EN    EN EN 
EN    EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 18.1.2011 
SEC(2011) 66 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
SPORT AND FREE MOVEMENT  
 
Accompanying document to the 
  
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CO MMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMI TTEE OF THE REGIONS 
 
Developing the European Dimension in Sport 
  
COM(2011) 12 final 
SEC(2011) 67 final SEC(2011) 68 final 
EN 2   EN In recent years the impact on sport, and in pa rticular on football, of the EU rules on free 
movement has been a highly topical issue, par ticularly as sport is increasingly taking on a 
European dimension. With the entry into for ce of the Lisbon Treaty, sport has now become a 
field in which the EU can contribute to th e promotion of European sporting issues and 
encourage cooperation between the Me mber States (Article 165 TFEU). 
Article 165 TFEU provides the EU with a ‘sof t-law’ competence (encouraging cooperation 
between the Member States a nd supporting and supplementing thei r action) in the areas of 
sport, education and youth. As far as sport is  concerned, Article 165 calls on the Union to: 
– promote European sporting issues, taking acc ount of the specific nature of sport, its 
structures based on voluntary activity a nd its social and educational function; 
– develop the European dimension in sport by promoting fairness and openness in sporting 
competitions and cooperation between bodies re sponsible for sports, and by protecting the 
physical and moral integrity of sportspeople and sportswomen; 
– foster cooperation with third countr ies and international organisations. 
At the same time, the Treaty fo rbids any discriminati on on grounds of nationa lity (Article 18 
TFEU) and grants every citizen of the Union th e right to move and reside freely within the 
territory of the Member States, subject to those limitations an d conditions that are laid down 
in the Treaties themselves and in the measures adopted to give them e ffect (Article 21 TFEU). 
As regards workers, the Treaty states that freed om of movement of work ers should be secured 
within the Union, and that such freedom entail s the abolition of any discrimination based on 
nationality as regards employment, remune ration and other conditions of work and 
employment (Article 45 TFEU). 
A combined reading of fundamental provisions  in the Treaty on non-discrimination on the 
grounds of nationality and on fr ee movement and of Article 165 TFEU – with its obligation 
for the EU to develop the European dimens ion in sport and to promote the openness of 
competitions – entails that the general rule of  non-discrimination applies to both professional 
and amateur sport: in the first case, players are protected principally as workers; in the second 
as European citizens who have the right to move freely around Europe. 
The objective of this Staff Worki ng Document is to provide an overview of the impact of EU 
law on the free movement of  professional sportspeople1 and to outline the Commission's 
position on the impact of the new Treaty provisions  in the field of sport on the free movement 
of amateur sportspeople. 
1. IMPACT OF EU LAW ON FREE MOVEMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SPORTSPEOPLE  
Sport is subject to the Treaty provisions and the secondary law on free movement of workers 
in so far as it constitutes an  economic activity within the mean ing of the Treaty. The Court of 
Justice of the European Union (ECJ) has confir med on several occasions that professional and 
semi-professional sportsmen are workers by virtue  of the fact that th eir activities  involve 
                                                 
