EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 236/99

Thursday 17 June 2010

Sport, specifically concerning players’ agents

P7_TA(2010)0233

European Parliament resolution of 17 June 2010 on players’ agents in sports

2011/C 236 E/14

The European Parliament,

having regard to its resolution of 29 March 2007 on the future of professional football in Europe (1),

having regard to its resolution of 8 May 2008 on the White paper on sport of the European Commission (2),

having regard to the White Paper on Sport (COM(2007)0391),

having regard to Article 165 of the Treaty of on the Functioning of the European Union,

having regard to the judgement of 26 January 2005 of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (3),

having regard to the question of 10 March 2010 to the Commission on sport, specifically concerning player’s agents (O-0032/2010 – B7-0308/2010),

having regard to Rules 115(5) and 110(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

1. Recalls that the Parliament in its resolution of 29 March 2007 on the future of professional football in Europe calls on the Commission to support the football governing bodies’ efforts to regulate players’ agents, if necessary by presenting a proposal for a directive concerning such agents;

2. Welcomes the ‘Study on sports agents in the European Union’ commissioned by the European Commission and of which the results are now available;

3. Is particularly concerned about the findings of the study with regard to criminal activities carried out in connection with sport citing episodes where sport is affected by organised crime with links to players’ agents activities; believes this development is detrimental to the image of sport, its integrity and ultimately to its role in society;

4. Takes note of the finding of the study that sport agents are central in the financial streams which are often not transparent, and which make them prone to illegal activities; welcomes initiatives by some clubs and governing bodies to increase the transparency of financial transactions;

5. Notes that the study points out the inherent opacity of transfer systems particularly in team sports, which are conducive to illegal activities where agents as well as clubs and players are involved;

6. Underlines the specific vulnerability of young players and the risk of them becoming victims of human trafficking;

7. Underlines the specific responsibility of players’ agents and clubs, especially towards young players and therefore calls on both parties to assume this responsibility, in particular as regards the educational and vocational training of young players;

8. Underscores the finding of the study that the regulations of agents established by sports federations are basically aimed at controlling access to the profession and regulating its exercise, but that these bodies have only limited supervisory and sanctioning powers, since they lack any means of control or direct action vis-à-vis sports agents who are not registered with them; nor are they entitled to impose civil or criminal penalties;

9. Agrees with the sports governing bodies and the sporting stakeholders that measures need to be taken to tackle problems relating to the integrity and credibility of sport and of the actors in sport;

10. Believes that doing away with the existing FIFA licence system for player’s agents without setting up a robust alternative system would not be the appropriate way to tackle the problems surrounding player’s agents in football;

11. Applauds sport governing bodies’ efforts to bring about more transparency and supervision of financial flows;

12. Asks the Council to step up its coordinating efforts in the fight against criminal activities linked to agents’ activities, including money laundering, match fixing and human trafficking;

13. Refers to the above mentioned judgement on the case T-193/02 where the Court stated that in principle the regulation of players agents’ activities which constitutes policing of an economic activity and touches on fundamental freedoms, falls within the competence of the public authorities;

14. Recalls that in the same judgement the Court has recognised that federations such as FIFA are entitled to regulate the profession of agents insofar as the objective of the regulation is to raise professional and ethical standards in agent’s activities with a view of protecting players and that the regulation is not anti-competitive; recalls that collectively, agents are not organised at professional level and that the profession is subject to very limited regulation at the level of member states;

15. Is convinced that in a context of cross-border activities and diverse national regulations applicable to sports the effectiveness of control and the enforcement of sanctions can only be tackled by joint efforts of sports governing bodies and public authorities;

16. Notes that whilst the activities of agents are extensively regulated at international and national level by sporting bodies in some disciplines, very few Member States have adopted specific laws addressing sports agents;

17. Believes that considering the confusing diversity of regulations applicable to the activities of sports agents, a coherent EU-wide approach is needed in order to avoid loopholes due to unclear regulation and to ensure proper monitoring and control of the agents’ activities;

18. Reiterates its call for an EU initiative concerning the activities of players’ agents that should aim at: — strict standards and examination criteria before anyone could operate as a players’ agent, — transparency in agents’ transactions, — a prohibition for remuneration to players agents related to the transfer of minors, — minimum harmonised standards for agents’ contracts, — an efficient monitoring and disciplinary system, — the introduction of a EU wide ‘agents’ licensing system’ and agents’ register, — the ending of the ‘dual representation’, — a gradual remuneration conditional on the fulfilment of the contract;

19. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 27 E, 31.1.2008, p. 232.

(2) OJ C 271 E, 12.11.2009, p. 51.

(3) Case T-193/02 Laurent Piau v Commission [2005] ECR I-00209.