WRITTEN QUESTION E-3097/98

by Umberto Bossi (NI) to the Commission

(16 October 1998)

Subject: The monopoly enjoyed in Italy by CONI - football clubs and free competition

The monopoly enjoyed in Italy by CONI [Italian National Olympic Committee] in professional and amateur competitive sporting activities, organised under law No 426 of 16 February 1942, is no longer tenable, not least in view of the substantial hand-outs the Italian state gives to CONI each year. The regulatory authority responsible for competition and markets, which has frequently been the subject of questions in the Italian Parliament calling for it to act, has never taken any action to assert the principle that the legislator should foster competition and break up monopolies. In particular, the action taken by the regulatory authority in respect of clubs in divisions A and B of the Italian Football League to tackle the perennial contractual issue of pay-per-view television rights has been ineffective, since it is directed at a body that belongs to the Italian Football Federation (Article 6(II) of the Statute) which effectively enjoys a monopoly in the game of soccer (Articles 1 and 2 of the Statute). The action taken by the regulatory authority fails to assert the principle of free competition, thereby benefitting a small number of groups operating in the sports industry.

Can the Commission say whether or not everyone is free to organise professional and amateur sporting activities, on a one-off or series basis, in a free market system, unlike the CONI-dominated monopolistic system that exists in Italy, in particular in view of the multi-billion lira subsidies CONI receives?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 1998)

As Community law stands at present, Member States may, for reasons of public interest of a non-economic nature, exclude certain services from the field of competition by conferring exclusive rights on one or more undertakings (see Case C-155/73 Sacchi [1974] ECR 409). However, although the granting of a monopoly is not as such incompatible with Community law, the monopoly may be organised in such a way as to infringe the rules on the free movement of services, freedom of establishment and the free movement of goods within the common market.

Furthermore, Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to fulfil their Community obligations in good faith. Under the competition rules laid down in the EC Treaty and according to settled case-law, Member States may not enact legislative measures or adopt regulations that allow private undertakings to be excluded from the constraints imposed by Articles 85 to 94 of the EC Treaty. This would be the case if a Member State adopted legislative or regulatory measures that required or encouraged the conclusion of agreements that were in breach of Article 85 of the Treaty or reinforced the effects of such agreements (Joined Cases 209 to 213/84 Ministère public v Asjes [1986] ECR 1425 and Case 311/85 Vlaamse Reisbureaus [1987] ECR 3801).

Such would also be the case if regulatory measures in the Member State encouraged the abuse of a dominant position held by one (or more) undertakings on the relevant market (Case 66/86 Ahmed Saeed [1989] ECR 803).

In the case in point, the fact that the Italian National Olympic Committee (CONI) holds a monopoly in the organisation of sporting activities does not as such constitute an infringement of the Community competition rules. Nor indeed are CONI's agreements and practices called into question by the Honourable Member. The specific points made concern the agreements of the Italian Football League or Italian Football Federation regarding television rights. It would appear that these actions are not directly linked to CONI's monopolistic position. In the absence of any precise evidence of abuses or restrictions, the Commission is not able to say whether or not the rules laid down in the EC Treaty have been infringed.