1 This overview remains of a general nature since sufficient details on this topic are provided in Annex II 
of the Staff Working Document accompanying the White Paper on Sport - SEC(2007) 935. Issues 
which were not (or only marginally ) addressed in the White Paper and its accompanying Staff Working 
Document, such as UEFA's home-grown players rules and the ECJ ruling on the Olympique Lyonnais  
case, are discussed in more detail. 
EN 3   EN gainful employment2. The Communication from the Comm ission on "Reaffirming the free 
movement of workers: rights and major developments", adopted on 13 July 20103, offers an 
overall picture of the rights of EU migr ant workers and updates the previous 2002 
Communication4 taking into account legislative and case law developments. 
Rules governing sport are often issued by spor ts associations, whic h are not governed by 
public law. This circumstance cannot provide a justification for not applying the rules on free movement. The ECJ has clearly stated that Arti cle 45 TFEU not only app lies to the action of 
public authorities, but also to rules of a ny other nature aimed at regulating gainful 
employment in a collective manner
5. Rules laid down by sports associations which determine 
the terms on which professional sportsmen can enga ge in gainful employment fall within this 
category. 
The fact that professional sportspeople fall within the scope of Article 45 TFEU implies that 
any direct discrimination on grounds of nationa lity is prohibited, and that any indirect 
discrimination and obstacles impe ding the exercise of the right to free movement which are 
not justified, necessary and pr oportionate to the legitimate a im pursued must be abolished. 
Although there had been previous judgements of the Court regarding the application of rules 
on the free movement of workers to profe ssional and semi-professional sportspeople, the 
effects and implications of EU law on sporting activities were fu lly revealed in the judgment 
of 15 December 1995 in the Bosman case6. This judgement provided indications not only as 
regards the scope of free movement provisions , but also as regards direct discrimination 
(nationality quotas) and obstacles to free movement  (transfer rules) in the field of sport.  
The Commission Staff Work ing Document accompanying the White Paper on sport7 already 
presented a comprehensive picture of the cas e law concerning the limited and proportionate 
restrictions to the principle of free movement that can be accepted. The following guidance 
can be derived from that case-law. 
Direct discrimination 
Rules leading to direct discrimination on grounds of nationality are not compatible with EU 
law. Direct discrimination may, for instance , take the form of a complete ban on the 
participation in sporting competitions of EU citizens from other Member States8. It may also 
stem from the introduction of quotas base d on nationality. Th e ECJ has held that  the fact that 
such rules or quotas may not concern the employ ment as such of EU players but rather the 
extent to which their club may field them for an  official match is of no relevance in order to 
determine the discriminatory nature of the rules. In so far as participation in official matches 
constitutes the essential activity of professiona l players, any rule limiting such participation 
also restricts the employment oppo rtunities of the players concerned9. The only grounds for 
                                                 
2 Cases 36/74 Walrave , 13/76 Donà , C-415/93 Bosman , C-176/96  Lehtonen,  C-519/04  Meca-Medina  and 
C-325/08 Olympique Lyonnais . 
3 COM(2010) 373. 
4 COM(2002) 694. 
5 Cases 36/74 Walrave  and C-415/93 Bosman , joined cases C-51/96 and C-191/97 Deliège and case C-
325/08 Olympique Lyonnais . 
6 C-415/93, B osman . 
7 SEC(2007) 935, 11.7.2007. 
8 Case 13/76 Donà.  In this case, only football players affiliated to the Italian federation could take part in 
matches, whilst affiliation was only open to players having Italian nationality. 
9 Cases C-415/93 Bosman  and C-176/96 Lehtonen . 
EN 4   EN exceptions in cases of direct discrimination are those listed in Article 45 TFEU (public policy, 
public security or  public health). 
Nonetheless, the ECJ established an exception to the general principle of non-discrimination 
as regards rules or practices ex cluding foreign players from cer tain matches for reasons which 
are not of an economic nature and relate to the particular nature and context of such matches, 
and which are therefore of spor ting interest only, such as, for example, matches between the 
national teams of different countries. However, this exception must remain limited to its own subject matter and it cannot be invoked to cl aim the exclusion of the whole of a sporting 
activity from the scope of the Treaty
10. 
Indirect discrimination 
Indirect discrimination occurs when rules a pply criteria of differentiation other than 
nationality but lead, in fact, to the same results as direct discrimination. 
In this case, only rules that are necessary, pr oportionate to the achievement of legitimate 
objectives, and do not discriminate directly on the basis of nationality, may be compatible 
with Article 45 TFEU. For instance, rules such  as UEFA's ‘home-grown players’ which aim 
to encourage the recruitment and training of young players and ensure the balance of 
competitions, can be compatible with EU free m ovement provisions (i) in so far as they are 
able to achieve efficiently those legitimate obj ectives, (ii) if there are no other measures 
available which can be less disc riminating and (iii) if the rule s in question do not go beyond 
what is necessary to the attainment of their objectives. The Commission will nevertheless monitor the application of these ru les closely on a case by case basi s in order to verify that the 
criteria are met. 
 
