EN    EN EN 
EN    EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 18.1.2011 
SEC(2011) 68 final 
  
 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT  
 
 
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) 66 final SEC(2011) 67 final  
EN 2   EN This impact assessment accompanies the Co mmission's Communication on "Developing the 
European Dimension in Sport". A summary of th e main aspects of the impact assessment is 
presented hereafter. 
Background 
Article 165 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) gives the EU a 
new competence to support, coordi nate or supplement the actions of the Member States in the 
field of sport. The Treaty calls on the EU to contribute to the pr omotion of sporting issues and 
provides for EU action aimed at developi ng the European dimension in sport.  
Article 165 TFEU also contains a reference to "incentive measures in the field of sport", based 
on which the Commission could have considered  proposing a new spe nding scheme within 
the ongoing Financial Perspectives , for instance a limited 2-year  EU sport programme. While 
there is awareness within the Commission of th e high expectations from sport stakeholders 
regarding financial support from the EU in line with the Treaty mandate, an analysis of the 
current situation has led to the conclusion that  there are important budgetary and substantive 
constraints pleading against such a proposal at th is stage. Firstly, the re maining margin within 
the relevant chapter of the EU budget is very  limited. Thus, a financial volume which could 
have allowed a first EU Sport Programme that  would have had the potential of meeting its 
objectives could not be proposed. Secondly, the ongoing 2009 and 2010 Preparatory Actions 
in the field of sport have not yet been subject to an independent evaluation to justify the EU 
added value of a programme. An Impact Assessm ent for a future EU Sport Programme (as of 
2014), drawing on the evaluation of the relevant Pr eparatory Actions in th e field of sport, can 
only be completed in 2011. Thes e considerations have led DG Education and Culture to 
reconsider its initial plan for a 2010 initiative  combining a policy proposal with a spending 
programme. 
This impact assessment is therefore carried out solely for a policy initiative (Communication) 
to implement the Lisbon Treaty in the field of  sport. It builds on the new Treaty provisions 
and on a wealth of information gathered in the informal EU cooperation on sport over the past 
years, in particular the expe rience gained with th e implementation of the 2007 White Paper on 
Sport and through a broad consulta tion process carried out in 2010. 
Problem definition 
As a first step, the impact assessment addresses the need for EU action by identifying the 
main general and specific problems facing sport at  EU level. Evidence suggests that there is 
scope for furthering the positive values and effects of sport, that there are threats jeopardising 
the sector’s potential to contribute to society and to the economy, and that the development of 
the sport sector faces particular challenges. 
However, no strategy has existed so far for an EU approach to sport that would engage the 
Commission and the Member States  on the basis of a common age nda and that would be able 
to address the challenges in a comprehensive manne r. The full potential of the sport sector to 
contribute to the EU's strategic objectives in  the social and economic fields has so far 
remained unexploited. 
EN 3   EN The identification of the specific problems a nd challenges was conducted keeping in mind the 
Treaty’s mandate and the necessity to exclusivel y address problems that are relevant at EU 
level (subsidiarity). They have been identified as follows: 
– Challenges connected with sport's health-e nhancing, social and e ducational functions: 
• Health concerns due to lack of physical activity; 
• Social exclusion of disadvantaged gr oups and unused potential of sport; 
• Unadapted systems to combine sport and education; 
– Challenges for sustainable sport structures: 
• Insufficient support for voluntary activity; 
• Current and future challenges to the sustaina ble funding of sport, also in light of the 
regulatory changes in Member St ates in the gambling sector; 
• Inadequate protection of in tellectual property rights; 
– Doping as a threat to the physical an d moral integrity of sportspeople; 
– Discrimination in sport on grounds of nationality; 
– Unused scope for improving EU-level dialogue on sport; 
– Perceived lack of legal clarity regardi ng the application of EU law to sport; 
– Insufficient information on sport for the EU-27. 
Objectives 
In a second step, the impact assessment identi fies the objectives of the planned initiative. 
Overall, the planned initiative should aim at making a contribution to the EU’s overarching 
objectives laid down in the Europe 2020 strate gy in terms of sustainable growth, fighting 
unemployment, reinforcing social incl usion and advanci ng people’s Europe. 
In strategic  terms, the planned initiative should aim at providing the Commission and the 
Member States with a framework for EU-level activities in the field of sport that should 
foresee actions to be carried out  on the basis of Article 165 TFEU. 
In line with the specific challenges identifie d, the impact assessment elaborates on the specific 
objectives  that the planned initiati ve should aim to achieve: 
– Promote the health-enhancing, social and educational functions of sport; 
– Support sport structures ba sed on voluntary activity; 
– Protect the physical and mora l integrity of sportspeople; 
– Promote fairness and openness in sporting competitions; 
EN 4   EN – Enhance dialogue and cooperati on with sport stakeholders; 
– Increase understanding of the a pplication of EU law to sport; 
– Support an evidence base for sport in the EU-27. 
Under this chapter, the impact assessment furthe rmore analyses whether EU action is justified 
on grounds of subsidiarity and it describes th e EU added value of the planned initiative. 
