EN    EN EN
 
EN    EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 18.1.2011 
SEC(2011) 67 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
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) 68 final} 
 
EN 3   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. Procedural issues and consultations......................................................................................4 
1.1. Purpose................................................................................................................... ...................4 
1.2. Identification............................................................................................................ .................4 
1.3. Organisation and Timing ................................................................................................... .......4 
1.4. Re-submission of Impact Assessment report ............................................................................5 
1.5. Background................................................................................................................ ...............6 
1.6. Main sources of evidence.................................................................................................. ........7 
1.7. Consultations............................................................................................................. ................9 
2. Problem definition .......................................................................................................... ......11 
2.1. Nature and scope of problems.............................................................................................. ...11 
2.2. Main challenges ........................................................................................................... ...........12 
3. Objectives .................................................................................................................. ............15 
3.1. General objectives........................................................................................................ ...........16 
3.2. Specific objectives ....................................................................................................... ...........16 
3.3. EU added valu e and subsidiarity........................................................................................... ..18 
3.4. Target groups ............................................................................................................. .............19 
4. Policy options.............................................................................................................. ...........19 
5. Analysis of impacts ......................................................................................................... ......22 
5.1. Economic, social and environmental impacts.........................................................................22 
5.1.1. Option A (Baseline scenario)............................................................................................ ......22 
5.1.2. Option B (Framework + new Agenda) ...................................................................................23 
5.1.3. Option C (Long-term framework + OMC) .............................................................................25 
5.2. Assessment of most important impacts...................................................................................26 5.3. Assessment of efficiency .................................................................................................. ......30 
5.4. Assessment of effectiveness............................................................................................... .....32 
5.5. Assessment of coherence ................................................................................................... .....34 
6. Comparing the options ....................................................................................................... ..36 
6.1. Comparative analysis of options........................................................................................... ..36 
6.2. Choice of the preferred option ............................................................................................ ....37 
7. Monitoring and evaluation................................................................................................... 38 
Annex I
: Report on the EU-wide public consultation .......................................................................40 
Annex II : White Paper Implementation table ...................................................................................54 
Annex III : The added value of EU action in relatio n to Health-Enhancing Physical Activity......59 
 
EN 4   EN 1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATIONS  
1.1. Purpose 
Article 165 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) gives the EU a 
new competence for sport. Article 165 calls on the EU to contribute to the promotion of 
sporting issues and provides that EU action should be aimed at de veloping the European 
dimension in sport. It is the Commission's role  to develop and propose a suitable in itiative to 
implement these new provisions. The aim of the Impact Assessment is to help prepare this 
initiative. 
1.2. Identification 
Lead service : DG EAC.E.3 (Sport Unit). 
Other services involved : SG, SJ, DG AIDCO, DG COMM, DG COMP, DG DEV, DG 
ECFIN, DG EMPL, DG ELARG, DG ENTR , DG ENV, DG ESTAT, DG HOME, DG 
INFSO, DG MARKT, DG JUST, DG REGIO, DG RTD, DG SANCO, DG RELEX, DG TAXUD. 
Commission Work Programme reference number :  
2010/EAC/011: Communication on impleme ntation of sport provisions; 
Subject : Proposal for the implementation of the sport provisions in Article 165 TFEU. 
1.3. Organisation and Timing  
Action/Steps Date 
Inter-Service Group "Sport" 19 February 2010 
Informal inter-service consultation about online questionnaire 22-26 February 
Questionnaire for online consultation approved  10 March 
1st meeting of Inter-Service Steer ing Group for the Impact Assess ment – discussion of Impact 
Assessment Roadmap1  26 March 
Bilateral consultations with st akeholders February – June  
Launch of public consultation 7 April 
European Sport Forum & Informal Mini sterial Meeting, Madrid 19-21 April 
End of consultation process (8  weeks after launch) 2 June 
Analysis of the results of the consultation process June 
Finalisation of draft Impact  Assessment Report 30 June 
                                                 
1 The Impact Assessment Roadmap providing a first description of the planned Commission initiative 
was published at http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/planned_ia/roadmaps_2010_en.htm. 
 
EN 5   EN Inter-Service Steering Group meeting on draft Impact Assessment Report 7 July 
Submission of Impact Assessment Report to Impact Assessment Board 30 July 
Impact Assessment Board meeting 1 September 
Impact Assessment Board opinion 3 September 
Re-submission of Impact Asse ssment Report to Impact A ssessment Board 27 September 
Impact Assessment Board final opinion 11 October 
1.4. Re-submission of Impact Assessment report 
On 30 July 2010, DG EAC submitted to the Im pact Assessment Board (IAB) an Impact 
Assessment report (IA) for a proposal combin ing a political Communication and a limited 
spending programme in the field of sport.  Following its meeting on 1 September 2010 the 
IAB requested to receive a revised draft IA report.  
The discussion in the IAB meeting and the commen ts from the Board revealed that there were 
important underlying constraints with regard  to DG EAC’s proposal for a new spending 
scheme, i.e. a 2-year EU Sport Programme (2012-2013). An analysis of the situation 
confirmed that there were th ree types of constraints: 
– Political and budgetary constraints : It is the Commission’s obligation to carefully assess 
proposals for initiatives that require additional EU spending and to ensure that a proposal is conducive to meeting the EU’s general polic y objectives. In the current political and 
economic context, a cautious approach must be taken regarding the mobilisation of additional financial resources for new policy initiatives within the remaining margins of the ongoing Financial Perspectives 2007-2013. Th e mere fact of a new Treaty basis for 
sport is an important but not sufficient justif ication for a proposal for a two-year EU Sport 
Programme at this point in time. While ther e is awareness in the Commission about the 
high expectations from sport stakeholders re garding financial support from the EU in line 
with the Treaty reference to “incentive m easures” (Art. 165 TFEU), the remaining margin 
within the relevant budget line, under whic h the Programme would have been proposed 
(Heading 3B), is very limited. Thus a reasona ble financial volume of the first EU Sport 
Programme, which would have had the potential of meeting its objecti ves, could not have 
been guaranteed. A proposal for a Sport Progr amme with too small financial resources 
would have risked not ensuring the achieveme nt of the envisaged programme objectives. 
– Substantial constraints : DG EAC’s intended proposal for a two-year EU Sport Programme 
aimed at financial support for transnational ne tworks in four priority areas, building on 
projects financed from the 2009 and 2010 Prep aratory Actions in the field of sport. 
Stakeholders’ great interest in such measur es could be demonstrated (e.g. through the 
number of project proposals) and an independe nt evaluation of the Preparatory Actions is 
foreseen in 2011. However, no evaluation is availa ble at this stage to justify the EU added 
value of such measures in an independent ma nner. An Impact Assessment for a future EU 
Sport Programme will be carried out drawing on the evaluation of the relevant Preparatory 
Actions in the field of sport. 
– Procedural constraints : Necessary adaptations in the procedural roadmap have caused 
constraints regarding the possibility for a tim ely implementation of the proposed two-year 
 
EN 6   EN Sport Programme as of 2012. Under the most opt imistic scenario, the timetable foresaw the 
adoption of the proposal by the Commission at th e very end of 2010. This  would have been 
too risky an approach with a view to the in ter-institutional adoption pr ocess in the EP and 
the Council under the ordinary legislative pr ocedure, which may not have allowed for a 
Decision by the end of 2011. 
These three elements have led DG EAC to rec onsider its initial plan  for a 2010 initiative 
combining a policy proposal with a spending programme. The initiative of a political 
Communication is maintained, but no longer includes a proposal for a spending scheme 
for 2012-2013.  The proposed initiative for implementing the new EU competence for sport 
(Communication) is of a strategic nature. It  is a policy measure which demonstrates the 
Commission’s willingness to meet the high expect ations from stakeholders who want to see 
the EU playing its role in promoting sport in  line with the new Lisbon Treaty provisions on 
sport. 
According to the Board's observations and ta king account of its recommendations, DG EAC 
submitted the present revised IA on 27 September.  The revised report in particular aims at 
better demonstrating where the EU  can add value to sport policy making (chapters 2 and 3). It 
identifies key challenges in 7 areas in the context of large dispar ities among the Member 
States. It also identifies suitable objectives that , in line with the new Treaty mandate, provide 
for policy support and coordination to address these challenges. To  further clarify the choice 
of the proposed initiative (Co mmunication providing for an EU framework for cooperation in 
sport), the available policy optio ns (chapter 4) have been e xplained in greater detail and 
reduced to three choices, which has been mirro red in the assessment and comparison of the 
options (chapter 5). Three optio ns are considered to be th e only relevant policy choices 
following the decision not to propose any funding sc heme at this stage. The assessment of the 
policy options has been significantly deepened based on four criteria: impacts, efficiency, effectiveness and coherence. Finally, a shorte ned summary of the consultation process has 
been annexed, the essence of which has b een integrated into this IA report. 
On 11 October the Board issued its opinion on th e re-submitted report. Overall the Board was 
satisfied with the quality of the report and the introduced changes. It explicitly welcomed the 
fact that no Programme would be proposed at th is stage. The Board asked for some additional 
minor changes in the report that have been a ddressed in the present final version as follows: 
insertion of an annex (Annex III) to illustrate th e added value of EU action relating to health-
enhancing physical activity, in particular by showing disparities among the Member States 
(point C.1 of the Board's opinion), inclusion of additional information regarding Member 
States' positions in the anne xed consultation document (Anne x I) and verification of the 
quotes made therein (point C.2) , further clarification on m onitoring and development of 
indicators (point C.3), and insertion of additional cross-refe rences to the consultation process 
in the main document (point D). 
1.5. Background 
The Lisbon Treaty gives the EU an explicit comp etence for sport for the first time, which has 
several implications including new formal structures for sport in the Council and a mandate to 
promote sport at EU level. The new EU compet ence for sport has triggered high expectations 
on the side of sport stakeholders, who since th e inclusion of sport in the draft Constitutional 
 
EN 7   EN Treaty have eagerly waited to see their interest s better promoted and the specific nature of the 
sport sector increasingly  recognised at EU level.2  
Before the new competence entered into force, EU level activities in the field of sport were 
carried out solely on the basis of other Treaty provisions. Over the past years, cooperation in 
sport with the Member States took place exclusively on an info rmal basis. The Commission 
also developed a structured dialogue with the sport movement. These structures have proven 
to be very useful for the implementation of the Commission's 2007 White Paper on Sport3.  
Due to its societal and economic dimensions4 and its complex organisational structures, sport 
is a sector that shows synergies or links with many other EU polic y areas. It appears, 
however, that the EU’s potential , through interaction of its different pol icy areas, to support 
the sport sector in play ing its part in Europe's society and economy, has not been fully used. 
The new EU competence for sport provides an opportunity to address these aspects and to 
thereby ensure that the positive effects of sport are of greater benefit for EU citizens and for 
European society as a whole. 
The basis for this Impact Assessment are the ne w provisions for sport enshrined in Article 165 
TFEU, the experience gained with the preparat ion and implementation of the White Paper on 
Sport, the ongoing Preparatory Actions in th e field of sport launc hed in 2009 and 2010, and a 
broad consultation process carried  out during the preparatory phase  for the planned initiative 
in the first half of 2010. These elements are ou tlined in more detail in sections 1.6 and 1.7 
below. 
1.6. Main sources of evidence 
The new Treaty provisions on sport  (Article 165 TFEU) fores ee a competence providing for 
supportive, coordinating and supp lementary measures. They give  clear indications for the 
scope of EU action and for the nature of actions to be pr oposed within the planned EU 
initiative (see section 3.3). The new Treaty ma ndate also provides for the objectives that the 
planned initiative in the fiel d of sport is aiming to achi eve and which are addressed 
accordingly in this Impact Assessment (see chapter 3).  
The proposed EU initiative for which this Impact Assessment has been carried out builds on 
the 2007 White Paper on sport , which introduced a first inform al setting for EU cooperation 
in sport and which was accompanied by an Action Plan "Pierre de Coubertin" that engaged 
the Commission.5 The implementation of the 53 Actions  has required close cooperation with 
the Member States and sport stakeholders and has meanwhile almost been accomplished. The White Paper actions had been solely based on soft policy m easures (e.g. exchange of good 
                                                
 
2 Also the European Parliament, in its “Written D eclaration on increased Eu ropean Union support for 
grassroots sports”, calls on the Commission and th e Member States to promote sport for all and 
grassroots sport structures; 60 signatories as of 9.9.2010 (ongoing). 
3 COM(2007) 391, 11.7.2007. 
4 Sporting activity is an integral part of the daily lives of citizens. The Eurobarometer survey 2009 shows 
that 65% of EU citizens regularly engage in some fo rm of physical activity. Sport also fulfils important 
functions within society in terms of public health, with regard to the inclusion of marginal groups, 
within formal and non-formal educa tion and as a means to reinforce ac tive citizenship. On the economic 
side the sector, in particular through its professionalised and commercialised segments but also its non-profit structures, generates growth, jobs and investment. 
5 A "White Paper Implementation Table" illustrating the state of progress in implementing the Action 
Plan "Pierre de Coubertin" has been annexed to this report. 
 
EN 8   EN practices, mainstreaming, studies, conferences) and aimed at paving the way for the then 
already expected entry into force of  the Lisbon Treaty (Art. 165 TFEU). 
The actions included in the "Pie rre de Coubertin" Action Plan re late to sport's societal and 
economic dimensions and to its organisation. Th ey cover a broad range of topics which are 
relevant for the Impact Assessment exercise an d the content of the planned EU initiative in 
the field of sport. They include studies on specific sport-related themes that have been 
commissioned by either the Sport Unit (DG EAC)  or by other units and Directorates-General, 
notably a study on the training of young s portsmen and sportswomen in Europe6, a study on 
sports agents7, a study on volunteering in the EU8, a study on internal market barriers to sport 
funding9 (ongoing), a study on the equal treatment of non-nationals in  individual sport 
competitions10 (ongoing), and a study on sport's c ontribution to economic growth and 
employment11 (to be launched in 2010). They also include views of the general public that 
were gathered in 2009 through  a special Eurobarometer su rvey on sport and physical 
activity12. They furthermore include specialised EU c onferences in the field of sport, notably 
an EU Conference on Anti-Doping (May 2009), an EU Conference on Licensing Systems for 
Club Competitions (September 2009), and an EU Conference on sustainable funding models 
for grassroots sports in the Internal Market (February 2010).13 The actions foreseen in the 
White Paper have allowed for progress in spec ific areas where a high degree of consensus 
emerged for further action, such as the area of  sport and health where the Commission can 
capitalise on the 2008 EU Physical Activity Guidelines14. 
Many of the focal areas addressed in the White Paper on Sport have been developed more in-
depth in six informal EU Working Groups  in the fields of "Sport and Health", "Sport and 
Economics", "Non-profit sport organisations",  "Anti-doping", "Educa tion and Training in 
Sport" and "Social Inclusion and Equal Opportuniti es in Sport".15 The progress achieved by 
the experts in these working groups, led by the Commission's Sport Unit, has been regularly 
reported to Member State Sport Directors and Sport Ministers. 
In addition, the consultation process for the 2010 initiative has rev ealed that there are new 
developments and challenges  inside and outside sport that may require EU level action in 
areas not yet sufficiently cove red in the 2007 White Paper (e.g. in the field of sport 
                                                 
6 Public contract EAC/14/06. Results of the study: http://ec.europa.eu/sport/news/news492_en.htm. 
7 Public contract EAC/13/08. Results of the study: http://ec.europa.eu/sport/news/news879_en.htm. 
8 Public contract EACEA/2008/07. Results of the study: http://ec.europa.eu/sport/news/news900_en.htm. 
9 Public contract MARKT/2009/04/E. Results of the Conference on sustainable funding models for 
grassroots sports in the Internal Market carried out in the framework of that study have been published: 
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/top_layer/sport_en.htm.  
10 Public contract EAC/19/2009: http://ec.europa.eu/sport/news/news792_en.htm. The study should 
consider the growing number of questions and complaints addressed to the Commission by European 
citizens, informing it of restrictions on access to sp ort activities and/or sport competitions in certain 
Member States and in various sports. 
11 Public contract to be published end of 2010: Sport is a cross-sectoral sector that shows strong synergies 
with other economic sectors (e.g. production, retail, infrastructure, tourism, education, media, betting). 
Through the activities in all these sectors sport dir ectly and indirectly contributes to macroeconomic 
output. Research and studies to measure the economic importance of sport have been carried out, 
however, not for the EU-27. 
12 Eurobarometer on Sport and Physical Activity, published in March 2010. 
13 Reports from these conferences have been published: http://ec.europa.eu/sport/index_en.htm. 
14 EU Physical Activity Guidelines, informally endors ed by EU Ministers responsible for sport in 2008. 
15 Reports from meetings of these Working Groups have been published:  
http://ec.europa.eu/sport/library/doc484_en.htm. 
 