Home-grown players rules and quotas of players in club competitions 
 
On 28 May 2008 the Commission published an indepe ndent study carried out on its behalf to 
examine the effects of UEFA's rules setting a minimum number of "home-grown players" for 
clubs participating in its football competitions . On the basis of the results of the study, the 
Commissioners responsible for fr ee movement of workers and fo r sport considered that the 
approach followed by UEFA in adopting these rules complied prima facie  with the principle 
of free movement of workers while promoti ng the training of young European athletes.  
 ‘Home-grown players’ are defined by UEFA as pl ayers who, regardless of  their nationality or 
age, have been trained by their club or by anothe r club in the same natio nal association for at 
least three years between th e age of 15 and 21. The UEFA rule does not contain any 
conditions based on nationality. It applies in the same way to all players and all clubs 
participating in competitions organised by UEFA . Its aim is to encourage clubs to establish 
efficient training centres with a view to ensu ring the creation and main tenance of high-level 
talent pools of future professional players.  The objectives underlying UEFA’s home-grown  players rules, namely promoting the 
recruitment and training of young players and ensuring the balance of competitions, can be 
considered legitimate objectives of general intere st. The provisions of the rules appear to be 
inherent in and proportionate to  the achievement of such objectives. However, since the rules 
                                                 
10 Cases 13/76 Donà , C-415/93 Bosman and C-176/96 Lehthonen . 
EN 5   EN risk having indirect discrimina tory effects and since their im plementation has been gradual 
over several years, the Commission will carry out further analysis on the rules in 2012. 
 It should be noted that UEFA's home-grown pl ayers rules have not been examined from the 
angle of EU competition law. Similar schemes aimed at establishing quotas of locally trained players for clubs participating in team sports competitions have been brought to the attention 
of the Commission since the adop tion of UEFA's rules. Each sc heme needs to be examined 
taking into account the specific provisions of the scheme itself, the characteristic of the sport 
discipline concerned and th e general context in whic h the scheme is proposed. 
 Rules leading to direct discrimination on grounds of nationality are not compatible with EU 
law. The same is true for rules based on criter ia directly linked to na tionality. For example, 
rules establishing quotas of player s in clubs based on eligibility to play for the national team 
of the country where the club is located, when  the main criterion for such eligibility is 
nationality, are not compatible with EU law.  
 
Obstacles to free movement – transfer rules  
Provisions such as transfer rules which, even if applied without regard to  nationality, restrict 
the freedom of movement of sportspeople w ho wish to pursue their activity in another 
Member State constitute obstacles to free movement11. Restrictive transfer rules may also run 
the risk of infringing EU competition law. They  can be deemed compatible with EU law only 
in so far as they pursue a legitimate aim compatible with the Treaty and are justified by reasons of public interest. Such measures must also be inherent and pr oportionate to the aim 
pursued
12. By way of example, the ECJ in the Lehtonen case implied that limited and 
proportionate restrictions on labour mobility may be justified in order to ensure certain 
important characteristics of sporting competiti on such as transfer windows. It should be 
reminded that EU free movement rules apply to wo rkers regardless of their age, also including 
sportspeople who are engaged in  professional activities before the age of 18, in  conformity 
with relevant EU labour law provi sions, in particular the Dire ctive on the Protection of Young 
People at Work13. 
 
The ECJ's Olympique Lyonnais  ruling 
 
The judgement of the Court in the case Olympique Lyonnais  (case C-325/08), delivered on 16 
March 2010, is of particular interest as it is  the first ruling coveri ng a sport-related case 
adopted after the entry into fo rce of the Treaty on the Functi oning of the European Union 
(TFEU). The ruling provides further insight into the Court's interpretation of the issue of free 
movement of professional sportspeople. The fo cus of the ruling concerns limitations to the 
rules on free movement of workers laid down in Article 45 TFEU, arising from training 
compensation schemes. The Olympique Lyonnais  ruling confirms most of the elements and 
the legal reasoning developed by the Court in th e Bosman ruling, at a distance of 15 years. 
 According to the Court, Article  45 TFEU does not rule out sche mes which, in order to attain 
the objective of encouraging th e recruitment and training of young players, guarantees 
                                                 