In line with the Treaty mandate and since Member  States have full competence in the field of 
sport, the EU initiative will not substitute th e actions of the Member States but propose 
additional action in full respect of subsidiarity requirements and in areas where experience has 
demonstrated that progress in addressing the challenges identified cannot be sufficiently 
achieved by Member States in the framework of their national constitutional systems. The 
planned initiative will not go be yond what is necessary to achi eve the defined objectives, but 
take account of proportionality requirements and the Treaty mandate, which excludes harmonisation and only provides for soft tools fo r EU-level action. The planned EU initiative 
will be implemented on the basis of existing national and European structures.  
Regarding the rationale for European added valu e, the EU will act as a catalyst in order to 
increase the impact of national actions in the in terest of sport. The EU-level initiative will 
allow for the development of activities that establish links between different organisations and actors in and outside sport, incl uding in particular public aut horities at European, national, 
regional and local levels, sport organisations, sport-related organisations, and educational 
bodies. The actions will lead to the exchange  of know-how and good practices in different 
areas relating to sport and physic al activity (e.g. heal th, education, social inclusion). The EU 
can thereby provide opportunities for cooperati on among stakeholders that would not have 
existed without EU action.  
Policy options 
In a third step, the impact assessment identifies  three policy options that represent possible 
toolsets to meet the objectives identified: 
• Option A
: Cooperation based on the 2007 White Pa per on Sport (baseline scenario); 
• Option B : Definition of a strategic medium-ter m framework for cooperation in sport, 
based on a new EU Agenda for sport (framework + new agenda); 
• Option C : Definition of a strategic long-term po licy framework, based on the creation of 
an Open Method of Coordination in the fi eld of sport (long-term framework + OMC). 
Assessment of impacts 
In the next chapter, each of the three po licy options is assessed in relation to  
(1) expected economic, social and environmen tal impacts, including an assessment of 
most important impacts in te rms of likelihood and magnitude; 
(2) efficiency, which considers the relationship between inputs and the desired impacts 
and it also assesses the Comm ission’s ability to deliver; 
EN 5   EN (3) effectiveness, which considers the likelihood of achieving the objectiv es the initiative 
tends to achieve; 
(4) coherence in relation to over arching goals of EU policy. 
a) Common to all options are the positive social  and, to a lesser extent, economic impacts  that 
could generally be expected from measures at  EU level aimed at promoting the societal 
functions of sport through act ion in core areas, i.e. health-enhancing physical  activity, social 
inclusion, education and tr aining, and voluntary activity  (e.g. leading to h ealthier and more 
inclusive societies as well as to enhanced employability). Strategically oriented and coordinated policy approaches as provided for under Options B and C and in particular an 
OMC (Option C) are likely to strengthen these positive effects. Further political efforts to fight doping  involving relevant stakeholde rs at national, Eu ropean and international levels is 
likely to have an indirect positive effect in terms of an improved image for sport in society 
and credibility for sporting competitions. 
New action aimed at policy coordi nation in other areas, such as support for sport structures 
(e.g. action aimed at ensuring sustainable financing  of grassroots spor t) potentially has 
positive economic impact in terms of more stab le and better adapted sport structures in 
increasingly competitive markets, which potentially enhances the quality of sport services, which in turn can help to ensure people’s access to local sport structures . Political approaches 
to tackle discrimination in spor t (e.g. action in  the field of free movement of sportspeople ) can 
have a positive impact on the functioning of the Internal Market and can also help avoiding 
discrimination of EU citizens.  Policy action aimed at more legal clarity  regarding sporting 
rules through increased understanding about the a pplication of EU law to sport thanks to 
specific guidance at EU level is likely to have a positive impact on the functioning of the Internal Market, as it potentially  helps the sport sector to deve lop its activities within a sound 
legal framework. It can also help avoid tensio ns between different actors or legal conflicts. 
Support aimed at improving EU dialogue and cooperation  structures can lead to better 
cooperation with stakeholders as well as inclusive and transparen t processes. Experience from 
other sectors, e.g. education, culture, youth, show s that political support for developing an 
evidence base for the EU-27  can lead to better informed national and European policy making 
based on sound economic reasoning, for instance  regarding public spending or investment 
decisions. Access to information of sufficient qua lity can equally benefit other actors, such as 
sport organisations, which have to ensure s ound economic management of  their activities.  
Regarding environmental impacts
, the report recognises that sport, in particular large sport 
events, can to some extent negatively aff ect the environment. All options, although to 
different degrees, can potentially promot e environmentally friendly approaches. 