EN 9   EN information or regarding the specific nature of  sport), or areas where no specific action was 
taken, such as certain financing-related aspects (e.g. intellect ual property rights). 
The 2009 and 2010 Preparatory Acti ons in the field of sport16 focus on areas that have 
been identified in the cooperation pro cess with governmental and non-governmental 
stakeholders over the past year s as relevant for possible futu re EU funding. They cover the 
areas of health-enhancing physical activity, gender and sport, sport for people with 
disabilities, education and training in sport, anti-doping, social inclusion of migrants in and 
through sport, and volunteering in  sport. Calls for proposals launched in these fields are aimed 
at testing suitable transnati onal networks and actions for pos sible support through a future EU 
Sport Programme. The number of submitted propos als demonstrates the strong interest of 
stakeholders to get involved in transnational cooperation in sport. An evaluation will be carried out in 2011 and should provide an eviden ce base for assessing the added value which 
EU financial support can bring to sport. The re sults from this evaluation will feed into an 
Impact Assessment in 2011 for a possibl e EU Sport Programme as of 2014. 
1.7. Consultations 
To prepare the planned 2010 EU initiative in the field of sport, the Commission carried out 
broad consultations involving the Member St ates, the sport movement and other sport 
stakeholders, experts as well as the public at large. Given sport's horizontal nature, it also 
ensured a closely coordinated approach w ith all concerned Commission services. The 
consultations covered both policy aspects of spor t at EU level and aspect s related to a possible 
future Sport Programme. A report on these consultations is attached to this Impact Assessment. 
(a) Member States: 
• Informal meeting of EU Sport Direct ors (Barcelona, 25-26 February 2010); 
• Informal meeting of EU Ministers respons ible for sport (Mad rid, 20-21 April 2010); 
• First formal meeting of EU Ministers respons ible for sport in the Council (Brussels, 10 
May 2010), prepared by the first meeting of the Council Working Party on Sport (Brussels, 
6 April 2010); 
• Meetings of the informal EU Work ing Groups in the field of sport: 
– Member State Working Group on the White  Paper on Sport (3 February 2010) 
– EU Working Group on Sport and Health (30 June 2010) 
– EU Working Group on Anti-Doping  (14 January and 27 May 2010) 
– EU Working Group on Sport and Economics (10-11 June 2010) 
– EU Working Group on Non-Profit Sport Organisations (17 February 2010) 
– EU Working Group on Education and Training in Sport (19-10 May 2010) 
                                                
 
16 Open calls EAC/21/2009 and EAC/22/2010 have been published:  
http://ec.europa.eu/sport/index_en.htm. A budget for the Preparatory Action 2011 has been proposed. In the framework of the 2009 Call for Proposals, the Commission provided financial support to 18 sport-
related projects, involving 150 sport organisations in Europe. Number of submitted proposals in 2009 
(four areas): 207 applications, in 20 10 (three areas): 144 applications. 
 
EN 10   EN – EU Working Group on Social Integration and Gender Equality in Sport (8 July 
2010). 
(b) Sport stakeholders: 
• The EU Sport Forum, which constitutes the main dialogue platform between the 
Commission and key sport stakeholders, was organised the second time in 2010 (Madrid, 
19-20 April) with discussions focussing on th e implementation of the sport provisions in 
the Lisbon Treaty; 
• Bilateral und multilateral discussions took pla ce with targeted stakeholders such as 
European Sport Federations, the European Ol ympic Committees, other European umbrella 
organisations for sport, nati onal umbrella organisations fo r sport, national Olympic and 
Paralympic committees, other actors in the field of sport at European le vel, social partners, 
and other international and European organi sations such as the International Olympic 
Committee and international federations. 
(c) Relevant international organisations:  
• Council of Europe; 
• World Health Organisation, UNESCO. 
(d) The general public:17 
• A public on-line consultation was conducted durin g the second quarter of 2010 (7 April - 2 
June). The online questionnaire was divided into  two parts: "Addressing key challenges for 
sport in Europe" (Part I) and "Identifying policy priorities for EU action" (Part II). Public 
interest in this consultation was high and the response rate consid erable (more than 1,300 
valid submissions). 
• In addition to the online consultation, the Co mmission received 48 position papers related 
to the consultation process, mainly from spor t organisations, but also  from Member States. 
The majority of these contributions provide d high-quality input for sport-specific topics 
ranging from health-related issues over aspect s relating to education in sport to governance 
questions. However, they also reflected issues , which are not part of  the EU's mandate as 
defined in Article 165 TFEU.  
• The outcomes of this public c onsultation exercise, including th e list and the full text of 
submitted position papers, were published on the Sport Unit's website on 28 July: http://ec.europa.eu/sport/index_en.htm 
(e) Group of Independent Sport Experts: 
• Ten well-known independent expe rts with proven experience in  the area of sport and the 
EU were consulted on the implementation of the new Treaty provisions on sport. The 
Group met twice. The final report was su bmitted to Commissioner Vassiliou in mid-
September and published on the Sport Unit's website.  
                                                
 
17 Consultations with the general public were carri ed out in line with the “General principles and 
minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by the Commission” - COM(2002) 704. 
 
EN 11   EN (f) Relevant services within the European Commission: 
• An Inter-Service Steering Group for the Imp act Assessment (ISSG) was established on the 
basis of the existing Inter-Service Group "Spor t" which comprises the following services: 
SG, SJ, AIDCO, COMM, COMP, DEV, ECFIN, ELARG, EMPL, ENTR, ENV, ESTAT, INFSO, JLS (now JUST and HOME), MARKT, REGIO, RELEX, RTD, SANCO, TAXUD. The ISSG met twice, to launch the Im pact Assessment process and to discuss the 
Impact Assessment Roadmap (26 March 2010) and to discuss the draft Impact Assessment 
Report (7 July 2010). 
• Bilateral consultations have taken place between the leading service (EAC) and the main 
concerned services with res ponsibilities in the field of sport, notably COMP, EMPL, 
HOME, JUST, MARKT, and SANCO. 
2. PROBLEM DEFINITION  
This chapter identifies the main challenges in the field of sport based on the experience gained 
in EU level cooperation in sport over the past years and more particularly taking account of 
the results of the consultation process. Thes e are areas where coordinated EU action is 
currently considered insu fficient. The delineation of the prob lems takes account of the Treaty 
mandate. This chapter begins with  a short summary of the nature and scope of the problems in 
light of their relevance for EU-level action. 
2.1. Nature and scope of problems 
Most of the challenges and threat s that sport is currently facing are related to the problems (A-
G) identified hereafter. The degree to which individual Member States benefit from the 
positive values and effects of sport or cope with the identified threats to sport varies widely 
from one Member State to the other. Many of  the problems have a cross-border dimension; 
some are of a global nature and they cannot be e fficiently solved at natio nal level. It therefore 
appears that the EU could play its part in helping the Member States and the sport sector to address the challenges identif ied, in particular through: 
– increased policy support from the EU level, in particular to enhance mutual learning and to 
build knowledge;  
– better policy coordination among the Member States; 
– measures supplementing already existing policies and actions at national level to increase 
their positive impact. 
A general problem, however, seems to relate to the fact that there is to date no defined 
framework for EU-level cooperati on in sport to address the identified challenges in a 
structured, comprehensive and future-oriented way. No strategic approach  exists that would 
engage the Commission and the Member States on the basis of a common agenda
18 and that 
would be able to integrate sport’s cross-cutting nature. 
                                                 
18 The 2007 White Paper on Sport included an Action Plan which, however, only committed the 
Commission. 
 
EN 12   EN 2.2. Main challenges 
A) Challenges connected with sport's health-e nhancing, social and educational functions 
- Health concerns due to lack of physical activity 
According to a 2004 Eurobarometer survey, a larg e majority of EU c itizens (78%) cite the 
improvement of health as th e principal benefit of sport.19 The latest Eurobarometer survey20, 
however, shows that 39% of re spondents never do physical ex ercise. The linkage to the 
school environment is likely to be one critical fact or in this context. Stud ies show that the role 
of sport and physical ac tivity in education is declining, leading to health-related impacts 
especially on the younger generation21. The problems of overweight  and obesity are growing 
in the EU. They reduce the quality of life, put individuals' lives at ri sk and are a burden on 
health budgets and the economy. In the public consultation process in 2010, stakeholders 
expressed the view that, like all governmental  actors at local, national, European and 
international level, the EU ha s to make a contribution to e fforts aimed at counteracting the 
current trend22. The concept of health-enhancing physic al activity (HEPA) seeks to address 
the problem. Some achievements have already been  made but they need to be supported in a 
more targeted way. The 2008 EU Physical Activi ty Guidelines, developed in the EU Working 
Group “Sport and Health” and informally endorse d by EU Ministers responsible for sport, 
define how policies and practices of actors (public and private) at all levels (EU, national, 
local) can be used to make it easier for citizen s to move more in their daily lives. However, 
interest in this approach among different Member States and di fferent sport organisations has 
been uneven. Generally, Member States that have  the lowest level of physical activity have 
been the least active in the in formal cooperation structures on  HEPA. And sport organisations 
often do not reflect on the balance, within thei r structures and activities, between competitive 
and non-competitive activities, between what they offer to talented people with high sportive 
ambitions and what they offer to the general population. Local networks  with different types 
of actors – schools, parents, sport clubs, other associations – can explore new forms of 
cooperation, but this is not ye t the case in many Member States or regions. The linkage of 
local networks through EU-wide networks is cu rrently being tested with limited EU funding23.  
- Social exclusion of disadvantaged groups and unused potential of sport 
The potential of sport in relation to social inclusion and equal opport unities has not been 
sufficiently implemented in national and EU po licy-making, as confirmed by stakeholders in 
the public consultation carried out in preparation of this initiative and within the EU Working 
Group “Social Inclusion and Equal Opportunitie s in Sport”. The rights of people with 
disabilities need further attenti on in the field of sport. Sport infrastructure is not developed 
and accessible for these groups throughout Europe. Training of monitors and volunteers for 
European sport events for people with disa bilities is often lacking and European 
                                                 
19 Special Eurobarometer 213 "Citizens of the Eu ropean Union and sport" (November 2004). 
20 Eurobarometer 334 "Sport and Physical Activity" (March 2010). 
21 E.g. the EU study ‘Young people's lifestyles and sedentariness’ (2005). 
22 This has already been done through action in the fi elds of health and consumer protection, research 
funding as well as in education and culture. Until now, however, more dedicated political mechanisms 
as well as dedicated funding have been missing. 
23 First results of the 2009 Preparatory Action in the fiel d of sport suggest that in view of the variety of 
practices and actors in different Member States and in respect of the role of th e Member States in this 
field, support for transnational projects and exchange of information and good practices is likely to have 
a high European added value. 
 
EN 13   EN organisational structures are sti ll in development. The popularity of sport and its social value 
are hardly used in specific integration-relate d programmes for immigrants or in programmes 
which could help reach the aims of full citizenship and prevent people’s exclusion from society. Participation in organise d sport, which could prevent pe ople from social exclusion in 
communities, is especially low among disadvantaged groups.
24 The participation rates of 
women and girls in sport are not in balance w ith those of men and boys. Sport and its media 
coverage contribute to gender stereotypes throughout Europe. Moreover, the number of 
women in leadership positions in European a nd national sport governing bodies is still very 
limited. 
- Unadapted systems to combine sport and education 
Governmental and non-governmental sport st akeholders, most recently in the public 
consultation carried out in the first half of  2010 and in the EU Working Group “Education and 
Training in Sport”, have regular ly expressed concern about the fact that the contribution of 
sport and physical education to  educational objectives and the prevention of early school 
leaving is often not, or not sufficiently, recognis ed. Higher levels of EU mobility and a lack of 
qualified coaches and trainers in the sport sector increase the relevance of compatible 
qualification systems for sport professions, as  confirmed by sport or ganisations in their 
written contributions to the planned initiative. The require d training intensity for young 
talented sportspeople today makes it very diffi cult to ensure their sc hool education (i.e. a 
"dual career"), which is particularly true for talented athletes who practise mainly abroad.25 
Sport programmes for talented you th are often not open for peopl e from outside the relevant 
Member State and quality standards are not transparent. 
B) Challenges for sustainable sport structures 
- Insufficient support for voluntary activity  
Volunteering in sport has a long tradition in most but not all parts of Europe. According to the 
2009 EU study on volunteering, up to 16% of the adult population voluntee r in sport in the 
Nordic countries, while in some Eastern Memb er States structures for volunteering are much 
less developed. Experience from the majority of Member States has shown that voluntary 
activity is vital for running spor t activities and managing sport st ructures, local sport clubs in 
particular. It helps ensuring that  sport can be offered to all citizens and remains accessible for 
all. The study on volunteering and the exchange of views between Member States in the EU 
Working Group “Non-profit sport organisations” c onfirm challenges with regard to voluntary 
activity in sport in social terms (e.g. lack of reco gnition; lack of qualifica tions to ensure better 
employability; dominance of male volunteers) , political terms (e.g. lack of national 
strategies), legal terms (e.g. lack of specific legal framewor ks; unclear tax regimes) and 
economic terms26 (e.g. funding needs for local sport cl ubs; under-estimated economic value). 
Stakeholders participating in the public consultation called fo r increased support at EU level 
to address such challenges. 
                                                 
24 67% of Europeans are not member of any sport or fitness club (Eurobarometer 2009). 
25 The European Council in its 2008  Declaration on Sport called on th e Commission to address the topic 
of combined high-level sports training  and general education ("dual career"). 
26 For instance, the European Year of Active Citizenship through Volunteering 2011 inter alia aims at 
lowering the obstacles to volunteering and at empowering voluntary structures. 
 
EN 14   EN - Discrepancies between developments in gambling markets and the financing of sport 
The organisation of gambling services, including  those run by private op erators and those run 
or licensed by the State, directly or indirectly contribute to the financing of sport activities in 
all EU Member States. Ongoing developments in gambling markets and changing national 
regulatory frameworks for gambling have led to perceived challeng es on the side of 
governmental and non-governmental sport stakehol ders with regard to sustainable income 
streams from gambling activities into sport. Stak eholders have pointed out the need to address 
the financial return for sport, especially grassroots sport, from the organisation of sport betting 
activities. 
- Inadequate protection of intellectual property rights 
Sports-related intellectual property rights (IPR s) are an essential source of income for 
professional sport. Representatives of prof essional sport supported by many EU governments 
have repeatedly called on the EU to ensure bett er protection of these rights, including in the 
form of written submissions to the consultations carried out in preparation of the planned initiative. The main questions concern the pr otection of IPRs from unauthorised use, the 
maintenance of practices based on exclusive te rritorial licensing and the balancing between 
the sale of media rights and the public's right to information. In connection with IPR, the issue 
of defining a property right for th e organisers of sport competi tions in relation to the event 
they organise while ensuring the right of the public to information deserves to be further examined. 
C) Doping threatening the physical and moral integrity of sportspeople 
Article 165 TFEU specifically requi res the EU to prot ect the physical and moral integrity of 
athletes. The integrity of s portspeople is endangered by  the doping phenomenon. Doping is a 
threat to European sport and European societ y alike. The fight against doping has therefore 
been dealt with as a priority topic in the informal cooperation on sport and in the EU Working 
Group “Anti-Doping”. Many organisa tions are dealing with doping as a problem in high-level 
sports, including the World Anti-Doping Agency  (WADA), national and regional anti-doping 
organisations, WADA-accredited laboratories in the EU, the Council of Europe and 
UNESCO. In relation to these or ganisations, the EU tends to get involved because EU law 
protects the individual ri ghts of athletes and players. In spit e of considerable efforts from the 
mentioned institutions, doping remains a key problem in high-level sport. In recent years, doping practices have spread most rapidly in am ateur sport and fitness, which are almost not 
covered by anti-doping efforts in many Member States. 
D) Discrimination in sport on grounds of nationality 
While the Treaties prohibit discrimination based on nationality and enshri ne the principle of 
free movement of workers, the European Court of  Justice has taken into account the need to 
preserve certain specific charact eristics of sport in past ruli ngs dealing with the composition 
of national teams, deadlines for transfer rule s for players in team sport competitions and 
compensation for recruitment and training of young players. However, free movement rules 
do not only apply to professiona l players: since the entry into force of the TFEU, any 
discrimination on grounds of nationa lity is prohibited within th e scope of application of the 
Treaties, which now includes amateur sport. A nu mber of cases brought to the attention of the 
Commission and repeated calls for legal clarity from the sport movement indicate that there 
 
EN 15   EN are restrictions on access to spor t activities and/or sports compet itions in some Member States 
and in various sports. 
E) Unused scope for improving EU-level dialogue on sport 
Dialogue and cooperation involving sport stakeholders at internat ional, European and national 
levels are a key condition for the success of the EU's dealings with sport and related policy 
processes. Given the specific or ganisation of sport, the divers ity of actors in sport and the 
complexity of the topics to be addressed, the organisation of a balanced  dialogue at EU level 
is a challenging task. The European Council in  its 2008 Declaration on Sport called for further 
strengthening dialogue with the Olympic and spor t movement at EU level. As a follow-up, the 
Olympic and sport movement and EU Member Stat es in the informal and formal structures 
for sport have made concrete proposals for a strengthened dialogue st ructure. While the EU 
Sport Forum, run by the Commission, is a wide ly accepted platform for dialogue with the 
main European sport stakeholders, thorough refl ection is needed as to  how a regular high-
level dialogue on sport between the EU institutional level and the sport movement, including the Olympic movement, could be structured to re main efficient, representative and inclusive. 
F) Perceived lack of legal clarity regardi ng the application of EU law to sport 
A perceived lack of clarity on the application of EU law to sport, Internal Market and 
Competition provisions in particular, have led s port stakeholders to repeatedly call for more 
certainty and increased guidance from the Commission. Such reques ts have increa sed in light 
of the new Treaty provisions that call on the EU to take account of sport’s specific nature 
when promoting European sporting issues. While the White Paper on Sport has already 
provided comprehensive explanations on the app lication of EU law to sport, stakeholders 
claim that this was not sufficient, in partic ular as regards the application of the Treaty 
provisions and secondary law to sp ort in fields such as anti-tru st, State aid, free movement of 
workers and services, and value-added tax, and relating to both professional and amateur 
sport. 
G) Insufficient information on sport for the EU-27 
Sound, accurate and comparable data and in formation on sport for EU-27 are scarce. 
Developing a new policy area without such paramete rs is difficult and of ten delicate, since it 
has to be based on assumptions. Policy making in sport at national and EU level would considerably benefit from a better knowledge base, allowing decision-makers to take 
informed decisions. EU Sport Ministers, incl uding in the new Council structures, and sport 
stakeholders have repeatedly called on the Comm ission to provide EU-wide data in socially 
(e.g. participation) or economically (e.g. growth and employment in sport) oriented issues. 
While work has started among a group of 12 Me mber States within the EU Working Group 
on Sport & Economics to measure the macro-economi c impact of sport, no full picture for the 
EU-27 will be available in the short term. Euro stat has not yet been involved in providing 
specific statistics on sport. In li ght of the new Treaty competence for sport, this should change 
in the years to come. 
3. OBJECTIVES  
This chapter identifies the general and specific objectives  of the planned EU initiative in the 
field of sport in response to the challeng es identified in Chapter 2. It describes the added 
 