11 Cases C-415/93 Bosman and C-176/96 Lehtonen . 
12 Case C-415/93 Bosman . 
13 Council Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 on the Protection of Young People at Work. 
EN 6   EN compensation to the club which provided the tr aining if, at the end of the training period, a 
young player signs a professional contract with a club in another Member State, on condition that the scheme is suitable to ensure the at tainment of that objective and does not go beyond 
what is necessary to attain it.  In the Olympique Lyonnais  ruling, the Court confirmed an important point raised in the 
Bosman  ruling, namely that the recruitment and trai ning of young players is  to be considered 
a legitimate objective of general interest. The Court also provided additional guidance for assessing whether training compensation schemes can  be considered as suitable to attain this 
objective: according to the Court, such schemes mu st be related to the actual cost of training. 
This was not the case of the scheme discussed in the main proceedings, since it linked the payment to potential damages su ffered by the clubs and was t hus unrelated to the actual 
training costs.  The Court offered another important element in  order to assess whethe r training compensation 
schemes are inherent and proporti onate to their legitimate object ive: when carrying out this 
assessment, account should be taken of the costs borne by the clubs in training both future professional players and those who will never pl ay professionally. The Court affirmed hereby 
the principle that training costs may be calculate d on the basis of the so-called "player factor", 
i.e. the number of players that need to be tr ained in order to produ ce a professional player. 
 In the Olympique Lyonnais  ruling, the Court also made reference for the first time to the 
provisions on sport laid down in Article 165 TF EU. In particular, the Court mentioned two 
elements included in the Treaty as being constitu tive of the EU's action in the field of sport: 
the social and educational functi on of sport as well as its sp ecific nature. These two aspects 
are interlinked, the social and educational valu es of sport being among the characteristics 
which make sport special and set it ap art from other sectors of the economy. 
 
 
Equal treatment clauses in agr eements with third countries 
The ECJ has also ruled on the application to sporting activiti es of the non-discrimination 
principle set out in certain Agreements between  the European Union and third countries. The 
case-law of the ECJ14 shows that, as long as such Agreements include equal treatment clauses 
prohibiting discrimination on grounds of nationali ty with regard to the working conditions 
and the remuneration of workers who are legall y employed in a Member State, professional 
sportsmen from those third countries cannot be subjected to discrimination on grounds of their 
nationality when they play in a Member State. Rules that lim it the opportunities of 
professional sportsmen from such third countries to take part in certain matches (as part of 
their professional activ ity), in comparison with sportsme n who are EU citizens, involve 
discrimination and run counter to  the equal treatment clauses in the Agreements. This means 
that players who are nationals of a country wh ich has concluded such an Agreement with the 
EU cannot be excluded on the basis of their nati onality from a team sent out on the field. Such 
clauses do not, however, amount to the conferral of a right of free move ment within the EU. 
 
EU Internal Market rules co ncerning freedom to provide services and freedom of 
establishment 
                                                 
14 Cases C-438/00 Kolpak , C-265/03 Simutenkov  and C-152/08 Real Sociedad de Fútbol SAD and Nihat 
Kahveci . 
EN 7   EN  
Besides the provisions concerning free movement  of workers, the EU Internal Market acquis  
includes rules on the free provision of services and on fr eedom of establishment which are 
equally of relevance for the sport sector. Articles 49 to 62 TFEU cover the right of establishment and provision of services. The two relevant pieces of EU legislation applicable 
in these fields are Directive 2005/36/EC of 7 September 2005 on the Recognition of 
Professional Qualifications
15 and Directive 2006/123/EC of 12 December 2006 on Services in 
the Internal Market16. 
 EU rules on establishment and provi sion of services apply to spor t-related professions such as 
coaches, trainers and instructors. These prof essions are characterise d by a high level of 
international mobility and by the fact that their regulation varies greatly across Member States: professions in sport are sometimes regulat ed in some Member States and not in others. 
Besides the issue of public regulation, internat ional sport federations often have their own 
system of qualifications and diplomas. This complex situation can be confusing for sport 
professionals. In order to increase legal clar ity and improve the framework facilitating the 
mobility of sport professionals, it could be envi saged to improve the transparency of some of 
the professions included in th e list of sport-related regulat ed professions established by 
Directive 2005/36/EC. More transparency in this  field could also be achieved on the basis of 
developing a professional card  or a passport for professional s in the contex t of temporary 
mobility and faster recognition of qualifications and work experience, as proposed in the 
Single Market Act.  Another sport-related profession which is subjec t to EU rules on free pr ovision of services 
and freedom of establishment is that of sport agent. According to the result of an independent 
study carried out on behalf  of the Commission in 2009
17, no major obstacles exist for the free 
provision of sport agents' services  across the Internal Market. However, the complexity of the 
legal framework may require that additional guidan ce be provided to the relevant stakeholders 
(agents, players and clubs).  
Specificity of sport and free movem ent of professional sportspeople 
Free movement of workers is a fundamental prin ciple of EU law and a provision with direct 
effect. Any exception from a fundamental principle can only be justified within the limits set 
by the Treaty itself. In the realm of sport, this entails taking into account the specific nature of sport, which is now recognise d by Article 165 TFEU. Howeve r, the specific ity of sport
18 
cannot be used as an excuse for making a ge neral exception to the application of free 
movement rules to sports activities. Exceptions from the EU's fundamental principles must be 
limited and based on specific circumstances. 
                                                                                                                                                         