Each of the options is then assessed in term s of the likelihood that the most important and 
desired positive impacts will occur and thei r magnitude. The most important impacts  are 
identified to be threefold: improvement of public health, so cial inclusion of disadvantaged 
groups, and contribution to employability and jobs . The likelihood and magn itude is generally 
found to be higher for Options B and C than for Option A given the strategic political 
framework and new actions foreseen under thes e options as compared  to the baseline. 
b) The efficiency  of Option A has been assessed very low, despite the positively rated human 
resources implications and desp ite the fact that the Commi ssion would have the systemic 
capability to deliver. The reason for this assessment are the high likelihood that this Option would not reach desired impacts and the fact that a mere continua tion of ongoing activities 
EN 6   EN appears to be difficult to justify in light of the new Treaty mandate that explicitly calls for EU 
action in the field of sport. In contrast to Option A, Opti on C requires proportionately high 
inputs in terms of human resour ces, while the like lihood of this opti on to reach desired 
impacts is high to very high. An improvement of  efficiency must therefore be assumed for 
Option C in relation to the baseline. Regarding the ability to deliver, there is to date no experience with launching an OMC in a new horiz ontal policy area like sport. At this early 
stage of formal EU cooperation in the field of sport, there is not yet sufficient evidence for a 
developing consensus for an OMC. Option C’s ability to deliver has therefore been rated 
negative in comparison with the baseline. The a ssessment of efficiency of Option B comes to 
a more balanced result as regards both the relationship between imp acts (high likelihood of 
reaching desired impacts) and inputs (no add itional human resources needs). Moreover, the 
ability to deliver has been rated very high as  compared to the baseline, given the stated 
support from governments and st akeholders for the approach  suggested under Option B. 
Overall efficiency for Option B has therefore attained the highest score among the options. 
c) Regarding its effectiveness
, each option is assessed with re gard to the strategic objective 
(new strategic approach to EU-l evel cooperation in sport) a nd the seven specific objectives 
that the initiative aims to achieve. Option A does not meet the strategic objective and only makes a very limited contribution to achieving  the specific objectives. Options B and C, 
through the creation of an EU framework for sport, can reach the strategic objective. 
Concerning the achievement of objectives related to core areas where an OMC can most 
likely be implemented, the effectiveness of Opti on C is rated higher than that of Option B. 
Similarly, through targeted actions  foreseen in the EU Agenda for areas aimed at tackling 
objectives relating to fairness and openness in  competitions, dialogue and cooperation in 
sport, and regarding more clarity on the applic ation of EU law to sport, Option B must be 
rated higher than Option C. As an aggregated  score, the likelihood of Option C to reach the 
objectives is assessed to be sligh tly higher than that of Option B. 
d) The coherence
 of the options is assessed with regard to the overarc hing goals of the Europe 
2020 strategy, the EU Health Strategy and the functioning of the Internal Market. Option A, 
given the lack of any new action, is not considered to be cohere nt with the overarching goals. 
Options B and C both make a contribution to growth and jobs, public health, and to the 
Internal Market. It is assume d that a long-term policy approach providing for an OMC is a 
slightly more coherent approach to reach genera l EU policy goals, in particular those relating 
to Europe 2020 (by helping the sport sector deve lop its full growth and jobs potential), which 
is expressed in the slightly higher value of Option C in comparison with Option B. 
Comparison of options / choice of preferred option 
The following chapter of the report summarises th e comparison of the options in light of the 
four criteria based on the assessment of impact s, efficiency, effectiveness and coherence. 
• The positive economic and social impacts  of Options B and C are likely to be similar, 
while the new EU Agenda, provided for under Option B, seems particularly conducive to 
furthering them. The level of impact can be e xpected to be slightly higher under Option C, 
that would result in an OMC for certain core  areas of EU-level c ooperation in sport (e.g. 
health-enhancing physical activity). 
• Concerning efficiency , Options A must be rated very low. Despite a much higher level of 
inputs, Option C is likely to be more effici ent as compared to the baseline, but more 
difficult to deliver. Option B is more efficient than the baseline and more efficient than 
EN 7   EN Option C. Moreover, the Commission’s ability  to deliver desired impacts reaches the 
highest score under Option B. 
• Regarding effectiveness , the attainment of the objec tives cannot be guaranteed under 
Option A, while Options B and C both reach the strategic objective and the specific 
objectives. Option C is likely to pr oduce slightly higher effects. 
• Regarding the coherence  criterion, Option A is not c onducive to achieving the EU's 
overarching social and economic goals while Options B and C can both make a valuable 
contribution. Option C, providing for an OMC, is considered the most  suitable instrument. 
The impact assessment concludes that Option B is  the most appropriate way to respond to the 
challenges faced by sport in the EU and to im plement the sport provisions of Article 165 
TFEU. Option B is the most balanced option and th e one that is likely to provide the greatest 
net benefits in this phase of deve loping the EU dimension in sport. 
On this basis, the Commission will propose a Communication defining  a policy framework 
for cooperation in sport at EU level,  including a new EU Agenda for sport . The 
Communication should also a nnounce an Impact Assessment for a possible EU Sport 
Programme from 2014 onwards, in order to  complement the cooperation framework. 
Monitoring and Evaluation 
Finally, the impact assessment presents an  overview of the planned steps regarding 
monitoring and evaluation, notably by listing a first set of core indicators of progress towards 
meeting the general and specific objectives pu rsued by the proposed in itiative (Option B). 
Part of the proposed EU framework for coopera tion in sport will be an evaluation in 2015, 
which should provide an opportunity to consid er the possible introduction of an OMC for 
certain aspects of cooperation in sport at EU level.