EN 16   EN value  that EU involvement should seek to provide, and it defines the target groups  that the 
initiative aims to reach. 
3.1. General objectives 
The planned initiative should aim at making a cont ribution to the EU’s overarching objectives 
laid down in the Europe 2020 strategy  in terms of sustainable growth, fighting 
unemployment, reinforcing soci al inclusion and advancing pe ople’s Europe. The specific 
objectives listed hereunder (point s A, B, E and G) are of releva nce in this respect. Moreover, 
through action relating to objectiv es under point A), the initiativ e should make a contribution 
to the fulfilment of some of the key objectives of the EU Health Strategy  2008-201327. 
The new Treaty basis provides the opportunity to develop the European dimension in sport in 
a new policy context. The plan ned EU initiative should aim at providing the Commission and 
the Member States with a strategic framework as a basis for EU level activities in the field 
of sport  that could foresee actions to be carried  out on the basis of article 165 TFEU in 
connection, or not, with other Treaty provisions but in full respect, always, of the fundamental 
principles provided in the Treat y. Such an EU framework s hould be coherent and closely 
coordinated with EU policies and programmes in areas that relate to sport, such as health, 
education and training, youth, regional devel opment and cohesion, social inclusion, 
employment, citizenship, justice, home affairs, research, as well as internal market and 
competition. The framework should help the sport s ector to play its part in contributing to the 
EU’s overall objectives, in particul ar the Europe 2020 strategy.  
3.2. Specific objectives 
The initiative seeks to address the challenges identified in section 2.2 by defining actions with 
clear EU added value in line wi th the experience gained from  informal cooperation in sport 
and the 2010 consultation exercise. The main speci fic objectives that the initiative seeks to 
achieve result directly from the Tr eaty mandate (Article 165 TFEU). 
A) Promote the health-enhancing, social  and educational functions of sport 
The initiative should put a strong focus on prom oting the health-enhanc ing, social inclusion 
and educational functions of sport by providing  for new actions where EU involvement is 
considered beneficial and of a dded value. The initiative should in particular facilitate policy 
approaches that identify best practice exampl es and that address th e existing disparities 
between the Member States in order to lead to: 
– more health-enhancing physical activity in Europe  as a result of policies that make it easier 
for citizens to move more in their daily lives; 
– more participation of disadvantaged group in (organised) sport; better access to sport for 
persons with disabilities,  more gender equality in sport, be tter integration of and respect for 
disadvantaged groups in communities through sport activities and events; 
                                                 
27 COM(2007) 630. 
 
EN 17   EN – increased physical activity in formal and non- formal education, a dual career environment 
for talented sportspeople, and increased transp arency of qualifications in sport furthering 
European mobility in sport. 
B) Support sport structures based on voluntary activity 
The initiative should seek to  develop policy approaches a nd actions that contribute to 
sustainable sport structures in EU Member St ates. These should include in particular policy 
support to 
– promote voluntary activity in sp ort based inter alia on the out comes of the EU study on 
volunteering; 
– contribute to a more sustaina ble financing for gr assroots sport based inter alia on the 
outcomes of the EU study on internal market barriers to sport funding and in relation to 
planned EU level initiatives in the field of gambling; 
– better protect sport-related intellectual propert y rights in light of the EU Digital Agenda 
initiative while ensuring the right to access to information; 
– further strengthen solidarity mechanisms within sports (e.g. from top level to grassroots 
sport). 
C) Protect the physical and moral integrity of sportspeople 
The initiative should pave the way for the Comm ission and the Member States to join forces 
in the fight against doping and should contribute to the protection of th e health and well-being 
of athletes. The initiativ e should in particular support the em ergence of consistent anti-doping 
policies and actions at national and European level and in international fora (WADA, CoE 
and UNESCO). This should include support fo r the exchange of good practices between 
relevant actors, including pr eventive measures targeting amateur sport and fitness. A 
particular focus should be on cooperation w ith national data protection authorities. 
D) Promote fairness and openness in sporting competitions 
The initiative should aim at developing policy appr oaches and actions to contribute to fairer 
and more open sport competitions. This should include in particular the free movement of professional and amateur sportspeople, where the initiative should provide for continued 
monitoring of compliance with the EU legal framework while also taking account of the 
specific nature of sport. 
E) Enhance dialogue and cooperation with sport stakeholders 
The initiative should aim at contri buting to efficient and inclusiv e dialogue and cooperation in 
sport at European level by providing appropriate  EU level structures. The initiative should in 
particular ensure a strengthenin g of the existing structured dial ogue with sport stakeholders by 
committing to the EU Sport Forum as the key a nnual platform for dialogue and exchange and 
by proposing a high-level structured cooperation  between the Olympic and sport movement 
and the EU institutions. 
F) Increase understanding of the application of EU law to sport 
To address calls from stakeholders for more le gal clarity regarding the application of EU law 
to sport, the initiative shoul d aim at identifying areas wh ere the Commission could provide 
guidance with the aim of increasing understand ing on the side of sport stakeholders. The 
 
EN 18   EN initiative should in particular provide for limited, but structured  future assistance for Member 
States and sport stakeholders aimed at guidance on the interpretation of the specific nature of 
sport. Possible areas could be the reconciliation of provi sions on nationality with the 
organisation of competitions in individual sports  on a national basis, transfers in team sports, 
the application of state aid law to sport, or the application of the VAT regime to sport. 
G) Support an evidence base for sport in the EU-27 
The initiative should seek to stre ngthen the knowledge base about sport in the EU in order to 
facilitate informed policy decisions at Europ ean, national, regional an d local levels and to 
support sport organisations and other interested stakeholders in their activities. The initiative 
should support enhanced cooperation and ex change of best practices involving e.g. 
academics, the sport industry, the sport movement and public authorities. The initiative should also support ongoing work led by the Commissi on aimed at measuring the economic impact 
of sport, and it should pave the way for including sport in  the EU's annual statistical 
programme. The possibility of establishing a sp ort monitoring function in the EU should be 
studied. 
3.3. EU added value and subsidiarity 
The EU's right to act in the field of sport is explicitly set out in Article 165 TFEU. According 
to Article 6 TFEU, Union action in the field of sport should c onsist of measur es to support, 
coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States. Regarding the scope of EU 
action, the main task according to  the Treaty is the promotion of  European sporting issues and 
the development of the European dimension in sport. Article 165 TFEU provides for the adoption of incentive measures, while any harm onisation of the laws and regulations of the 
Member States is excluded. It also provide s for the adoption of Council Recommendations 
further to a proposal by the Commission. The new provisions do not detract from the 
application of fundamental Treat y provisions, such as EU Internal Market rules, to sport. 
The architecture of the EU in itiative will be designed according to this mandate, including the 
possibility of Council Recommendations, a nd in full respect of the underlying legal 
framework provided by the Trea ty with relevance for sport.
28 The initiative should contribute 
to complementarity, synergy and compatibility with relevant EU policies and programmes. 
Since Member States retain their full competence in the field of sport, the EU initiative will 
not substitute the actions of  the Member States but propos e action in full respect of 
subsidiarity requirements and in areas where experience (e.g. from implementing the White 
Paper) has demonstrated that progress in ad dressing the challenge s identified cannot be 
sufficiently achieved by Member States in th e framework of their national constitutional 
systems. Furthermore, no action will be envi saged that would be in conflict with the 
fundamental principle of the autonomy of spor t organisations and representative structures. 
In view of the large disparities among the Member  States in the sport sector, European added 
value will mainly be achieved  through the identific ation and disseminati on of good practices 
and support networking. The EU will act as a cat alyst in order to increase the impact of 
national actions in the interest of sport. Th e initiative will allow for the development of 
activities that establish links between different organisations and actors in and outside sport, 
including in particular public authorities at European, national,  regional and local levels, sport 
                                                 
28 There are no legal limits on the EU’s right to  act in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. 
 
EN 19   EN organisations, sport-related orga nisations, educational bodies, and which lead to the exchange 
of know-how and good practices in different areas relating to s port and physical activity (e.g. 
health, education, social inclusion). This will contribute to the identification of innovative 
solutions to address challenges common to several Member States. It will also be a tool to promote the creation and development of European networks in the field of sport. The EU can 
thereby provide opportunities for cooperation among stakeholders that would not have existed 
without EU action. Existing disp arities between Member States can thereby be addressed. In 
addition, the global or transnational nature of  some of the problem s identified exceeds the 
capacity of action of each indivi dual Member State and can better be addressed at EU level.
29 
The planned EU initiative will not go beyond wh at is necessary to achieve the defined 
objectives. It takes account of proportionality requirements and the Treaty mandate, which excludes harmonisation and only pr ovides for "soft" tools for EU -level action. The initiative, 
in line with Article 165 TFEU, does not have a regulatory object ive. It will be  implemented 
on the basis of existing national and European st ructures. The initiative will be designed to 
simplify and improve existing regulation in order to reinforce rule compliance and 
effectiveness in line with the EU proportionality principle.  
3.4. Target groups 
– Member States’ public authorities (national, regional, local levels); 
– International sport organisations (Internati onal Olympic Committee, international sport 
federations and other international sport or ganisations, including leagues, professional 
sport organisations, amateu r sport organisations and leisure and outdoor activity 
organisations); 
– European sport organisations (European Olym pic Committees, European sport federations 
and other European sport organisations, including leagues, professional sport 
organisations, amateur sport organisations and leisure and outdoor ac tivity organisations); 
– National sport organisations (National Olympic Committees, confederations, federations, 
regional organisations, l eagues, clubs etc.); 
– Other European sport-related or ganisations (e.g. in the fields of education, media, sporting 
goods); 
– International and European organisations, such as the Council of  Europe, the WHO, 
WADA and UNESCO; 
– Organisations representing employees in the sport sector; 
– Organisations representing sportspeople and su pport staff (trainers, coaches, volunteers, 
…); 
– Citizens at large (e.g. minority groups,  pupils, students, seniors, etc.). 
4. POLICY OPTIONS  
The following policy options represent the toolsets  that can be used to  address the problems 
identified in Chapter 2 and to seek the objec tives outlined in Chapter 3. They are coherent 
                                                 
29 Examples illustrating disparities between Member States with regard to physical activity can be found 
in Annex III. 
 
EN 20   EN with the Treaty mandate to support, coordinate  and supplement the actions of the Member 
States. No new financial incentives will be proposed under any of these options.30 
Option A: Cooperation based on the 2007 White Paper on Sport (Baseline scenario ) 
Nature of the tool: 31 
• Loose cooperation format ; continuation of informal EU le vel cooperation with the Member 
States and of dialogue with sport stakeholde rs on the basis of the activities developed 
through the implementation of the White Pape r (Action Plan "Pierre de Coubertin"); 
• No new policy actions ; no new structured EU level age nda for informal cooperation and 
formal discussion in the Council. 
Description of policy actions: 
• Finalisation of the implemen tation of the Action Plan "P ierre de Coubertin" (few 
remaining soft-policy measur es engaging the Commission); 
• Continuation of ongoing EU level activitie s will be limited and will include: support 
through the exchange of views an d best practices with Member States according to an ad-
hoc agenda, experts’ coopera tion within the six informal  Commission-led Working 
Groups32, the provision of a platform for stakehol der involvement, mainstreaming of sport 
in EU programmes and funds, monitoring of compliance with EU law (e.g. free movement 
of workers). 
Focus areas : Topics should be in line with the thr ee main strands of action identified in the 
White Paper (sport’s social ro le, economic dimension, organisa tion), and focus on those areas 
where informal cooperation has been most fru itful, i.e. promotion of health-enhancing 
physical activity, of education and training in spor t, of social inclusion in and through sport, 
and of volunteering; the fight  against doping; the developm ent of an evidence-base. 
Option B: Definition of a strategic medium-term framewor k for cooperation  in sport, 
based on a new EU Agenda for sport (Framework + new Agenda ) 
Nature of the tool: 
• Strategic EU framework for cooperation  in sport as a basis for the identification of 
medium-term priorities; 
• New EU Agenda for action in the field of sport  involving cooperation with Member States, 
sport organisations, internationa l bodies, third countries and ot her interested stakeholders. 
No compulsory targets will be defined; acti on will be mainly based on exchange of good 
practices and mutual learning. 
                                                 
30 The implementation of the ongoing and planned Preparatory Actions 2009, 2010 and 2011 will however 
continue until mid-2013, when the implementation of th e last projects will be finalised (see section 1.6). 
31 Account should be taken of the fact that, from the beginning, the White Paper was intended to pave the 
way for the coming into force of the new sport provisions in the Treaty. 
32 See section 1.6. 
 
EN 21   EN Description of policy actions:  
• Building on the activities developed on the basi s of the White Paper on Sport, proposal for 
a strategic EU framework for cooperation in sport for endorsement by the Council, which 
is designed to support Member States' po licies through the definition of medium-term 
objectives and through a new EU  Agenda providing for actions engaging the Commission and 
the Member States in their resp ective spheres of competence. 
• Actions in the new EU Age nda provide inter alia for 
– support for policy-making processes and for the development of new policy 
initiatives through “knowledge building” (e .g. surveys / studies / analysis / legal 
guidance for specific areas; development of an evidence-base, such as Eurobarometer surveys and EU Sport Fact  Sheets) and “knowledge-sharing” (e.g. 
exchange of best practices; conferences / workshops / expert meetings for specific 
areas; an annual EU Sport Forum as the main platform for stakeholder 
involvement); 
– coordinated approaches in some selected areas (e.g. role for the EU in the fight 
against doping); 
– the adoption of Council outputs in area s where sufficient progress could be 
achieved (e.g. Council Recommendations based on the EU Physical Activity 
Guidelines); 
– continued mainstreaming of sport into  EU programmes / funds and increased 
synergies with other EU policies relating to  sport (e.g. health, education, internal 
market). 
Focus areas : Topics for the new EU Agenda should include all those areas identified by 
stakeholders in the 2010 consulta tion process that ar e relevant for EU le vel action, including 
new themes that have not yet b een addressed in informal and formal EU discussion on sport, 
i.e. health-enhancing physical ac tivity; education in sport; social inclusion in and through 
sport; voluntary activity in sport; financing of  sport (incl. gambling, IPR); the fight against 
doping in sport; free movement and nationali ty of sportspeople; clarification on the 
application of EU law to sport; enhanced  dialogue with sport stakeholders; sport 
information/evidence-base. 
Option C: Definition of a strategic long-term policy framework, based on the creation of an 
Open Method of Coordination in the field of sport (Long-term framework + OMC)  
Nature of the tool: 
• Long-term framework for EU policy-making in sport  (as a basis for identification of long-
term priorities) with define d policy cycles and annual updat es involving Member States, 
sport organisations, internationa l bodies, third countri es and other interested stakeholders; 
• Creation of an OMC  for selected sport topics providi ng for strongly coordinated policy 
actions (incl. definition of common targ ets, indicators, monitoring and reporting 
requirements for Member States). 
 
EN 22   EN Description of policy actions:  
• Building on the activities developed on the basi s of the White Paper on Sport, proposal for 
a strategic framework for EU policy making in sport for endorsement by the Council, 
designed to coordinate Member States' polic ies and actions through the definition of 
common longer-term objectives with in multi-annual policy cycles; 
• Following the priorities defined by the Counc il for implementing the policy framework, 
creation of an OMC for selected areas within the multi-annual work programme.  
Focus areas:  An OMC at this stage appears most realistic for health-enhancing physical 
activity, dual careers, so cial inclusion, volunt eering and anti-doping. 
5. ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS  
This chapter identifies the likely economic, social and environmental impacts of the planned 
actions of the EU initiative in light of the different policy options (section 5.1), based on 
which a short assessment of the  most important impacts  is carried out (section 5.2, table 2). 
The latter feeds into the assessment of the  efficiency  of the options, which considers the 
correlation between inputs, in terms of huma n resources, and desired impacts (section 5.3, 
table 3). The following section (s ection 5.4, table 4) assesses the effectiveness  of each option 
to reach the objectives defined in Chapter 3. The coherence of the options with regard to the 
EU’s policy objectives is assessed in the final section (section 5.5, table 5). 
5.1. Economic, social and environmental impacts 
5.1.1.  Option A (Baseline scenario) 
Activities carried out on the basis of the Wh ite Paper on Sport have only had indirect 
economic impact  until today.33 The continuation of the polic y activities until 2012 and the 
finalisation of the few remaini ng actions of the Action Plan "P ierre de Coubertin" within the 
informal EU cooperation and dialogue structures  for sport therefore cannot be expected to 
change this assessment. Without new EU acti on the expected innovation potential inherent to 
sport will not be used to the benefit of many of  the target groups mentioned in section 3.4 and 
the opportunity to encourage the sector’s contri bution to the EU’s economic ambitions will be 
missed. Considering social impact , activities carried out on the basis of the White Paper on 
Sport until today have forged more regular and st ructured cooperation in sport at EU level, on 
the basis of which a number of topics could be addressed more efficiently than in the past.34 
The continuation of these activities and the finalisation of the few remaining actions of the Action Plan "Pierre de Coubertin" can, however , not be expected to  lead to further 
improvements in this respect.
35  
                                                 
33 Positive examples include work carried out in the Working Group “Sport & Economics” aimed at 
developing a statistical tool to measure the economic impact of sport; or cooperation with the sport 
movement in order to address the free movement of sportspeople in the Internal Market. 
34 Examples include progress made in  the field of sport and health. 
35 Likewise, the continuation of the activities launched within the Preparatory Actions 2009-2011 until 
2013, despite the advantage linked to networking activities and despite the positive impacts in terms of 
health, employment and inclusion, cannot be expected to have a sustainable or measurable economic or 
significant social impact given the small budget and limited number of projects financed (PA 2009: 18 
 