15 OJ L 255, 30.9.2005, p. 22. 
16 OJ L 376, 27.12.2006, p. 36. 
17 The study is available on the Commission's website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/sport/library/doc/f_studies /study_on_sports_agents_in_the_eu.pdf  
18 The concept of specificity of sport is defined by the Commission in section 4.1 of the White Paper on 
Sport - COM(2007) 391 - and in section 4.2 of th e Communication which is accompanied by this Staff 
Working Document. 
EN 8   EN 2. THE PROVISIONS OF THE LISBON TREATY ON SPORT AND THEIR IMPACT ON FREE 
MOVEMENT OF AMATEUR SPORTSPEOPLE  
The right to free movement and non-disc rimination on grounds of nationality 
The principle of non-discriminati on on grounds of nationality is en shrined in Article 18(1) of 
the Treaty and applies in all situations which fall within the scope ratione materiae  of EU 
law. This includes the exercise of the right to  move and reside free ly in another Member 
State, as conferred by Article 21(1) of the Treaty19. 
This principle has been further specifie d in Article 24(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC  of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union 
and their family members to move and reside  freely within the territory of the Member 
States20. All Union citizens residing on the basis of this Directive in the territory of the host 
Member State must enjoy equal treatment with the nationals of that Member State within the scope of application of the Treaty. 
Free movement and amateur sport 
A combined reading of Articles 18 and 21 TF EU with Article 165 TFEU leads to the 
conclusion that the general EU principle of prohibition of a ny discrimination on grounds of 
nationality can be applied to sport for all EU  citizens who have used their right to free 
movement. This means that this principle is applicable to amateur as well as professional 
sport. National legislation must not establish additional obstacles and place certain nationals 
of a Member State at a disadvantage simply b ecause they have exercised their freedom to 
move and reside in another Member State, thereby restricting the freedom conferred by 
Article 21 TFEU on every citizen of the Union
21. 
Discrimination in amateur sport 
While membership in sport clubs is generally open  to all irrespective of  their nationality, there 
is evidence that in many Member States partic ipation in competitions can be restricted on 
grounds of nationality. Instances of direct discrimination can be  found at all levels in both 
individual and team sports, when for ex ample "quota systems"  are imposed on the 
participation of "foreigners", irrespective of thei r eventual status of EU  citizens, or when only 
nationals are allowed to participate in an even t, or more often, a series of sporting events. 
Requiring a certain number of years of resi dence in the host country as a condition for 
participating in sporting events on the same foo ting as nationals is also a restriction that EU 
citizens are often confronted with when pr actising sport in another Member State. 
Obstacles to the free movement of citizens can  also stem from practices in the country of 
origin. It is often the case that amateur athlet es, when they move to another Member State, 
need the express agreement of the club or federa tion in their Member Stat e of origin in order 
to be able to continue their practice in the host country. The refusal by a national federation to 
agree on the transfer of athletes or to do so within a reasonable period of time – or the 
imposition of fees to grant the agreement – will usually not be in accordance with the right to 
free movement. 
                                                 
