platforms, corresponding with the
substance of the three SSGs, led by the Commission and the SSG chairmen, should
be set up. Selected representatives from these platforms would be invited to
SSGs meeting to present stakeholders’ opinion.

· 
The current structured dialogue lunch in the
margins of the Council should be replaced by one of the following options for
meetings convened by the Presidency and involving leading representatives of
the EU public authorities and the sport movement[37]:

– 
Two high-level meetings per year, at the start
of each Presidency term, to address the priorities for the semester;

– 
Two high-level meetings per year, one focusing
on topical issues with relevance for professional sport, one on topical issues
with relevance for grassroots sport;

– 
An annual high-level meeting, preceding the
Council or as part of an informal meeting of EU Sport Ministers.

Such a working
structure would have the advantage a) to keep the number of Groups and meetings
manageable, taking into account scarce resources in the Members States, while
responding to policy needs, b) to follow up on results from the current Work
Plan, while providing the possiblity to address new priorities, c) to have a
homogeneous composition of groups and to distinguish policy from expert level
work and d) to strengthen the structured dialogue with sport stakeholders.

5.           CONCLUSION

The European
Parliament, the Council, the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and
Social Committee are invited to take note of this report.

The Presidency is
invited to take this report as a basis for the preparation of the next EU Work
Plan for Sport during the first half of 2014.

As part of the next
EU Work Plan for Sport, the Council is invited to consider the priorities for
future work and the introduction of revised work arrangements identified in
this report.

[1]     COM(2011) 12 final, 18.1.2011

[2]     OJ C 162, 1.6.2011,
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/11/st09/st09509-re01.en11.pdf

[3]     Annex I of the Work Plan

[4]     Reports from Expert Groups:
http://ec.europa.eu/sport/library/consultation-and-co-operation_en.htm

[5]     Responses from 27 Member States: http://ec.europa.eu/sport/library/documents/b22/eu-workplan-sport-results-consultation-ms.pdf

[6]     Consultation workshops at the 2013 EU Sport Forum; written contributions
from stakeholders.

[7]     The first EU contribution to the revision, adopted by Council
14 March 2012 and submitted to WADA, covers the existing Code 2009. The second
EU contribution, adopted by Council 5 October 2012 and submitted to WADA,
covers Draft Code 2015, version 1.0. The third EU contribution, adopted by
Council 28 February 2013 and submitted to WADA, covers Draft Code 2015, version
2.0. The fourth EU contribution, adopted by Council 22 July 2013 and submitted
to WADA, covers Draft Code 2015, version 3.0.

[8]     The second EU contribution to the revision covers existing
International Standards (various years of adoption or revision). The third EU
contribution covers Draft International Standards 2015, version 1.0. The fourth
EU contribution covers Draft International Standards 2015, version 2.0.

[9]     Commission Communications: COM(2011)12 final; COM(2011)308
final; COM(2012)596 final

[10]    European Parliament resolutions of 10 March 2009
(2008/2215(INI)), of 15 November 2011 (2011/2084(INI)), of 2 February 2012
(2011/2087(INI)), of 10 September 2013 (2012/2322(INI))

[11]    Council conclusions on combating match-fixing (2011/C 378/01)

[12]    http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/educ/133873.pdf

[13]    http://ec.europa.eu/sport/library/documents/b1/eusf2012-nicosia-declaration-fight-against-match-fixing.pdf

[14]    Council decisions 10178/13 and 10180/13

[15]    http://ec.europa.eu/sport/library/documents/f-studies/cons-study-transfers-final-rpt.pdf

[16]    http://ec.europa.eu/sport/documents/study_on_sports_agents_in_the.pdf

[17]    http://ec.europa.eu/sport/library/sport-and_en.htm#C10_Sports-Agents

[18]    http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/08/st17/st17271-re01.en08.pdf

[19]    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2013:168:0010:01:EN:HTML

[20]    http://ec.europa.eu/sport/documents/summary_be_presidency_imm_en.pdf

[21]    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2012:393:0022:0025:EN:PDF

[22]    COM(2013) 603 final

[23]    http://ec.europa.eu/sport/news/documents/hepa_en.pdf

[24]   http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/12/st17/st17468.en12.pdf

[25]    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2012:396:0008:0011:EN:PDF

[26]    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0928:FIN:EN:PDF

[27]    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2012:393:0020:0021:EN:PDF

[28]    Final report, November 2012:
http://ec.europa.eu/sport/library/documents/f-studies/study-contribution-spors-economic-growth-final-rpt.pdf

[29]    Figures are based on the "Broad Definition", i.e.
direct effects only, no multiplier effects from suppliers of intermediate
goods. Aggregate figures as well as structures differ substantially between
Member States.

[30]    http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/educ/139733.pdf

[31]    http://ec.europa.eu/sport/library/documents/f-studies/final-rpt-may2013-study-monitoring-function.pdf

[32]    http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/top_layer/services/sport/study_en.htm

[33]    Contract notice in the OJ of the European Union on 06 July
2012 (2012/S 128-211223)

[34]    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:204:0011:0014:EN:PDF

[35]    The Council’s and the Commission’s approaches to structured
dialogue were laid down in policy documents: OJ C 322/1 of 7.11.2010; COM(2007)
391 final; COM(2011) 12 final. The Commission also has established rules
regarding participation in the Sport Forum.

[36]    The fact that certain topics are not elaborated upon in this
Communication does not imply that they are not important for the Commission,
but that existing policy documents remain a sufficient basis to address them.

[37]    In line with the Council Resolution of 18 November 2010 on the
EU structured dialogue on sport (see FN 35).