EN 23   EN The White Paper on Sport illustrated that sport ac tivities, in particular big sport events, have 
an environmental impact . For example, sport events can have significant impacts on the use 
of natural resources and generation of waste.36 The White Paper encouraged the “greening” of 
sport especially through environmentally sound  management. Sport organisations and sport 
event organisers were encouraged to adopt en vironmental objectives in order to make their 
activities environmentally sustainable, fo r instance through participation in the Eco-
Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS). The implementation of the White Paper has led 
sport organisations to co nsider EMAS certification.37  
5.1.2.  Option B (Framework + new Agenda) 
An initiative comprising a strategic policy fr amework, including a new EU Agenda for action 
committing the Commission and the Member St ates, can be expected to have positive 
economic and social impacts. 
Regarding economic impact  action aimed at increased leve ls of physical activity along the 
concept of health-enhancing physical activity  covering sectors such as sport, health, 
education, transport, public safety and working environment, can lead to a healthier society, 
which may imply considerable savings in the l onger term (medical cost s, health insurance, 
drug sales). Member States' expectations in this direction have been expressed in all meetings 
of the Working Group Sport & Health since its creation in 2006 and confirmed in many 
informal meetings of EU Spor t Directors and Sport Ministers.38 Similarly, stronger links 
between the education  and sport sectors, especially increased time spent on sport and physical 
activity in and around education and a better quality of nationa l programmes, can contribute 
to a healthier society and are positively co rrelated with reduced health-care costs. 
Political support for volunteering in sport aimed at promoting voluntary activity  and at 
encouraging a higher quality of services pr ovided by sport organisa tions and sustainable 
funding of these organisations can  potentially have a positive economic impact in terms of 
furthering better adapted structures in increasingly competitive markets. A financial return to sport from gambling  activities, including lotteries, can positively impact on the maintenance 
of sport structures at grassroots level.
39 Better protection of sport-related IPRs  against illegal 
                                                                                                                                                         
projects for a total amount of € 4m; PA 2010: 13  projects / € 2.5m; PA 2011: Commission proposes 
€ 1m, CULT Committee proposes € 10m). 
36 On the other hand, the environment can also affect the practice of sport: warmer climate conditions, for 
instance, can compromise sport activities such as winter sports. Water pollution, air pollution, stratospheric ozon deterioration, habitat loss, toxic waste, pesticide residues, noise, traffic emissions, 
climate change and indoor air quality constitute  threats to the safe practice of sport. 
37 Several sport events and many sport facilities have  already received EMAS ce rtification (e.g. Nürburg 
Ring race circuit, golf courses, Turin 2006 Winter Olympics, stadiu ms for the 2008 UEFA European 
championship in Austria, the Ryder Cup, London Olympics 2012). In the framework of the Preparatory 
Action 2009, co-funding was provided to the organisation of the 10th European Youth Olympic Festival in Tampere (July '09) including requirements regarding sustainable development. 
38 Effects are expected based on the knowledge generated from a study commissioned by the Commission, 
carried out by an EU-wide inter-university consortium and published in January 2005: "Young People's Lifestyle and Sedentariness". This study confirmed that overweight and obesity have risen dramatically 
in the EU and are linked to unhealthy eating habits on the one hand and insufficient physical activity on 
the other. The study also revealed  that the decrease in daily physical activity has been more dramatic 
than the increase in energy consumption. Against this backdrop, any measures that will allow 
Europeans to be more physically  active can be expected to reduce overweight and obesity levels, 
improve individual and public health, and lead to a better quality of life for individual citizens, reduced 
health costs for public budgets and improved productivity for businesses. 
39 According to reports from several Member States and sport organisations. 
 
EN 24   EN piracy has high relevance for ensuring financia l income for the professional sport sector, 
which is supportive to investments in the sect or and which in turn may positively impact on 
economic growth and jobs in the EU. 
Promoting free movement of sportspeople  has a positive impact on the functioning of the 
Internal Market.  
Strengthened efforts to fight doping  involving all relevant stakehol ders at nationa l level and in 
cooperation with responsible Euro pean and international organisa tions may have an indirect 
positive effect in terms of an improved image for sport and credibility for sporting competitions, thus attracting more sponsors and spectators.
40 
More legal clarity  regarding sporting rules through in creased understa nding about the 
application of EU law to sport thanks to spec ific guidance at EU level has a positive impact 
on the functioning of the Internal Market, as it potentially helps the sport sector, in particular 
professional sport, to develop its acti vities within a sound legal framework. 
Experience from other sectors, e.g. edu cation, culture, youth, sh ows that support for 
developing an evidence base  for the EU-27 can lead to better  informed national and European 
policy making based on sound economic reasoni ng, for instance regardi ng public spending or 
investment decisions. Access to information of  sufficient quality can equally benefit other 
actors, such as sport organisations, which ha ve to ensure sound economic management of 
their activities. 
Regarding social impact  policy action aimed at increased le vels of physical activity along the 
concept of health-enhancing physical activity as well as stronger links between the education  
and sport sectors as described above will have a positive impact on public health and can lead 
to a healthier society.41 Regarding education  and training, support for developing a dual 
career environment can positively affect the transiti on of talented athletes into labour markets. 
More transparency of qualifications in spor t can positively influence the functioning of the 
sport labour market. The option also bears the pot ential to indirectly contribute to greater 
equality in society , in particular regarding women, people with disabilities and other minority 
groups. 
Political support for voluntary activity  in sport contributes to the sustainability of sport 
structures, which provide valuable opportunities to ensure people’s involvement with society 
in terms of participation, ac tive citizenship and non-formal  learning. Encouraging the 
sustainable financing of gra ssroots sport (e.g. pu blic support, income streams from gambling  
services, solidarity mechanisms within sport)  potentially enhances the quality of sport 
services and, in turn, ensures peopl e’s access to local sport structures. 
Addressing the challenges relating to free movement  and nationality can help avoid 
discrimination of EU citizens that make  use of their right to free movement. 
Strengthened efforts to fight doping involving all relevant stakeholde rs at national level and in 
cooperation with responsible European and in ternational organisations contributes to 
                                                 
40 The negative economic effects of doping on sport disciplines, teams and individual sportspeople are 
well illustrated in sports such as cycli ng (e.g. withdrawal of sponsorship).  
41 See footnote 39. 
 
EN 25   EN protecting the integrity of sportspeople and sport competitions, as well as to improving 
individual and public health.  
More legal clarity  regarding sporting rules through incr eased understanding of the application 
of EU law to sport thanks to specific guidance at EU level can help avoid tensions between 
different actors (e.g. public authorities, sport movement) or legal conflicts. 
Support aimed at improving EU dialogue and cooperation  structures can lead to better 
cooperation with stakeholders as well as  inclusive and transparent processes. 
Experience from other sectors,  for instance educatio n or culture, shows that support for an 
evidence-base  for the EU-27 can lead to informed policy making, e.g. using sport as a 
contribution to healthier and more inclusive soci eties, as well as to in formed decision making 
within the sport sector. 
Regarding environmental impact , in addition to the effects described under Option A, an 
initiative with a strategic policy focus can pr omote environmentally friendly approaches and 
the implementation of voluntary schemes th rough the structured dialogue with sport 
stakeholders. Topics could incl ude aspects relating to sport or ganisations' possible need to 
adapt to climate change or to develop sust ainable activities, e.g. environmentally friendly 
services. The application of the EU envir onmental legal framework has, however, not 
surfaced as a problem for sport in the consultation process. 
5.1.3.  Option C (Long-term framework + OMC) 
A long-term EU framework for policy-making a nd cooperation in sport with defined policy 
cycles and annual update is expected to generally have similar positive economic and social 
impacts  as described under policy Option B. The i ndirect effects on society and employment 
can be expected to be even greater and may increasingly benefit specific target groups. In 
addition, through the proposed tool of an Open Method of Coordination (OMC) in selected 
areas more efficient EU-level review and coor dination mechanisms apply and positive direct 
and indirect economic and social effects can be achieved in a shorter time frame. This is true 
for areas where a high degree of political c onsensus has already been achieved through the 
informal and formal cooperation at EU level, for instance regarding health-enhancing 
physical activity  (based on the EU Physical Activity Guidelines), social inclusion  in and 
through sport (based on the work carried out at EU level in 2010), education  (based on the 
work carried out at EU level since 2008), volunteering in sport (based on the work carried out 
at EU level in 2009, 2010 and in view of the Eu ropean Year 2011) and st rengthened efforts in 
the field of anti-doping  (based on the work carried out at EU level and in the context of the 
Council of Europe over the past years). Impr ovements in timing and quality of delivered 
information could be achieved through the ex change of best practices and benchmarking. 
For other areas the creation of an OMC does not seem realistic in the short term, but in the 
longer term economic and social impacts could be expected. For inst ance, addressing the 
challenges relating to fairness and openness in competitions (e.g. free movement  of 
sportspeople) could have a direct positive impact on the functioning of the Internal Market and on individuals (e.g. athletes ), higher than the one descri bed under Option B. An OMC in 
the field of structured dialogue  potentially could lead to more  consistent national dialogue 
mechanisms on EU sport matters, which have b een neglected in a number of Member States. 
Regarding environmental impact,  in addition to the effects described under Options A and 
B, a long-term policy framework is likely to have more impact on the environment, since 
 
EN 26   EN concerns linked to the practice of sport could be addressed as a horizontal approach within 
multi-annual policy cycles. 
5.2. Assessment of most important impacts 
The assessment of impacts in this section is of a qualitative nature since it is not possible to 
quantify the impacts. This section analyses th e likelihood of each option to reach benefits in 
terms of positive impacts. For this  purpose, in a first step, the most important impacts  are 
identified and, in a second step, an impact matrix  is used to present the assessment in terms of 
the likelihood  that the impact will o ccur and in terms of the estimated magnitude  of each 
impact. 
In light of the assessment unde r section 5.1 and taking account of wider policy objectives, the 
following are the areas where EU intervention in the field of s port can be expected to produce 
the most important impacts. A diagram illustrates the “chain of  effects” illustrates for each 
area: 
– Contribution to public health : Direct positive effects of policy actions in the fields of 
health-enhancing physical  activity and of edu cation can be expecte d, in particular if 
combined with a strategic framework as provi ded for under Options B and C. An increased 
policy focus on the concept of health-enha ncing physical activity at EU level and 
promotion of the implementation of physical acti vity guidelines at national level, including 
in less advanced Member States, will increase daily physical activity levels of European 
citizens. Likewise promoting the time and quality of sport and physical activity in and 
around education can contribute to a healthier soci ety. A rising level of physical activity 
among Europeans can be expected to e.g. reduce overweight and lead to a better quality of 
life for individual citizens and, in turn, to reduced health costs for public budgets and 
improved productivity for busine sses in the mid- to longer term. Protecting the physical 
integrity of sportspeople through more c oordinated policy approaches at national, 
European and international leve ls regarding the fight agains t doping can make an indirect 
contribution to individual and public health. Thus, and in lin e with the EU's mandate to 
promote healthy lifestyles, the planned EU initiative in the field of sport not only 
represents a major follow-up to the Commission's White Paper on Obesity42, but will also 
contribute to achieving some of the obj ectives of the EU  Health Strategy43. 
                                                 
42 A Strategy for Europe on Nutrition, Overweight and Obesity related health issues - COM(2007) 279. 
43 The Strategy is based on four guiding principles: 1) Shared Health Values, 2) Health is the Greatest 
Wealth, 3) Health in All Policies (HIAP), 4) St rengthening the EU's Voice in Global Health. By 
fostering exchange on HEPA, including by mobilising sport and physical activity to contribute to health promotion, the Commission can contribute to the attainment of Principle 1 and, if international contacts 
are used, Principle 4. In this re spect, Europe may have much to sh are with the rest of the world. 
Principle 2 represents the realisation that health is not just a cost, but equally an investment and that 
healthy societies are strong societie s. Principle 3 reflects the fact th at the objectives set can only be 
achieved via the integrated coopera tion of all sectors, as recommended in the EU Physical Activity 
Guidelines (2008). Four Objectives  have been formulated on the ba sis of these Principles, of which 
Objective 1 "Strengthening the EU 's Voice on Global Health" and Objective 2 "Protecting Citizens 
from Health Threats" can be furthered directly through the proposed measures. 
 
EN 27   EN 
 
– Contribution to more inclusive societies:  In line with the EU's ambitions to promote the 
active inclusion in mainstream societ y of vulnerable groups and to overcome 
discrimination and increase the integration of people with disabilities, ethnic minorities and immigrants, direct positive effects can be expected from policy actions aimed at the 
inclusion of women, people with  disabilities and immigrants in sport and through sport into 
society, in particular if combined with a st rategic framework as provided for under Options 
B and C. Deep-rooted disadvantages face d by people because of their personal 
characteristics prevent them from fully part icipating and contributin g at all levels of 
society, including sport. The initiative will he lp address this challenge through EU action, 
which is supportive to the development of equality pol icies and encourages exchange of 
good practices between actors in th e field of sport and improve the use of the potential of 
European and national sport activities to mo re inclusive societies. Regarding equality 
between women and men, for instance, the EU in itiative will contribute to increasing the 
number of women in leadership positions (e.g. as members of management bodies of 
national, European or international sport or ganisations). Direct pos itive effects of the 
initiative can also be expected regarding the ri ght of people with a disability to participate 
in sport, in line with the EU  human rights approach to disability issues, e.g. through better 
access to sport facilities. A contribution could thereby be made to the implementation of 
the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities.
44 Positive effects can be 
expected for disadvantaged citizens who will have increased opportunities to actively 
participate in society through membership and paid or non-paid (voluntary) activity in a 
civic organisation, such as a sport club. The in tercultural dialogue between different groups 
in society will be activated. More cost effect ive and efficient approaches are likely to 
develop at national level through the exchange of best practices at EU level regarding 
success factors for sport interventions favouring social inclusion. European sport-networks 
could raise awareness and contribute to social inclusion and the fight against 
                                                 
44 The European Community is a signatory to this Convention, which establishes disability as a human 
rights issue and matter of law. The core elements of the EU disability strategy – which combines anti-discrimination, equal opportunities and active inclus ion measures – are based on the Convention. The 
rights recognised by the Convention cover almost all policy fields, including sport. Accordingly, 
implementation of the Convention needs to be part of a strategic approach to disability. 
 
EN 28   EN discrimination through the organisation of European events, competitions and other 
activities. 
 
– Contribution to employability and jobs : Direct and indirect positive effects on labour 
markets can be expected as a result of polic y actions in the fields of education, social 
inclusion and volunteering, in pa rticular if combined with  a strategic framework as 
provided for under Options B and C. High elite sportspeople ar e better prepared to a new 
career because of the regulated combina tion between education and sport. Better 
qualifications and increased recognition of qualifications in sport, as well as increased mobility of sport support staff (e.g. coaches , volunteers) enhance the employability of 
people active in the sp ort sector. Through the use of th e manifold non-formal learning 
opportunities existing within sport (e.g. thro ugh volunteering) peopl e, especially young 
people, acquire skills that qualify and prepar e them for the job market. The job creation 
potential in the sport sector is dynamic and pa rticularly high when c onsidering the synergy 
effects with related sectors
45. Calculations in three Member States confirm the direct 
effects generated in the sector46: in Austria 5.8% of total empl oyment is sport-related, as 
compared to 2.2% in Cyprus and 2% in the United Kingdom. Through the promotion of 
sport at EU level by the planne d EU initiative, further impacts in terms of job creation can 
be expected, both in the sport sector (professiona l sport and fitness sector in particular) and 
                                                 
45 These cover all activities that are inputs for sport (e.g. sectors necessary fo r doing sport such as 
production of equipment, construction of infrastructure , education) and all activities that require sport as 
an input (e.g. sectors which are related to sport activ ity such as tourism, TV, health, sport betting, sport 
food, sport-related R&D). 
46 "Sport Satellite Accounts – A European Project: Firs t Results", published in April 2010 with support 
from the European Commission, DG EAC. 
 
EN 29   EN in related upstream and downstream sectors (e .g. sporting goods industr y). Finally, indirect 
positive effects on jobs can be expected as a result of policy measures aimed at sustainable and stable sport structures that in turn co uld help ensure that current jobs can be 
maintained and additional jobs  created (Options B and C).  
 
Table 2 hereafter assigns the likelihood  of the impact (very probable, probable, less probable, 
unlikely, very unlikely) and estimates its magnitude  (very high, high, medium, low, very 
low).47 A combined value has been attributed to  rate these impacts in comparison with the 
baseline. The last column attributes an aggregated score for each option. 
                                                 
47 Regarding unpredictable externalities that may impact on the likelihoods and magnitudes, such as the 
current economic context, the table builds on a realistic scenario accor ding to which, even in the worst 
case, only a marginal effect could be expected on the cooperation mechanisms proposed. The possible medium and long-term impacts of the current economic context  and related challenges that put 
constraints on national and EU budgets and that im ply new strategic policy choices are difficult to 
predict. Policy making in sport is not an exception.  The importance that policy makers at national and 
European level wish to attach to sport in the upcoming years will partly depend on how the economic 
situation develops. There are two basic scenarios:  The first scenario presumes stagnation and a 
relatively long period of revitalisation until the e ffects of the economic crisis disappear. The second 
scenario would be a positive one, according to whic h the European economy will overcome the current 
challenges in a shorter term. Under the first scenar io and provided Options B or C were applied, a 
negative impact could be expected on the timeframe during which the policy objectives can be achieved 
and, in the worst case, it would lead to a lack of political support for coordinated EU action in the field 
of sport and less committal initiatives that in turn would be less conducive to promoting sport in 
 
EN 30   EN The following key to describe th e value/score of the options is  used for all tables (2-6) 
hereafter: 
Table 1: Definition of values 
Symbol Key 
= Baseline or equivalent to baseline 
+ / ++ / +++ Minor to major improvement compared to baseline 
- / - - / - - - Minor to major worsening compared to baseline 
Table 2: Likelihood and magnitude of impacts 
Improvement of 
public health Social inclusion of 
disadvantaged groups Contribution to 
employability and jobs  
Likelihood Magnitude Likelihood Magnitude Likelihood Magnitude Aggregated 
score 
Option A 
Baseline  Less 
probable  Very low  Less 
probable Very low  Unlikely Very low 
- Value - = = =  = 
Option B 
Framework + 
new EU Agenda  Very 
probable Medium Very 
probable Medium Probable Low 
- Value -  ++ ++ + ++ 
Option C 
Framework + OMC  Very 
probable High Very 
probable High Probable Medium 
- Value -  ++/+++ ++/+++ ++ ++/+++ 
 
5.3. Assessment of efficiency 
The assessment of the efficiency of the options  considers the relationship between inputs, in 
terms of Human Resources, and the desired imp acts. It also considers the Commission’s 
ability to deliver, in terms of internal proce sses to handle the implementation of each option 
and of political support. 
Option A  
The baseline scenario does not involve any budgetary expenses. The needs for human and administrative resources continue to be cove red within the allocations granted to the 
managing services in the framework of the annual allocation procedure. For the 
implementation of this option, the current staff in DG EAC's Sport Unit (8 AD-level, 6 AST-
level) would not need to be increased. On th e contrary, after the finalisation of the ongoing 
Preparatory Actions (in 2012/2013)  reductions in staff could be expected. However, the 
                                                                                                                                                        
 
Europe. As logic suggests, the second scenario would have the opposite, positive effect on the impacts 
of the policy options. 
 