19 Case 184/99  Grzelczyk, paragraphs 31 to 33. 
20 OJ L 158, 30.4.2004, p. 77. 
21 Cf. case Grunkin Paul, C-353/06 (paragraph 21). 
EN 9   EN Equal treatment of all citizens 
The exercise of the right to move and reside fr eely in another Member State is safeguarded if 
the citizens of the Union are able to practice spor t as amateurs irrespective of their nationality. 
This means that, in exercising that right in a nother Member State, EU citizens are in principle 
entitled, pursuant to Articles 18 and 21 of the Tr eaty, to treatment no less favourable than that 
accorded to nationals of the host State. Any hindrance to the m obility of amateur sportspeople 
constitutes therefore, in principle, an obstacl e to the free movement of EU citizens which may 
violate Union law. In accordanc e with Article 24(1) of Direc tive 2004/38/EC, subject to such 
provisions as are expressly prov ided for in the Treaty and sec ondary law, all Union citizens 
residing on the basis of the Directive in the te rritory of the host Member State shall enjoy 
equal treatment with the nationals of that Me mber State within the scope of the Treaty. 
Family members who are not nationals of a Memb er State and who have the right of residence 
or permanent residence also benefit from this right.  
In addition, amateur sportspe ople may be protected from discrimination on the grounds of 
nationality also under Regulation 1612/68/EEC on freedom of movement for workers, since 
access to the practice of sport constitutes a social advantage in the sense of Article 7(2) of Reg. 1612/68 as interpreted by the ECJ in a series of rulings
22: the Court has looked in 
particular into whether the gran ting of an advantage to a worker and his/her family members 
would facilitate their integration into the host st ate and has concluded that  the notion of social 
advantage covers all advantages, financial as well as non-financial23. Migrant workers and 
members of their families are therefore covered by the provisions of this Regulation when practising sport at amateur level. 
Specificity of sport and free movement 
Free movement is a fundamental principle of EU  law. Any derogation from this fundamental 
principle can only be justified within the limits set by the Treaty itself. In the realm of sport, this entails taking into account the specific na ture of sport – which is now recognised by 
Article 165 TFEU. Exceptions from the EU's f undamental principles must be limited and 
based on specific circumstances. The specific natu re of sport canno t be assessed in an abstract 
manner and should be addressed through a theme-by-theme approach. 
The criteria already identified in the field of pr ofessional sport apply to amateur sport as well. 
Those sports rules that can constitute discrimi nation on grounds of nationality or hindrance to 
free movement must take the following criteria into account in order to comply with EU law 
on free movement: 
– the legitimate objectives pursued by the rules; 
– the need for such rules to achieve those objectives; 
– their proportionality. 
The White Paper on sport already presented a co mprehensive picture of the case law on the 
limited and proportionate restrictions to the prin ciple of free movement  that can be accepted 
on the basis of the above-mentioned criteria.  
                                                
 
22 (C- 249/83 Hoeckx , C-85-96  Martinez Sala on the income of the migrant worker, as well as non 
financial advantages (C-59/85 Reed,  C-137/84 Mutsch ). 
23 The Commission has considered that the practice of amateur sport constitutes a social advantage in the 
sense of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 in its reply to written question from the European 
Parliament no. E2254/08. 
EN 10   EN As concerns more directly amateur sport, and in analogy with what has been already 
established in the realm of professional sp ort, it can be concluded that quota systems 
constitute direct discrimination on grounds of na tionality and are genera lly in breach of EU 
law. The refusal to agree to the transfer of an amateur athlete to th e federation of another 
Member State is also to be cons idered a violation of EU law. 
Some exceptions can, however, be envisaged re garding the composition of national teams for 
international competitions and the designation of  national champions in individual sports. As 
stated above, on the basis of the ECJ's case law,  rules that exclude non -national sportspeople 
from national teams can be considered as rules that do not infringe the Treaty's free movement provisions. 
However, these exceptions must, as always, be interpreted restrictively: any provision that 
prevents an EU citizen from enjoying to the fu ll his/her right to move  and reside freely in 
another Member State must not exceed what is strictly necessa ry to the achievement of its 
specific aim, even when that aim is a legitimate one. 
The same legal reasoning applies to the organisation of individual national championships 
aimed at selecting national champions and at gr anting titles, medals and records exclusively to 
sportspeople who are nationals of the Member State where such championships are organised. 
The objective of awarding the ti tle of national champion in each individual discipline could be 
considered as legitimate and proper to the organisation of sport on a national basis; the granting of medals and national records could be considered as being of a purely sporting 
nature. On the other hand, the participation in such competitions of EU citizens who have 
exercised their freedom of m ovement to another Member St ate should in principle be 
guaranteed. 
In practice, due account should be taken of the specific characteristics of each discipline. In 
fact, there are competitions in  individual sports meant to de signate a national champion and 
which are organised in knock-out tournaments with multiple and successive rounds of single-
elimination matches. In this case the competition could be distorted by the premature 
elimination of national athletes at the hands of EU citizens who might not qualify for the title 
of national champion. In such cases, limite d restrictions to the general principle of 
guaranteeing the general openness of competitions can be justified, but only in so far as they 
are necessary and proportionate to the le gitimate objective of designating a national 
champion. 
It is up to national fe derations to design rules that take account both of  the fundamental rights 
of EU citizens and of the legitimate objectiv es of specific sport competitions. The guiding 
principle must always be that of ensuring wide  access of all EU citizens to competitions. By 
way of example, in a recent case concerning a co mbat sport and following a dialogue with the 
Commission, the competent authori ties decided to allow unrestricted access of EU citizens to 
all the competitions they organised. Other wa ys to achieve the same objective that were 
discussed included the adoption of  second-chance formats or 'rep echage' rounds, or a shift to a 
round-robin or a ranking system. 
In a case concerning another i ndividual sport, a national fede ration argued that it organised 
each year a large number of individual tournaments as well as individual and team 
championships. Access to indi vidual tournaments and team championships was opened to 
foreigners without any restriction in the vast majority of competitions organised each year. 
Only individual championships aimed at dete rmining the national champion and select the 
EN 11   EN players who would join the national team for the world championships were restricted to 
national citizens. Taking into account the specif ic characteristics of the organisation of the 
relevant discipline in the count ry in question, and given the la rge possibilities to have access 
to the relevant activities and competitions, th e Commission deemed that the restrictions to 
participate in individual competitions pursued  a legitimate aim and that the concerned 
measures were necessary and proportionate to achieve it.  
In 2010, the Commission launched a study to anal yse all aspects of access to individual 
competitions. The final results of the study were made available in January 2011.24 On the 
basis of the results of the study, the Commissi on intends to provide further guidance to 
Member States and sport stakeholders in order to help them maintain the specific features of the organisation of sporting competitions wh ile fully respecting the EU's fundamental 
freedoms.  
3. D
IALOGUE AND MONITORING  
As guardian of the Treaties, the Commission will continue to monitor closely the activities of 
the national and international governing bodies  for sport and is already engaged in a 
constructive dialogue with them with a view  to striking the right balance between the 
specificity of sport and full compliance with EU law as interpreted by the ECJ in the area of free movement. The Commission will also provid e guidance and better explain the existing 
rules to Member States and sport stakeholders  so as to help them address possible legal 
difficulties stemming from actions or rules in the field of sport
25. 
As regards the application of EU law, the Co mmission works in close partnership with the 
Member States who have primary responsibility for its application.  In a spirit of cooperation, 
a series of tools operating at the point closest to the ci tizen have been deve loped together with 
the Member States. The SOLVIT problem-solvi ng network allows Memb er States to work 
together to find solutions to cross-border prob lems in the functioning of the Internal Market 
that arise for citizens or organisations  due to bad application of EU law. 
In cases where there is incompatibility between national law and EU law, the EU Pilot 
project26 allows more rapid answers to citizens' co mplaints by starting a dialogue between the 
Commission and the concerned Memb er State. The citizen at the origin of the complaint is 
kept duly informed of the stages of the proced ure as well as of its outcome, which can be, 
depending on the specifics of the case and the s ubject matter, a solution to the problem, the 
correction of an infringement, if appropria te through the opening of an infringement 
procedure for non-compliance with EU law, or the advice to have recourse to the national 
tribunals, which can in many cases offer a more  direct route to the solution of the problems 
encountered by citizens. 
                                                 
24 http://ec.europa.eu/sport/news/news982_en.htm 
25 In particular, following the modernisation of EU  competition law, the Commission does not issue any 
individual exemptions or provide further guidance on competition law issues except for specific 
circumstances provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. 
26 The EU Pilot project has been operating since Apr il 2008 with the aim of providing quicker and fuller 
answers to questions, and solutions to problems aris ing in the application of EU laws – particularly 
those raised by citizens or businesses – requiring confirmation of the factual or legal position in a Member State. It is designed with a view to improved communication and cooperation between 
Commission services and Member State authorities on is sues concerning the application of EU law. EU 
Pilot has meanwhile been extended to cover 23 Member States.