EN 31   EN attainment of impacts through implementation of this Option would be less probable or 
unlikely, with the risk that the impacts will not occur.  
Given the experience with the implementation of  the White Paper on Sport over the past three 
years, the systemic capability of the base line scenario is excellent. However, the 
implementation of this option, which would amount to a continuation and subsequent 
reduction of current activities and processes, app ears extremely difficult to justify in light of 
the new Treaty mandate that explicitly cal ls for EU action in the field of sport. 
From the point of view of efficiency this option must therefore be rated very low.  
Option B  
The proposed new EU Agenda for sport has been de signed so as to keep  implications in terms 
of resources necessary for its implementation as limited as possible. No additional budget is 
required under the ongoing financial framewor k. The needs for human and administrative 
resources continue to be  covered within the allocations gr anted to the managing services in 
the framework of the annual allo cation procedure. No additional administrative burden is to 
be expected in the Member States. The implem entation of the EU framework for sport, in 
particular the actions foreseen in the new EU Agenda during the next 4- 5 years, is likely to 
require additional sport and sport-related tasks in some European Commission services (e.g. 
COMP, EAC, EMPL, ESTAT, MARKT, JUST, RE GIO, SANCO). However, these tasks are 
not likely to have human resour ces implications in those DGs. Considering the relatively high 
likelihood and magnitude of this option to contribute to  the desired impacts through policy 
measures based on the new EU Agenda for spor t, the efficiency of this option must be 
considered high as compared to the baseline. Although at this stag e, in view of the fact that 
sport is a new EU competence area, there are no hard data to corroborate this claim, it seems 
highly likely that public health, social incl usion and employment benefits induced by EU 
action would come at low costs. 
Regarding the ability to delive r, Option B can build on the e xperience of implementing the 
White Paper on Sport, which suggests that th e Commission, and DG EAC in particular, has 
the expertise to handle the implementation of th is option and related in ternal processes. The 
policy process to ensure the implementation of the initiative, involving the Commission and 
the Member States, could start immediately. The consultation process with the Member States 
and the sport movement in 2010 has shown stro ng support for such an approach. The ability 
to deliver therefore can be rated very high. 
Option C  
As the most complex of the options, Option C is expected to lead to more significant demands 
in terms of additional human and administrative resources. E xperience from other DG EAC 
policy areas indicates that the implementation of an Open Method of  Coordination (OMC) 
will significantly increase the workload for th e leading policy unit. It will also require 
intensified cooperation with a la rger number of services within the European Commission. It 
is estimated that the choice of th is option would lead to additiona l costs in terms of input (i.e. 
3 AD and 1 AST) in comparison with the other options.48 The demands in terms of input for 
                                                 
48 The implementation of an OMC is also likely to ra ise the administrative burden  in the Member States, 
since the introduction of reporting requirements increases business as usual costs in public 
administrations. 
 
EN 32   EN this option compared to the baseline have to  be seen in light of  the higher likelihood and 
magnitude of the option to contribute through an OMC to the desired impacts. Efficiency 
must be considered higher than for Option A.  While Option C, in proportionate terms, is 
likely to produce slightly higher impacts than Op tion B, the level of input associated with the 
implementation of Option C in terms of huma n resources would be much higher than in 
Option B. Efficiency is consequently lower for Option C. 
Regarding the ability to deliver, Option C is the most challenging to assess due to the lack of 
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 or polit ical support for an OMC, whic h renders the smooth and timely 
implementation of Option C difficult. The ability to  deliver has therefore been rated very low. 
Table 3 hereafter takes account of the analysis in section 5.2 to rate the "expected impacts" 
(first column), it defines the inputs by determ ining the "human resources needs" (second 
column) and establishes the "input/impact relationship" (third column) to evaluate the efficiency. Aggregated scores take account of the "ability to deliver" (fourth column) as an 
additional element to assess efficiency. 
Table 3: Efficiency of options 
 Likelihood + 
magnitude  
of desired 
impacts Human Resources Impacts / 
Inputs Ability 
to 
deliver Aggregated 
score 
Option A  
Baseline = no additional staff; 
decrease after 2012/2013 = = = 
Option B 
Framework + new EU Agenda  ++ no additional staff ++ +++ ++/+++ 
Option C 
Framework + OMC  ++/+++ additional staff:  
DG EAC49: 3AD + 1 AST + - - + 
 
5.4. Assessment of effectiveness 
The effectiveness of each option is assessed by determining the likelihood of achieving the 
objectives defined in Chapter 3.  
Option A  
The baseline scenario does not foresee the development and implementation of a strategic EU approach to sport that would engage the Comm ission and the Member States. The loose form 
of cooperation introduced by the Commission’s White Paper would remain the basis for cooperation. Because the informal cooperatio n between experts in the 6 Commission-led 
Working Groups
50 is fruitful, a limited contribution to the achievement of the set specific 
                                                 
49 Human Resources under Heading 5 of the multiannual financial framework ("Total administrative 
expenditure"). 
50 See section 1.6. 
 
EN 33   EN objectives could be expected in the fields of health-enhancing phys ical activity, social 
inclusion in and through sport, education and training in sp ort, voluntary act ivity, anti-doping 
and sport information (objectives A, B, C, G). However, the lack of a clear policy framework 
that would ensure a follow up to the results fr om these works does not allow for an effective 
attainment of these objectives. Without any new action as foreseen under this option, only 
very marginal to no progress can be expected in addressing legal concerns related to discrimination in sport and the lack of legal clarity, which s hould be tackled by objectives D 
and F respectively. It is not possible through this option to effec tively improve dialogue 
structures in sport (objective E) given the l ack of a strategic and structured framework 
underpinning such debates. Sport stakeholders clearly want to see the EU taking action and 
would not be willing to engage in any form of strengthened dialogue  without a new agenda 
that addresses their concerns. 
Option B  
The EU framework for cooperati on introduced by this option meet s the strategic objective in 
the medium-term (for the next 4- 5 years), i.e. in this early ph ase of developing a new field of 
EU competence. The proposed new EU Agenda fo r sport foresees specific actions that are 
designed to tackle all the problem s identified and to directly contribute to the achievement of 
all specific objectives (A -G). Given the nature of the propos ed tools at hand to implement the 
Agenda (i.e. 'soft' policy measures as defined in  chapter 4) there are limits to the extent to 
which the objectives can be reached. The lik elihood of reaching the objectives to a large 
extent depends on the willingness of Member States and, to a lesser extent, of sport 
stakeholders to engage in the processes to  implement the proposed actions. However, the 
formal and informal discussions with the Memb er States and the public  consultations provide 
strong evidence that governments and stakeholders  want to increasingly engage in EU-level 
cooperation to develop the new EU dimension in sport referred to  in the Treaty and that there 
is strong support for an EU Agenda for action to implement the new Treaty mandate. The proposed EU Agenda builds on the White Pape r on Sport and can capitalise on the progress 
made over the past three years in terms of subs tance and regarding cooperation structures for 
developing a first EU approach to sport. Gene rally, a contribution to the achievement of the 
set objectives in the field of health, social inclusion, education (A),  volunteering (B) and 
doping (C) must be considered probable give n the high consensus among all involved actors 
for EU level action. Under this option, the EU can very  probably achieve more open and fair 
competitions (D) through additional guidance pr ovided in the field of free movement (e.g. 
guidance as foreseen in a specific staff wo rking document). Action to ensure strengthened 
dialogue structures (E) would also  be envisaged. The explicit call from Member States and the 
sport movement to establish such a dialogue su ggests that this objective can be reached. The 
action which foresees an assistance mechanism to  provide guidance on the application of EU 
law to sport very probably contributes to in creased understanding among sport stakeholders 
(F). Proposed action in the field of sport info rmation, such as studyi ng the feasib ility of a 
sport monitoring function, can result in concre te follow up to support an evidence base for 
sport (G). 
Compared to the baseline the effectiveness of Option B must therefore be rated high to very 
high. 
Option C  
The EU policy framework coordinating Member St ates policies as introduced by this option 
allows for a very effective attainment of the st rategic objective due to its long-term basis. As 
 
EN 34   EN discussed in previous sections of this IA, the proposed introduction of an OMC in selected 
areas will depend on Member States' priorities. At  this stage it seems most relevant for areas 
where there is a high degree of consensus among the Member States and sufficient progress in 
the substantial debates at EU level (i.e. health-enhancing physical activity, dual careers, social inclusion, volunteering, and anti-doping). Given the nature of the tool  of an OMC providing 
for targets, reporting and monitoring mechanisms , the likelihood of achieving at least part of 
the related objectives (A, B, C and G) is  slightly higher than under Option B. The 
achievement of objectives D and F must be  considered less likely under Option C as 
compared to Option B that, through the EU Age nda, foresees specific action to address the 
challenges identified. It should be noted that for many areas identified in the consultation 
process and which should be addressed by the pla nned initiative, no sufficient basis exists to 
establish a review and coordination mechanism, and certainly not in the short term. There are 
also areas where an OMC is not an adequate tool, e.g. in the field of sport governance, where 
the autonomy of sport needs to be respected and where it is not for the EU to tackle related challenges through a review and coordination mechanism. This affects the likelihood of the 
achievement of objective F. Regarding strengt hened dialogue with the sport movement, 
Option C can contribute to achieving the objectiv e (E), since Member States seem to be 
willing to push the topic forward in the Council regardless of a specific  action proposed in the 
EU Agenda. 
The following table illustrates th e likelihood (certain, very probabl e, probable, less probable, 
unlikely, very unlikely) of the options to ach ieve the strategic and the specific objectives. 
Table 4: Effectiveness of options 
 Option A 
Baseline  Option B 
Framework + 
new EU 
Agenda Option C 
Framework + 
OMC 
Strategic objective very unlikely certain certain 
A. Promote the health-enhanci ng, social and educational 
functions of sport less probable probable very probable 
B. Support sport structures based on voluntary activity less probable probable very probable 
C. Protect the physical and moral integrity of sportspeople unlikely probable very probable 
D. Promote fairness and openness in sporting competitions very unlikely very probable probable 
E. Enhance dialogue and cooperation with sport stak eholders very unlikely very probable very probable 
F. Increase understanding of application of EU la w to sport very unlikely very probable probable 
G. Support an evidence base for sport in  the EU-27 unlikely probable very probable Specific objectives 
Aggregated score = ++/+++ +++ 
 
5.5. Assessment of coherence 
The coherence of the options is assessed in relation to the objectives of EU policy, in particular the 
overarching goals of the Europe 2 020 strategy, the EU Health Strategy and the functioning of the 
 
EN 35   EN Internal Market. Accordingly, an assessment is made  as to how the options can make a contribution to: 
• Europe 2020, in terms of growth and jobs; 
• Social cohesion; 
• Public health policy; 
• Functioning of the Internal Market. 
Option A  
The White Paper does not include additional ac tions that would be conducive to the EU's 
ambitions as defined in the Europe 2020 strategy or with regard to  social cohesion.  As 
outlined in the introductory part of this report, one of the main underlying concerns regarding the current EU's dealings with sport is that spor t's potential to make a contribution to the EU's 
overarching social and economic goals has be en neglected in EU policy making. Regarding 
public health , the informal works that have been carried out at EU level until today illustrate 
that the promotion of physical activity is cohe rent with the EU's Publ ic Health Strategy. In 
order to make a distinct contribution, however , additional action in the field of health-
enhancing physical activity, incl uding follow-up at formal Counc il level, would be necessary. 
However, this is not foreseen under this opti on. Regarding the White Paper's contribution to 
the functioning of the Internal Market , some progress has been made on the basis of the 
implementation of the "Pierre de Coubertin" Ac tion Plan in fields such as free movement. 
However, the Commission is sti ll regularly receiving complaints from market actors (e.g. in 
the fields of free movement and taxation). More over, the consultation pr ocess confirmed that 
there are developments within  the sport sector (e.g. new re gulations from sport governing 
bodies) and in sectors impacting on  sport (e.g. gambling, IPR) that  cannot be addressed on the 
basis of the White Paper, but require new action at EU level. The polic y approach under this 
Option is therefore not coherent with the EU's strategic goals. 
Options B and C  
In contrast to Option A, Options B and C can  make a contribution to  achieving the EU's 
strategic goals in the social and economic fields  (as already referred to in section 3.1 and in 
the analysis of impacts in sections 5.1 and 5.2). 
Option B  provides for a policy framework and a new EU Agenda which aim at using sport's 
potential to contribute to the objectives of Europe 2020 . Regarding growth, account should be 
taken of the fact that sport is a very dyna mic sector. For instance, recent work covering 
selected Member States has shown that sport- related value added amounts to 3-4% of total 
value added, even without consider ing indirect or induced effects.51 Giving an impetus to the 
promotion of sporting issues and sustainable sp ort structures (as called for in Art. 165 TFEU) 
through actions proposed in a new EU Agenda  is coherent with Europe 2020 ambitions. 
Regarding the coherence of this option w ith the employment goals of Europe 2020, the 
analyis and diagram in section 5.2 have already i llustrated the eff ects of EU-level  action in the 
field of sport to enhance employability in a nd beyond the sport sector. Likewise, coherence of 
this Option with the EU's objectives for social cohesion  and public health  can be assumed, 
                                                 
51 "Sport Satellite Accounts – A European Project: Firs t Results", published in April 2010 with support 
from the European Commission, DG EAC 
 
EN 36   EN following the analysis in section 5.2. Through the foreseen acti ons to address the lack of legal 
clarity regarding the application of EU law (i ncluding fundamental freedoms) to sport, this 
option makes a direct cont ribution to the better functioning of the Internal Market . 
The same general considerations are valid for Option C . It can be assumed that an initiative 
with a long-term vision for an EU approach to sport providing an OMC w ith targets, reporting 
and monitoring mechanisms is coherent with the four abovementioned general policy goals. 
For a "soft" policy area like sport, a framewor k using an OMC must, however, be considered 
to be an even more suitable instrument to help  the sport sector devel op its full growth and job 
potential ( Europe 2020 ) and to contribute to strategic goals in the field of public health. As 
explained in previous sections in this report, an OMC seems most relevant for selected areas, 
including health-enhanci ng physical activity (bas ed on the EU Physical Activity Guidelines) 
and education (e.g. regarding qu alifications). Coherence of Option C with the two general 
policy goals connected with these fields can therefore be assume d to be higher than that of 
Option B. 
The following table attributes a value to this assessment. 
Table 5: Coherence of options 
 Option A 
Baseline  Option B 
Framework + 
new EU Agenda  Option C 
Framework + OMC  
Growth = ++ +++ 
Jobs = + ++ 
Cohesion = ++ ++ 
Health = ++ +++ 
Internal Market = ++ ++ 
Aggregated score  = ++ ++/+++ 
6. COMPARING THE OPTIONS  
This chapter first compares the short-listed op tions by applying different  criteria based on the 
above analysis, which leads in a second step to  the identification of the preferred option.  
6.1. Comparative analysis of options 
Based on the above assessments and comparison of policy options, conclusions can be drawn 
regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the individual polic y options with regard to their 
ability to address the problems identified in Chapter 2. For this comparative analysis, Options B and C are differentiated on the basis of their performance against the following four criteria 
and compared to the baseline (Option A): 
– Impacts : to illustrate how the options are conducive to reaching desired impacts (analysis 
in sections 5.1 and 5.2); 
 
EN 37   EN – Efficiency : to assess the ratio of desired impacts a nd required inputs, including the systemic 
capability of the competent Commission services to handle the implementation of each option (analysis in section 5.3); 
– Effectiveness:  to assess the extent to which the options achieve the strategic and specific 
objectives of the proposal (analysis in section 5.4); 
– Coherence:  to assess the coherence of the different  options with overarching objectives of 
EU policy making (analysis in section 5.5). 
While Options B and C can both reach desired impacts , the likelihood and magnitude of 
desired impacts is slightly higher for Option C.  Option B must however be considered much 
more efficient  than Option C considering the level of inputs required. Both options are also 
capable of reaching the objectives identified, wh ereas Option C must be considered slightly 
more effective , especially in the longer-term through the proposed OMC providing for review 
and coordination mechanisms for certa in areas. Options B and C are both coherent  in terms of 
their ability to help reach obj ectives in other policy areas. In the longer term, through the 
proposed tool of an OMC, Option C is slightly more coherent.  
The aggregated scores (from tables 2-5) resu lting from the assessments made in Chapter 5 
have been transposed in the following final comparative assessment of Option B and C in 
relation to the baseline: 
Table 6: Comparative analysis 
 
6.2. Choice of the preferred option 
In this starting phase of more comprehensive EU-level cooperation in the field of sport, the 
higher efficiency of Option B mu st be considered as greatly outweighing the slightly higher  Option A 
Baseline scenario 
– 
Continuation of 
cooperation based 
on the White 
Paper on Sport Option B 
Definition of a 
medium-term EU 
framework for 
cooperation in 
sport + 
new EU Agenda 
for action Option C 
Definition of a 
long-term 
framework for 
policy 
coordination 
+ 
OMC for certain 
policy areas 
Impacts (likelihood and 
magnitude ) = ++ ++/+++ 
Efficiency =  ++/+++ + 
Effectiveness  = ++/+++ +++ 
Coherence = ++ ++/+++ 
 
EN 38   EN likelihood/magnitude of impacts and the slightly  higher effectiveness of  Option C. At this 
stage, Option C is difficult to implement in te rms of required inputs and given the current lack 
of political readiness for the creation of an OM C. At this early stage of formal EU level 
cooperation in sport, the analysis sugges ts that Option B is most attainable.  
Therefore, based on the analysis under 6.1, Option B – "Definition of an EU framework for 
cooperation in sport" is concluded to be the most appropriate way to respond to the 
challenges faced by sport in the European Unio n and to implement the sport provisions of 
Article 165 TFEU. Option B is the most balanced option and the one that is likely to provide 
the greatest net benefits in this phase of developing the EU dimension in sport. 
A Communication  from the Commission to the Council  and the European Parliament will 
define the strategic policy framework and introd uce a new EU Agenda for sport with concrete 
actions. In order to meet requests from stake holders for financial incentives for sport that 
could support the policy agenda, the Comm unication should also announce an Impact 
Assessment addressing the relevance, effectivene ss, efficiency and utility of a possible EU 
Sport Programme from 2014 onwards, in orde r to complement the policy cooperation 
framework.   
7. MONITORING AND EVALUATION  
The Commission will continue its dialogue with publ ic and private stakeholders and with 
expert practitioners. The Commi ssion will also actively engage in the continued institutional 
dialogue with the Council, the European Parl iament, the Committee of the Regions and the 
European Economic and Social Committee. A nu mber of conferences, seminars and other 
discussions are scheduled for the period after publication of the Communication. These will 
provide the Commission with oppor tunities to receive feedback from, and exchange views 
with, representatives of sport organi sations and Member State governments. 
The following table provides an overview of the core indicators of progress towards meeting 
the general and specific objectives pursued by the proposed initiative (Option B). At this 
stage, only eight indicators are mentioned which can be considered  to be tangible in a short to 
medium timeframe based on the existing formal and informal cooperati on structures in the 
field of sport. More indicators will be develope d in the course of the implementation process, 
once a better assessment can be made, and subj ect to a thorough discu ssion with relevant 
governmental and non-governmental stakeholders. This is the case for i ndicators relating to 
fields such as social inclusion, educati on and training, volunteeri ng and anti-doping. The 
relevant informal Working Groups in the field of sport will be instrumental to help develop 
additional indicators. Regarding processing of  data and information, the Commission will 
regularly present progress repo rts to the formal (Council Wo rking Party) and informal 
structures (e.g. EU Sport Di rectors, EU Sport Forum). 
Part of the proposed EU framework for cooperati on in sport is an eval uation of th e latter in 
2015, which should provide the opport unity to consider the possi ble introduction of an OMC 
(Option C) for certain aspects of co operation in sport at EU level. 
 
EN 39   EN Table 7: Indicators 
Strategic objective Indicator Processing 
Strategic EU framework for 
cooperation in sport (1) Established EU-level political 
cooperation based on agreed objectives and an agenda for action  Endorsement of the framework for 
cooperation by the Council (Resolution); Commission to 
regularly report on progress regarding 
the implementation of the new EU agenda for sport in the Council 
Working Party on Sport 
Specific objectives Indicators Processing 
Promote the social and 
educational functions of sport (2) Number of Member States 
implementing EU Physical Activity Guidelines 
 
(3) Number of women in leadership 
positions in sport Based on national reports in the 
Working Group "Sport & Health", Commission to report to the Council Working Party on Sport 
Commission to gather feedback from 
sport stakeholders and researchers; 
possibly also by means of a 
Eurobarometer survey before 2014 
Support sport structures, in particular those based on voluntary activity (4) Number of (sustainable) local 
clubs offering access to sport for the general public Commission to gather feedback from 
sport stakeholders and researchers; possibly also by means of a 
Eurobarometer survey before 2014 
Enhance dialogue and 
cooperation with sport 
stakeholders (5) Frequency of meetings with sport 
stakeholders at EU level 
(6) Satisfaction of stakeholders (e.g. 
new Eurobarometer) Commission to organise an annual 
EU Sport Forum; Commission to 
keep track of meetings with European 
sport stakeholders 
Commission to gather feedback from 
sport stakeholders; possibly also by means of a Eurobarometer survey 
before 2014 
 
Increase understanding of the 
application of the EU legal framework to sport (7) Number of complaints or 
infringement proceedings Commission to ensure internal 
monitoring (in particular involving the following services: COMP, 
EMPL, MARKT, HOME, JUST, SG, 
TAXUD) 
Support an evidence base for sport in the EU-27 (8) Number of established EU 
statistics and surveys on sport Commission and Member States to 
monitor sport data collection and publication of sport surveys  
 
 
EN 40   EN Annex I : Report on the EU-wide public consultation 
1. INTRODUCTION  
With the entry into force of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) on 
1 December 2009, sport became one of the EU’s  supporting, coordinating and supplementing 
competences. Based on Article 165 TFEU, the EU  should develop action aimed at promoting 
sport in Europe. 
In preparation of its proposal s to implement the new Trea ty provisions, the Commission 
carried out broad consu ltations with all concerned parties, the centrepiece of which was an 
online consultation in the first half of 2010. 
The objective of the public consultation wa s twofold. Firstly, it aimed at gathering 
stakeholders’ views on the key challenges for s port in Europe. Secondly, it intended to help 
the Commission identify priority areas for act ion, including possible incentive measures, at 
EU level.  
Regarding possible incentive measures, Member st ates and experts were invited to identify 
areas where incentive measures at EU level woul d be desirable in the framework of a possible 
sport programme and to define priority areas.  The results of the co nsultation as regards 
possible incentive measures are summar ised in sections 2.1 and 2.2 below. 
In parallel to the online consultation, the Commission carried out broad consultations 
involving the Member States, the sport movement  and other sport stake holders and experts. 
The Commission received a wealth of written contributions in the form of position papers from stakeholders. 
In line with the Commission’s general princi ples and standards governing consultation of 
interested parties, this Report describes the public consultation proc ess and provides an 
overview of the wide range of suggestions receiv ed and the diversity of opinions expressed in 
the course of this process. Without claiming to be exhaustive, the Report highlights the key 
trends and concerns arising from the contributions.  
It should be noted that the results of the cons ultation complement the experience gained with 
the implementation of the 2007 Wh ite Paper on Sport, includi ng evidence gath ered through 
EU studies conducted on selected topics (train ing and education in sport, sport agents, 
volunteering in sport), surveys carried out  at EU level (Euroba rometer 2010) and EU 
conferences in the field of sport (EU S port Forum 2008, EU Sport Forum 2010, anti-doping, 
licensing systems, funding of grassroots sport). 
2. SUMMARY : RESULTS OF THE CONSULTATION  
The consultation process in the first half of 2010 produced a satisfactory result in terms of volume, 
scope and depth of contributions. 
2.1 Stakeholders and General Public 
The EU Sport Forum, which constitutes the main dialogue platform between the Commission 
and key sport stakeholders, was organised th e second time in 2010 (Madrid, 19-20 April) with 
discussions focusing on the implementation of th e sport provisions in the Lisbon Treaty. In 
 
EN 41   EN addition to the Forum, the Commission held a large number of bilateral und multilateral 
discussions with targeted stakeholders through out the first half of 2010. These stakeholders 
included European Sport Federations, the Eu ropean Olympic Committees, other European 
umbrella organisations for spor t, national umbrella organisati ons for sport, national Olympic 
and Paralympic committees, other actors in the field of sport at European level, social partners, and othe r international and European organi sations such as the International 
Olympic Committee and international federations. 
An online public consultation was launched on 7 April 2010 and remained open until 2 June 
2010. The online questionnaire was based on th e Interactive Polic y-Making Tool and 
consisted of a range of multiple-choice questions divided into two parts, "Addressing key challenges for sport in Europe" (P art I) and "Identifyi ng policy priorities fo r EU action" (Part 
II). The questions took account of the Treaty mandate to devel op EU action in the field of 
sport as enshrined in Article 165 TFEU. Only fully completed questionnaires were accepted. 
In addition to filling out the structured part of the online questionnaire, respondents replying 
on behalf of organisations were invited to pr ovide supplementary written contributions. The 
Commission received almost 50 pos ition papers as a contribution to the consultation process, 
most during the period when the online consultatio n was open but some before or after this 
period. 
Most of the written papers pr ovided high-quality input on sport- specific topics ranging from 
socially driven issues over economically oriented  suggestions to sport go vernance aspects. It 
should be noted, however, that ma ny of the recommendations in cluded in the position papers 
reflected issues which are not part of the EU's  mandate as defined in  Article 165 TFEU and 
which can only be dealt with at  national or regional levels (e .g. suggestions for direct EU 
financing of local sport clubs). 
The online consultation was a success as more than 1,300 valid submissions were received. 
Approximately 30% of respondents filled out  the questionnaire on behalf of their 
organisations
52. This ratio demonstrates that the on line consultation reached a considerable 
number of respondents outsi de organised sport.  
Online questionnaire – number of replies 
 Number of re plies Percenta ge of total number of re plies
As an individual 935 70.5%
On behalf of an or ganisation 391 29.5%
Total 1326 100 %
 
Regarding the nationality of respondents, all EU nationalities except Cypriots and 
Luxembourgers were represented. Belgium ranked first on the list with 16.1% of replies, 
followed by France (15%) and Spain (14.8%), as outlined in the following chart: 
                                                 
52 The term “organisation” has been used in a wide sense, including sport organisations (e.g. a sport 
federation), sport-related organisations (e.g. a spor ts betting provider), public authorities (e.g. a 
Ministry) or public bodies (e.g. a sport agency), as well as private companies, research centres or 
universities. 
 
EN 42   EN Respondents distribution by nationality
IT
10%LV
1%PL
2%PT
1%RO
2%SK
3%
ES
15%
SE
3%
AT
1%Other
2%
BE
16%BG
1%CZ
2%DK
1%NL
1%UK
5%FI
3%FR
15%DE
8%EL
3%HU
1%IE
2%
 
Regarding the nature of respond ing organisations that filled out the online questionnaire or 
submitted a written contribution, sport organisations were the most active in replying and provided almost two-thirds of the contributions. The repartition of participating organisations 
is visualised in the chart hereafter: 
Participating organisations
59%
12%
14%
3%5%1%6%A sport organisation
A non-governmental, non-sport
organisation
A public authority/body
A private company
A research centre or university
A consultancy
Other
 
Results  
The following summary synthesises the results  of the online questionnaire, relevant 
contributions contained in the written submissi ons and positions presented at the EU Sport 
Forum and other bilateral and multilateral discussions. 
The replies to the online questionnaire were rated with a corresponding relative value of 
points between 3 (strongly agree) and -3 (str ongly disagree). The analysis of the replies 
demonstrated an impressive degree of c onsensus between the tw o groups of respondents 
(individuals and organisations) for a large ma jority of issues. Some questions showed 
particularly high scores  assigned by both individu als and organisations. 
 
EN 43   EN Concerning key challenges for the EU in the field of sport, re plies to questions 4, 5, 8, 16, 18, 
24, 28, 35, 38, 39, 41 and 42 of Part I (see section 3 below) demonstr ated that all of the sub-
areas of the questionnaire were  found to be important by the ge neral public as  well as by the 
organised sport sector. Replie s to questions 4 and 24 repres ented the highest cumulative 
value, highlighting public concern about insufficient presence of sport and physical activity in 
education and about the doping phenomenon as a thre at to the physical and moral integrity of 
sportspeople. This was confirmed by a number of position papers and at  bilateral meetings. 
The degree of consensus between  the two groups of respondents was even more significant 
regarding Part II of the questionnaire, which sought respondents’ views on policy priorities 
for EU action. While almost all areas were rank ed highly, replies to que stions 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 
15, 18, 27, 33, 34 and 36 received the highest scores  (see section 3 below). A considerable 
number of respondents referred to the fact that there were a numb er of tasks that the EU could 
do in relation to th e social and educational functions of sport. Suppor t and promotion of sport 
as a health-enhancing activity ra nked particularly high in the re plies and was also frequently 
mentioned in the position papers. 
Great demand for action at EU leve l relating to social inclusion was also manifested at the EU 
Sport Forum. The need to support accessibility and to work on education and prevention of 
exclusion was also mentioned. A ccording to stakeholders, special  attention should be paid to 
activities at local leve l. Attention was called to the di fference between integration through 
sport and integration in sport. Stakeholders agreed that a highe r level of integration in sport 
was needed to achieve real  integration through sport. 
Volunteering represented another topic that received strong s upport in the framework of the 
consultation. Replies to the online questionnaire  highlighted the need for better recognition of 
voluntary activity in sport and the elim ination of obstacles to volunteering. 
To sum up, the consultation served as an important  source of information to identify areas that 
can be considered as representing key challenges for sport in Europe from the perspective of 
stakeholders and the general pub lic, and notably the following: 
• Availability of sport and physical ac tivity at all levels of education; 
• Insufficient recognition of voluntary activity in sport; 
• Doping as a major threat to fa irness in sporting competitions; 
• Lack of stable funding for grassroots sport; 
• Lack of attention for the societal value of sport as compared to its commercial 
aspects; 
• Commercial pressure endange ring the original spirit of  sport based on fair play. 
The online questionnaire also ga ve useful indications regardi ng priority areas for possible 
future incentive measures. Most areas that receiv ed high scores in the structured questionnaire 
were also reflected in the written contribu tions and at the various meetings. The areas 
receiving the highest degree of  funding priority from the gene ral public and stakeholders 
were: 
 
EN 44   EN • Promotion of the social and educationa l functions of sport, including health-
enhancing physical activity, pa rticipation levels in sport,  quality training for sport 
professionals, integration of sport in edu cation policies, sport for all and sport in 
relation to social integration and social inclusion; 
• Recognition of and support for volunteeri ng in sport and the promotion of public 
and private financing of sport, as a means to support sport structures at grassroots 
level; 
• Protection of the physical and moral integr ity of sportspeople, in particular the 
fight against doping and the prot ection of minors in sport; 
• Promotion of fairness and openness in spor ting competitions as well as of the 
ethical and social values of sport, in cluding the fight against discrimination, 
racism, xenophobia and violence in sport and the fight against financial crime in 
sport. 
Horizontal priorities that were identified included: 
• Support for knowledge-based decision-making in the field of sport; 
• Promotion of networking and ex change of best practices; 
• Support for strengthened dialogue with spor t organisations and for EU guidance on the 
application of EU law to sport. 
2.2 Member States 
Consultation with the Member States took place mainly at the following meetings:  
• Informal meeting of EU Sport Direct ors (Barcelona, 25-26 February 2010); 
• Informal meeting of Ministers respon sible for sport (Madrid, 20-21 April 2010); 
• First formal meeting of Ministers responsible  for sport in the C ouncil (Brussels, 10 May 
2010), preceded and prepared by the first m eeting of the Council Working Party on Sport 
(Brussels, 6 April 2010); 
• Meetings of the informal EU Work ing Groups in the field of sport: 
– Member State Working Group on the White  Paper on Sport (3 February 2010) 
– EU Working Group on Sport and Health (30 June 2010) 
– EU Working Group on Anti-Doping  (14 January and 27 May 2010) 
– EU Working Group on Sport and Economics (10-11 June 2010) 
– EU Working Group on Non-Profit Sport Organisations (17 February 2010) 
– EU Working Group on Education and Training in Sport (19-10 May 2010) 
– EU Working Group on Social Integration and Gender Equality in Sport (8 July) 
Generally, Member States have  expressed support for devel oping the EU dimension in the 
field of sport and no Member St ate has opposed new EU action in the field of sport to support 
 
EN 45   EN policies at national levels. There was broad cons ensus on the need to address the issue of 
health-enhancing physical ac tivity as well as topics in the area of e ducation and training (dual 
careers, sport in schools etc.). 
The fight against doping was emphasized at mo st of the meetings, usually linked with a 
demand for exchange of best practices. 
A number of Member States stressed the importa nce of sport for social inclusion and social 
cohesion while highlighting the need to help pe ople with disabilities and the importance of 
working together towards gender equality. Several Member States referred to the integration 
of minorities. 
Regarding possible incentive measures, Member Stat es identified several priority areas where 
incentive measure at EU level would be desira ble. The following areas were singled out both 
at the informal meeting of Ministers in Madrid and at the first formal meeting of Ministers in 
Brussels: 
• Health, including reference to previous wo rk of the Commission on Physical Activity 
Guidelines; 
• Education and training, including the issue of du al careers; 
• The fight against doping; 
• The financing of grassroots sport; 
• Good governance and structured dialogue. 
2.3 Group of Independent Sport Experts 
In addition to consultations with instituti onal stakeholders and the general public, the 
Commission decided to seek the views of a number of independent  experts with proven 
experience in the area of sport and EU inte gration. A Group of Inde pendent Sport Experts 
(hereinafter: "the Group") was set up in order to provide independent added value to the 
overall consultation process. The Group included the followi ng participants: Mr Manolis 
Mavrommatis, Ms Raija Mattila, Ms Lydia la Ri vière-Zijdel, Mr Thierry Zintz, Mr Richard 
Parrish, Mr Stefan Szymanski, Ms Claudia Bokel, Ms Theresa Zabell, Mr Jean-Michel 
Oppert, Mr Pietro Paolo Mennea. 
The Group met in April and June 2010. The expe rts agreed that Mr Manolis Mavrommatis 
would be the Group's rapporteur. The Group's fi nal report is available on the Sport Unit's 
website. 
The Group highlighted the great potential of sport and physical activ ity to enhance public 
health. The Group also raised th e importance of strengthening the role of education, training 
and qualifications in sport and taking advantage of the opportunities created by EQF and 
ECVET. 
The Group observed that the definition of “mig rants” should include both migrants from 
outside the EU, where the focus should be on social inclusion, and migrants coming from 
other Member States, who may face problems in  participating in amateur sport due to 
restrictions based on nationality. 
 
EN 46   EN The Group recommended that promotion of volunt eering should be a prio rity at EU level, 
with a focus on (de)regulatory measures and research. Good practices, such as employers 
allowing their employees time for voluntary activ ities, should be disseminated and promoted. 
Research and better knowledge  should be, according to th e Group, a priority for the 
Commission in order to better understand the phenomenon of doping and how to combat it. 
The Group put forward a proposal for establishing the European Capitals of Sport as an EU 
initiative in the future, which would be managed in a similar way as the European Capitals of 
Culture. The initiative should promote sport-minded cities that have a sustainable, citizen-friendly and effective way of promoting and offe ring sports and that can be communicated as 
role models. The Group noted that the exch ange of good practices in the abovementioned 
areas is essential and should be supported among the Member States. 
Regarding possible incentive measures, the Gr oup recommended that the Commission should 
focus on the following areas: 
• Health-enhancing physical activ ity: support for the assessment  and dissemination of good 
practice and examples of physical activity prom otion for health throughout the life span, 
and to help develop a mu lti-sectoral approach of physical activity promotion. 
• Social inclusion through sport, including di sabled people, gender equality, migrants, 
discrimination and violence. 
• Education and training: support for exchange of  best practices in the areas of sport and 
physical activity at school, dua l careers and qualifications for the labour market  in the area 
of sport (vocational e ducation and training). 
• Research, particularly as regards health -enhancing physical ac tivity, anti-doping, good 
governance and volunteering. 
• Promotion of the physical and mo ral integrity of s portspeople, including the fight against 
doping and preventive measures to protect the h ealth of athletes, in particular the youngest 
ones. 
The Group noted that in all areas, EU grants  should be awarded on the basis of objective 
criteria following transparent and competitive calls for proposals. 
 
EN 47   EN 3. RESULTS OF THE ONLI NE QUESTIONNAIRE  
 
ASSESSMENT POINTS CONVERSION TABLE 
Field value Corresponding relative value 
Strongly agree 3 
Agree 2 
Tend to agree 1 
Don't know 0 
Tend to disagree -1 
Disagree -2 
Strongly disagree -3 
 
Weighted Average Relative Value 
Item/Question 
Individuals  Organisations 
PART I. 
ADDRESSING KEY CHALLENGES FOR SPORT IN EUROPE 
Social and educational function of sport 
Q1 The practice of sport and physi cal activity is not sufficiently 
supported by public authorities. 1,58 1,36 
Q2 The practice of sport and physi cal activity is not sufficiently 
supported by sport organisations. 0,30 - 0,18 
Q3 Sport organisations concentrate t oo much on competitive sports at 
the expense of non-competitive activities and h ealth-enhancing 
physical activity. 0,97 0,77 
Q4 There is not enough sport and phys ical activity in primary and 
secondary education. 2,12 2,16 
Q5 There is not enough sport and physical activity in higher 
education. 2,06 1,97 
Q6 Too many obstacles (e.g. physical obstacles, availability, 
expenses) exist to accessing sporting activities and facilities. 1,30 1,40 
Q7 There are unequal possibilities to access sporting activities and facilities between different  socio-economic groups. 1,42 1,55 
Q8 The potential of sport in relati on to social inclusion is not 
sufficiently exploited. 1,64 1,82 
 
EN 48   EN Q9 Access to sporting activities and facilities is more difficult for 
women than for men. - 0,55 - 0,40 
Q10 Women are underrepresented in sports, notably in management and leadership positions. 0,97 0,97 
Q11 With the exception of some professional sports, cross-border 
mobility of people involved in sports is weak. 1,19 1,14 
Q12 The quality of training for coaches, trainers and other sport professionals dealing with children and young people is 
insufficient. 0,65 0,73 
Q13 There are important obstacles to practising a sports profession in 
another Member State than the one where the qualification for this 
profession was acquired. 0,67 0,72 
Q14 It is difficult for an athlete to combine a sporting career with studies or with an alternative professional career. 1,21 1,07 
Q15 There is not enough comparable data on the economic and social 
impact of sport in EU Member States. 1,47 1,61 
 
Volunteering in sport 
Q16 Voluntary activity in sport is not sufficiently recognised as a valuable contribution to societ y and to personal development. 1,86 2,01 
Q17 Voluntary activity in sport is hinde red by legal obstacles such as 
disadvantageous fiscal practices, employment laws and inadequate 
insurance schemes. 1,36 1,48 
Q18 There are not enough incentives fo r voluntary activiti es in sport. 1,69 1,75 
Q19 Opportunities to take part in voluntary activities in sport are 
unequal for people from different socio-economic groups. 0,75 0,73 
Physical and moral integrity of sportspeople 
Q20 Sportsmen and sportswomen, esp ecially the youngest ones, are 
not sufficiently protected from doping. 0,84 0,58 
Q21 Sportsmen and sportswomen, esp ecially the youngest ones, are 
not sufficiently protected from overtraining and other harmful 
practices (e.g. unhealthy diets). 1,18 0,88 
Q22 Under-age sportsmen and spor tswomen are not sufficiently 
protected from exploitation. 0,60 0,34 
Q23 There are not enough preventive m easures against injuries and 
accidents in sport. 0,72 0,63 
Q24 Fairness in sporting competitions is endangered by the use of 
doping substances. 2,17 1,88 
Q25 Doping substances and methods are extensively used among high-
level athletes. 0,85 0,45 
 
EN 49   EN Q26 The use of doping substances and methods is wide-spread among 
recreational users (e.g. in gyms, fitness centres, amateur sport 
clubs). 0,47 0,16 
Q27 It is easy to obtai n doping substances. 0,95 0,75 
Governance of sport 
Q28 There is not enough communication among different EU Member 
States regarding different approaches  they have in relation to sport 
and sport policy. 1,44 1,61 
Q29 There is not enough communication and cooperation among sport 
organisations that work on the same topics. 1,39 1,45 
Q30 Public authorities do not respect the autonomy of sport organisations to regulate their own sports. 0,30 0,17 
Q31 Sport organisations often consid er themselves above the law. 0,42 - 0,20 
Q32 Sport organisations are not suffici ently transparent and democratic 
in their functioning. 0,99 0,31 
Q33 Sport organisations do not involv e relevant actors in decision-
making processes to a sufficient degree. 1,06 0,56 
Q34 Sport events and activities often have a negative impact on the 
environment.  - 0,64 - 0,96 
Q35 Professional sport does not provi de enough funding for grassroots 
sport. 1,53 1,48 
Q36 Public funding for grassroots spor ts is not sufficiently stable. 1,64 1,81 
Q37 Too much public funding is allocated to high-level sport. 0,53 0,45 
Specificity of sport 
Q38 There are not enough opportunities to engage in dialogue with 
European authorities on the specific nature of sport. 1,25 1,50 
Q39 The societal values of sport are not sufficiently taken into account 
compared to its commercial aspects. 1,91 1,96 
Q40 The rights of athletes are not sufficiently respected by sport organisations. 0,50 0,05 
 
Fairness and openness of sporting competitions 
Q41 Strong commercial pressure a nd requirements of the media 
endanger the original spirit of sport based on fair play. 1,89 1,42 
Q42 Media and sponsors influence the decision-making of sport 
organisations too much. 1,90 1,37 
Q43 The increasing commercialisation a nd mediatisation of sport has 
benefited only professional sports , not the grassroots level of 1,54 1,28 
 
EN 50   EN sport. 
Q44 Sport exacerbates nationalist attitudes. 0,33 0,07 
Q45 There are not enough preventive meas ures to tackle the problem 
of violence at sporting events. 0,83 0,75 
Q46 Not enough preventive measures are in place in order to tackle 
problems related to discrimi nation, racism, homophobia and 
xenophobia in sport. 0,79 0,74 
Q47 Financial crime in sports is spreading. 1,16 0,76 
 
PART II. 
IDENTIFIYING POLICY PRIORITIES FOR EU ACTION 
Social and educational function of sport 
A1 Support the role of sport in e nhancing public health through 
physical activity. 2,52 2,57 
A2 Promote sport and physical activity  as a tool to achieve a more 
active lifestyle and to fight against obesity. 2,49 2,57 
A3 Encourage EU Member States and sport organisations to take action in order to increase participation levels in sport and 
physical activity. 2,49 2,54 
A4 Eliminate obstacles to the prac tice of sport for EU citizens 
residing in other Member States than their own. 1,99 1,90 
A5 Support and promote the social and educational function of sport. 2,44 2,52 
A6 Encourage EU Member States and sport organisations to improve 
the quality of training for sport professionals who deal with 
children and young people. 2,23 2,27 
A7 Promote better integration of s ports issues in education and 
training policies. 2,33 2,34 
A8 Encourage EU Member States and other actors to improve equal access to sport activities and facilities. 2,19 2,20 
A9 Promote "sport for all". 2,41 2,47 
A10 Support the role of sport in relation to social integration and 
inclusion (regardless of age, gender, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability etc.). 2,31 2,41 
A11 Promote gender equality in sport. 2,01 2,17 
A12 Promote the mobility of people active in sports, notably young 
people. 1,89 1,96 
A13 Promote knowledge-based decision-ma king in the field of sport. 2,12 2,22 
A14 Collect and analyse comparable statistical data on the impact of 2,07 2,20 
 
EN 51   EN sport in economic and social terms. 
Volunteering in sport 
A15 Promote the recognition of volunteer ing in sport as a valuable 
contribution to society and to personal development. 2,30 2,47 
A16 Encourage Member States and other actors to remove obstacles to volunteering. 2,25 2,38 
Physical and moral integrity of sportspeople 
A17 Contribute to the fight against doping. 2,47 2,34 
A18 Take action against trade in  illegal doping substances. 2,57 2,49 
A19 Support co-operation among Member States, sport organisations 
and other actors in order to prevent injuries and accidents in sport. 2,17 2,16 
A20 Contribute to the protection of minors in sport against 
exploitation. 2,35 2,35 
Governance of sport 
A21 Foster coordination and coopera tion among Member States, sport 
organisations and other actors in the field of sport. 2,11 2,25 
A22 Refrain from taking initiatives in the field of sport. - 0,91 - 0,96 
A23 Promote good governance in the field of sport. 1,97 1,96 
A24 Promote dialogue among differ ent actors on the specific 
characteristics of sport. 1,98 2,02 
A25 Promote and support environmenta lly sustainable planning and 
execution of sporting activities. 1,94 1,97 
A26 Promote sustainable public and pr ivate financing of grassroots 
sports. 2,23 2,31 
A27 Support networking and exchange of best practice in sport. 2,21 2,41 
Specificity of sport 
A28 Strengthen its dialogue with s port organisations to provide 
guidance on the application of EU law in the sport sector. 2,01 2,14 
A29 Pursue a better balance betwee n the societal and commercial 
dimensions of sport. 2,07 2,06 
A30  Pursue a better balance between the objectives of sport organisations and the rights of athletes. 1,87 1,81 
Fairness and openness of sporting competitions 
A31 Promote EU values, notably hu man dignity, freedom, democracy, 
equality, the rule of law and the re spect for human rights, in sport. 2,33 2,32 
 
EN 52   EN A32 Promote and support fairness in European sporting competitions. 2,42 2,33 
A33 Promote the ethical and social values of sport. 2,46 2,48 
A34 Support the prevention of and the fight against discrimination, 
racism, xenophobia, homophobia a nd violence in sport. 2,41 2,42 
A35 Actively contribute to the fight against financial crime in sport. 2,37 2,29 
A36 Encourage co-operation among national sport organisations, 
national governing bodies and other ac tors in order to fight against 
corruption in sport. 2,41 2,38 
4. POSITION PAPERS RECEIVED IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE 
CONSULTATION  
Date  Organisation 
05/01/2010 and 27/05/2010 CCPR 
14/01/2010 ENGSO 
20/01/2010 Sports Rights Owners Coalition (SROC) 
29/01/2010 IOC 
18/02/2010 and 29/06/2010 EPFL 
04/03/2010 Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sports (NIF) 
05/03/2010 and 31/05/2010 EU Athletes 
12/03/2010 EOSE 
23/03/2010 FIFPro 
19/04/2010 EGBA 
22/04/2010 Austrian Road Safety Board 
23/04/2010 RGA 
26/04/2010 New Media Coalition 
26/04/2010 EASE 
29/04/2010 SportElite Marketing Ltd 
03/05/2010 Snowpolis Oy 
05/05/2010 PADI Europe 
05/05/2010 Federación andaluza de deportes de discapacitados fisicos  
10/05/2010 Swim Ireland 
12/05/2010 Irish Waterski and Wakeboard Federation 
12/05/2010 Técnico de Apoyo a Programas del Consorcio 
12/05/2010 Consejo General de los Ilustres Colegios Ofic iales de Licenciados en  Educación Física y en 
Ciencias de la Actividad Físi ca y del Deporte de España 
17/05/2010 Unione Italiana dei Ciechi e degli Ipovedenti 
17/05/2010 British Gliding Association  
26/05/2010 European Volunteer Center 
27/05/2010 FESI 
27/05/2010 NOC and Sports Confederation of Denmark 
27/05/2010 ENSSEE 
 
EN 53   EN 27/05/2010 European Coaching Council 
28/05/2010 Dutch Olympic Committee and Nationa l Sports Federation (NOC*NSF) 
28/05/2010 PGA 
31/05/2010 EHFA 
01/06/2010 ISCA 
01/06/2010 CNOSF 
01/06/2010 European Fashion Council 
17/06/2010 Supporters Direct 
18/06/2010 EEA / EFTA 
01/07/2010 European Professional Football Leagues (EPFL) 
07/07/2010 Deutscher Olympische r Sport Bund (DOSB) 
10/07/2010 English Football Prem ier League (FAPL) 
03/08/2010 Football Association of Ireland 
08/09/2010 UEFA 
Public Authorities 
23/03/2010 The Netherlands (Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport) 
29/03/2010 Finland (Ministry of Culture and Sport) 
13/04/2010 Belgium (Sportdienst, Stad Herentals) 
26/04/2010 Spain (Ministry for Youth a nd Sports of Extremadura) 
26/05/2010 Germany (Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart, Sportamt) 
01/06/2010 Spain (Diputación de Barcelona) 
 
 
EN 54   EN Annex II : White Paper Implementation table  
September 2010 
White Paper on Sport 
ACTION PLAN "PIERRE DE COUBERTIN" 
Overview of progress made (core areas) 
Action Progress 
A. The societal role of sport 
A.1. Public health and physical activity 
• Together with the Member States, develop 
new physical activity guidelines. EU Sport Ministers endorsed the EU Physical Activity 
Guidelines at their informal meeting in Biarritz on 27-
28/11/08 and asked for their transmission to the Council. 
Follow-up to the Guidelines is, for the time being, taking 
place in the EU Working Group "Sport & Health", which 
supervised the preparatio n of the Guidelines. 
Health-enhancing physical activity (HEPA) is covered by the 
Preparatory Action for Sport 2009, where half of the co-
financed projects (i.e. 9 projects with grants totalling € 2m) 
are HEPA projects. 
Further concrete steps will depend on follow-up in the 
Council and on the availability of funding for European 
networks.  
• Support an EU Health-Enhancing Physical 
Activity network and, if appropriate, smaller and more focused networks dealing with 
specific aspects of the topic. Recommendations regarding the network are part of the EU 
Physical Activity Guidelines. Good cooperation has been 
established with the WHO' s Rome Office and the HEPA 
Europe Network (European network on health-enhancing 
physical activity). At the annual HEPA Europe conference in 
Olomouc (CZ) in November 2010, the first meeting of an EU 
Contact Group will take place. 
• Mobilise the 7th Framework Programme for 
Research and Technological Development (RTD), the EU Public Health Programme, the 
Youth and Citizenship programmes and the 
Life-Long Learning (LLL) Programme. A number of sport organisati ons have obtained grants, in 
particular from the Public Health, Youth and Citizenship 
programmes. Their work is regu larly presented at meetings 
of the EU Platform for Action on Nutrition, Health and 
Physical Activity. 
A.2. Fight against doping 
• Support partnerships through training courses 
and networking between training centres for 
law enforcement officers. The issue has been discussed at several meetings of the 
EU Working Group on Anti-Doping in 2009/2010. Further 
concrete steps will depend, however, on the availability of 
funding. 
• Facilitate a coordinated EU approach in the 
fight against doping, e.g. by supporting a 
network of national anti-doping organisations. The EU Working Group on Anti-Doping is working on such 
issues as data protection, transportation of samples by air, 
criminalisation of trade in do ping substances, cooperation 
with the pharmaceutical industry, co-operation between 
accredited anti-doping laboratories in the EU, and EU-
WADA relations. The WG mechanism has been useful in 
coordinating efforts with the Council of Europe. Further concrete steps will depend, however, on the availability of 
funding. 
 
EN 55   EN A.3. Education and training 
• Promote participation in educational 
opportunities through sport under the Lifelong 
Learning Programme (Comenius, Erasmus, 
Leonardo da Vinci, Grundtvig). Included in LLP priorities for 2008-2010 and part of the 
agenda of the EU Working Group on Education Training in 
Sport. 
Education and training projects with a focus on dual careers 
are covered by the Preparatory Action for sport 2009. 
• Identify projects for t he implementation of the 
European Qualification Framework (EQF) and the European Credit System for Vocational 
Education and Training (ECVET) in the sport 
sector. Good progress is being made. Information on the first 3 
projects (EQF for outdoor animators, EQF sports, ECVET 
for the fitness industry) was presented at a final conference 
in Dec. 2008. 2 projects (EQF for outdoor animators – 
phase 2, European accreditation system for the fitness 
industry) were supported in 2008-2009. Topics relating to 
qualifications are being discussed in the Working Group 
"Education and Training in Sport". 
• Introduce the award of a European label to 
schools actively supporting physical activities. The Member States represen ted in the informal Working 
Group "Education and Training in Sport" advised the 
Commission to take this action point in reconsideration 
since there is no great interest in such a label in most 
Member States. 
• Complete the analysis of rules requiring that 
teams include a certain quota of locally trained players. A detailed analysis completed in spring 2008 resulted in 
May 2008 in a joint press release by Commissioners Figel' 
and Špidla endorsing UEFA's rules on "home-grown 
players". The press release included a rendez-vous clause 
to re-assess the rule in 2012.  
A.4. Volunteering in s port, active citizenship 
and non-profit sport organisations 
• Together with Member States, identify key 
challenges for non-profit  sport organisations 
and the main characteristics of services 
provided by these organisations. The EU Working Group on Non-Profit Sport Organisations 
has focused its work on financing and volunteering. Topics 
discussed at recent meetings included the impact of the 
economic crisis on sport, developments in the field of sports 
betting and a proposal on sport and competition law. 
• Support grassroots sport through the Europe 
for Citizens Programme. Operational grants were provided to two sport organisations 
in 2008 and to three stakeholders in 2010. Three sport 
projects have been supported by Citizens Panels. One of 
these projects was coordinated by ENGSO and aimed at 
collecting views on the EU's future competence on 
sport ( http://www.eusp ortfuture.eu ). 
• Encourage young people's volunteering in 
sport through the Youth in Action Programme. On-going. A considerable number of Youth in Action 
projects have a sport component. 
• Develop the exchange of information and best 
practice on volunteering in sport. Volunteering was one of the Czech Presidency's priorities 
and resulted in a Memorandum. Financial support has been 
provided to the organisation of the 10th European Youth 
Olympic Festival in Tampere and the XVI Mediterranean 
Games in Pescara in June/July 2009, with special focus on 
volunteering.  
The 2010 Preparatory Action in the field of sport includes a 
Call for proposals on management support for voluntary 
activity. 29 applications have been received. 
• Launch a study on volunteering in sport. This study was combined with a wider Commission study on 
volunteering, which includes a sector study on sport. The 
study was published in early 2010. It illustrates the 
importance of voluntary activi ty in the sport sector and 
identifies trends and challenges in the EU-27. 
 
EN 56   EN A.5. Social inclusion in and through sport 
• Mobilise the Progress, Lifelong Learning, 
Youth in Action and Europe for Citizens 
programmes as well as the European Social 
Fund, the European Regional Development 
Fund and the European Integration Fund to support actions promoting social inclusion and 
integration through sport and combating 
discrimination in sport. Some sport-related projects are being supported through 
these programmes. In particular, projects financed through 
the ERDF and the ESF are underway in several Member 
States. 
As proposed by the Spanish Presidency, an informal 
Working Group with Member States has been created on 
Social Integration and Equal Opportunities in and through 
sport. 
• The Action Plan on the European Union 
Disability Strategy, take into account the 
importance of sport for disabled people and 
support Member State actions in this field. The Commission intends to include port in the next EU 
Disability Strategy running from 2010 to 2020. The 2009 
Preparatory Action for sport covers disability sport. Events 
organised by Special Olympics are being supported in 
2010/2011 (Warsaw/Athens). 
• In the framework of the Roadmap for Equality 
between Women and Men 2006-2010, 
encourage the mainstreaming of gender issues 
into sports-related activities, with a specific 
focus on access to sport for immigrant women and women from ethnic minorities, women's 
access to decision-making positions in sport 
and media coverage of women in sport. The 2009 Preparatory Action covers gender equality in 
sport management. The intention is to include sport in the 
next EU Strategy (2010-2015) on gender equality. 
A.6. Fight against racism and violence in sport 
• As regards racism and xenophobia, promote 
dialogue and exchange of best practices in the existing cooperation framework. As a first step, this issue was covered by a DG JLS 
conference in November 2007. A study on racism in sport 
has been launched by the EU's Fundamental Rights 
Agency. The results of the stud y will be available in 2010. 
The possible inclusion of anti- discrimination and anti-racism 
clauses in players' contracts has been discussed at the 
European Social Dialogue Committee for Professional 
Football. 
• Promote, in accordance with national and EU 
rules applicable, the exchange of operational 
information and practical know-how and 
experience on the prevention of violent and 
racist incidents between law enforcement 
services and with sport organisations. On the basis of Council Decision 2002/348/JHA on security 
at international football matches, data exchange between 
National Football Information Points is being developed and 
should be further reinforced with UEFA. The Commission 
promotes a wide use of the Handbook for Police 
Cooperation, adopted in 2 006 to prevent and control 
violence more efficiently. Pan-European training for police 
officers and safety personnel, financially supported by the 
Commission, was launched in 2009. 
• Analyse possibilities for new legal instruments 
or EU-wide standards to prevent public disorder at sport events. The Council adopted in November 2008 a Framework 
Decision on combating certain forms and expressions of 
racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law 
(2008/913/JHA). It contributes to tackling these phenomena 
also in sport. 
To develop integrated in-stadia safety and security 
arrangements, an expert group was set up in 2008. UEFA 
and the European Committee on Standardisation (CEN) 
have been associated. National and local governmental 
authorities should ensure efficient  safety certification of 
stadia and their enforcement. 
• Promote a multidisciplinary approach to 
preventing anti-social behaviour, with a special 
focus given to socio-educational actions such 
as fan-coaching (long-term work with 
supporters to develop a positive and non-The Commission promotes a multi-disciplinary and multi-
agency approach reflected in the conclusions of the high-
level conference "Towards an EU strategy against violence 
in sport" (2007). 
 
EN 57   EN violent attitude). 
• Strengthen regular and structured cooperation 
among law enforcement services, sport 
organisations and other stakeholders. The Work Programme on minimising safety and security 
risks, adopted by the Council in  2007, has served as a basis 
for cooperation and coordination initiatives between public 
authorities and sport organisa tions. The implementation of 
the related Action Plan is annually updated by the Police 
Cooperation Working Group in the Council. 
• Encourage the use of the following 
programmes, to contribute to the prevention of and fight against violence and racism in sport: 
Youth in Action, Europe for Citizens, DAPHNE 
III, Fundamental Rights and Citizens hip and 
Prevention and Fight against Crime. Among financially supported initiatives can be mentioned 
the project ARIES aiming at t he promotion of youth sport to 
achieve zero tolerance of discrimination and the KROSSS 
project focused on Kicking Racism out of Sports, Schools 
and Society. 
• Organise a high level conference to discuss 
measures contributing to prevent and fight violence and racism in sport events with 
stakeholders. The conference was organised on 28-29 November 2007 
under the auspices of the EU  Presidency, Commission, 
European Parliament and UEFA. It focused on law 
enforcement cooperation, fan culture, and cooperation with 
local authorities and judicial cooperation. 
B. The economic dimension of sport 
B.1. Economic impact of sport 
• Together with Member States, develop a 
European statistical method for measuring the 
economic impact of sport. The method of a Sport Satellite Account (SSA) has been 
agreed and developed by the Commission-led EU Working 
Group “Sport & Economics” since 2006. At the 4th meeting 
of the WG in Oct. '07 consensus was reached on a 
European statistical definition of  sport ("Vilnius definition"). 
Following its 7th meeting in Oct. '09, the WG had prepared 
an SSA policy paper, methodology paper and a short 
publication with first data results (Austria, Cyprus, UK), 
which was presented to EU Sport Ministers and 
stakeholders in 2010. Four other  Member States will finalise 
their national SSAs in 2011. 
• Conduct specific sport-related surveys to 
provide non-economic information on sport. A Eurobarometer survey on sport and physical activity was 
launched in the second half of 2009. Commissioner 
Vassiliou presented the results at a press conference in 
March 2010 and at the Sport Forum in April 2010. There 
was wide coverage in the media in all Member States. 
• Launch a study to assess the sport sector’s 
contribution to the Lisbon Agenda. A Call for Tender for a study on sport’s contribution to 
economic growth and employment in the EU-27 was 
launched in summer 2010. Results can be expected in the 
first half of 2012. 
• Organise the exchange of best practices 
concerning the organisation of large sport 
events. The French Presidency presented a study on the Rugby 
World Championship in 2008. 
B.2. Public support for sport 
• Carry out a study on the financing of 
grassroots sport and sport for all in the 
Member States from both public and private 
sources, and on the impact of on-going 
changes in this area. A Commission study got under way in October 2009. The 
study will inter alia look into cross-border obstacles to sport 
funding. A stakeholder conf erence took place on 16 
February 2010 in Brussels. Study results are expected at 
the end of 2010. 
• Defend the possibilities of reduced VAT rates 
for sport. EU legislation on Value-Added Tax (reduced rates) has not 
changed with regard to the sport sector. 
 
EN 58   EN C. The organisation of sport 
C.1. Free movement and nationality 
• Combat discrimination based on nationality in 
all sports through political dialogue, 
recommendations, structured dialogue with 
stakeholders and infringement procedures 
when appropriate. This is a permanent priority and part of the ongoing 
structured dialogue with s port stakeholders. Repeated 
contacts with FIFA and other football organisations have 
taken place about "6+5". 
• Launch a study on access to individual sport 
competitions for non-nationals. The kick-off meeting for the study took place in January 
2010. The results of the study are expected at the end of 
2010. 
C.2. Players' agents 
• Carry out an impact assessment to provide a 
clear overview of the activities of players’ 
agents in the EU and an evaluation of whether 
action at EU level is necessary, which will also 
analyse the different possible options. As a first step, an independent study was published on the 
Sport Unit's website in December 2009. 
C.4. Corruption, money-laundering and other 
financial crime 
• Support public-private partnerships 
representative of sports interests and 
anticorruption authorities,  which would identify 
vulnerabilities to corruption in the sport sector 
and assist in the development of effective 
preventive and repressive strategies to counter 
such corruption. The Commission is preparing an updated Report on the 
implementation of Framewor k Decision 2003/568/JHA on 
corruption in the private sector . The report will be part of the 
anti-corruption package on a co mprehensive anti-corruption 
policy in the EU. Initiatives could also be undertaken 
through the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) as a follow 
up to its 2009 study on money laundering in sport. 
• Continue to monitor the implementation of EU 
anti-money laundering legislation in the Member States with regard to the sport sector. The FATF has carried out a study on money laundering 
through sport clubs (football in particular). Published in July 
2009, the study has relied on the experience and support of 
the Member States of the FATF, the Commission and the 
private sector. The report is accompanied by policy 
recommendations, including on the need to raise 
awareness of the risk of money laundering in sport. 
C.5. Licensing systems  
• Starting with football, organise a conference 
with UEFA, EPFL, Fifpro, national associations 
and national leagues on existing licensing 
systems and best practices in this field. The Conference took place in Brussels on 17-18 September 
2009. It gathered representatives  of football (federations, 
leagues, clubs and players) as well as representatives of 
other team sports with an inte rest in the issue of licensing 
systems, in order to facilitate exchange of views and sharing of good practices on th is topic. All the documents of 
the conference (presentations, speeches, list of participants, 
etc.) have been posted on th e Sport Unit's website. 
 
 
EN 59   EN Annex III : The added value of EU action  in relation to Health-Enhancing 
Physical Activity 
Individual and public health depend to a consid erable extent on whether citizens have access 
to regular physical activity (including, but goi ng beyond, sport). Such access in turn depends 
heavily on policy choices made at national, regional and local levels. 
To facilitate regular physical activity am ong the population, guidelines are needed which 
define the kind of policy coordination that is  needed, both between sectors (public, voluntary, 
private), policy areas (e.g. hea lth, education, transport, urban planning, sport), and levels of 
organisation (national, regional, local).  The EU Physical Activity Guidelines53, initially 
requested by Member State Sport Ministers, were  developed with the ai m to provide a general 
framework and to state the most obvious needs in the form of 41 concrete guidelines. They 
are intended to be elaborated at national level through national physi cal activity guidelines. 
At present, national guidelines do not exist in mo st Member States, nor does the kind of inter-
sectoral cooperation recommended by the EU  Guidelines. The question is whether a 
correlation can be demonstrated between physical activity levels in individual Member States 
and the existence and implementatio n of physical activity guidelines. 
A considerable number of studies indicate that  such correlation does indeed exist. Most 
recently, dissimilar patterns in citizens' regular  participation in spor t and physical activity 
have been evidenced at EU-27 level by Speci al Eurobarometer 72.3 on Sport and Physical 
Activity (February 2010).54 
The Eurobarometer survey looked at the regularity, venues and personal motivation of 
exercising and also the attitude of local spor t stakeholders. Dispari ties among Member States 
in the field of sport and physical activity appear to be very significant and larger  than in other 
socioeconomic areas. 
The Eurobarometer survey generated replies regarding five categories of regularity of 
physical activity ("Regularly", "With some re gularity", "Seldom", "N ever", "Don't Know"). 
Combined scores in the two highest categor ies ("Regularly" + "With some regularity") 
provide a picture in terms of people's self-per ceived realistic opportunities for daily physical 
activity. This provides the following ranking am ong the Member States (all figures reflect 
percentages of respondents): 
Sweden: 22 + 50 = 72 Finland: 17 + 55 = 72 Denmark: 15 + 49 = 64 Ireland: 23 + 35 = 58 
                                                
 
53 Brussels, 10 October 2008. EU Physical Activity  Guidelines: Recommended Policy Actions in Support 
of Health-Enhancing Physical Activity.  http://ec.europa.eu/sport/library/doc/c1/pa_g uidelines_4th_consolidated_draft_en.pdf  
54 Eurobarometer 72.3- Sport and Physical Activity.  
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_334_en.pdf  
 
EN 60   EN Netherlands: 5 + 51 = 56 
Slovenia: 13 + 39 = 52 Luxembourg: 12 + 39 = 51 Belgium: 16 + 34 = 50 Germany: 9 + 40 = 49 Malta: 17 + 31 = 48 France: 13 + 35 = 48 United Kingdom: 14 + 32 = 46 Cyprus: 16 + 25 = 41 
EU 27 average: 9 + 31 = 40
 
Spain: 12 + 27 = 39 
Austria: 5 + 33 = 38 Lithuania: 14 + 22 = 36 Estonia: 7 + 27 = 34 Portugal: 9 + 24 = 33 Slovakia: 5 + 25 = 30 Italy: 3 + 26 = 29 
Czech Republic: 5 + 23 = 28 
Latvia: 8 + 19 = 27 Poland: 6 + 19 = 25 Hungary: 5 + 18 = 23 Romania: 8 + 13 = 21 Greece: 3 + 15 = 18 Bulgaria: 3 + 10 = 13 While cultural, climatic and fina ncial differences may be expected  to influence these scores, it 
will be noticed that the picture is not one of a clear-cut north/south or east/west split. For 
example, Finland/Estonia, Cyprus/Greece and Sp ain/Portugal are pairs of countries displaying 
larger disparities than might have been expected. 
 
EN 61   EN Against the backdrop of such stark intra-EU di fferences, work related to the EU Physical 
Guidelines and national guidelines takes on a whole new dimension. The following Member 
States are currently members of the Wo rking Group on Sport and Health, under whose 
supervision the EU Guidelines were develope d: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Cyprus, 
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Luxemburg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, 
Spain and the United Kingdom. 
The EU Physical Activity Guidelines stress th e need for national guide lines to be developed 
as more comprehensive tools, adding more deta il than can be found in  a set of standards 
covering the entire EU. According to informati on available to the Commission, at least the 
following Member States have had national guide lines in place for a certain number of years 
before the EU Physical Activity Guidelines we re endorsed at an informal meeting of EU 
Sport Ministers in 200855: United Kingdom, France, Luxe mbourg, Germany, Slovenia and 
Finland. 
The following table compares the outcome of the Eurobarometer survey with participation of 
Member States in the informal Working Group on Sport and Health and w ith the availability 
and implementation of national physical activity guidelines: 
Member State Eurobarometer score EU Working 
Group Sport and 
Health membership National physical 
activity guidelines 
preceding EU Guidelines 
Sweden 72   
Finland 72 z z 
Denmark 64   
Ireland 58   
Netherlands 56 z z 
Slovenia 52 z z 
Luxembourg 51 z z 
Belgium 50 z  
Germany 49 z z 
Malta 48   
France 48 z z 
United Kingdom 46 z z 
Cyprus 41 z  
                                                 
55 EU Physical Activity Guidelines (op. cit.), p. 4., footnote 1. 
 
EN 62   EN EU 27 40  
Spain: 39 z  
Austria 38 z  
Lithuania 36   
Estonia 34   
Portugal 33 z  
Slovakia 30   
Italy 29   
Czech Republic 28 z  
Latvia 27   
Poland 25 z  
Hungary 23   
Romania 21   
Greece 18 z  
Bulgaria 13   
The table shows that most EU Working Group memb ers are concentrated in  the higher end of 
the table. More than half of Working Group members (9), and all countries with national 
guidelines predating the EU Guid elines are countries with physical activity scores above the 
EU average. 
There is thus clearly a correlation between phys ical activity levels in individual Member 
States and the existence and implementation of physical activity guidelines. Exchange of 
information and good practice already takes pla ce between Member States with higher and 
lower physical activity scores and several Member  States are taking steps to design and adopt 
national physical activity guidelines (e.g. Spain ha s recently adopted an ambitious strategy in 
this field ("Plan A+D")). 
By facilitating such exchange among all Member  States (in particular  those that are not 
involved in the existing informal structur e), for example on the basis of a Council 
Recommendation and a limited monitoring mechanism, EU action in relation to Health-Enhancing Physical Activity can therefore be exp ected to have a high added value in terms of 
individual and public hea lth in the EU overall.