Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on 'The European Model of Sport'
Date: 1999-09-16
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: EU Member State, professional sport, sport, sporting event, sports body

C 374/56

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

23.12.1999

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘The European Model of Sport’

(1999/C 374/14)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the consultation document of the European Commission’s Directorate-General X on
‘The European Model of Sport’ and the working document of Directorate-General X on ‘the evolution
and prospects of the Community’s action in the field of Sport’;

having regard to its Bureau’s decision of 15 July 1998, under the fourth paragraph of Article 198c of the
Treaty establishing the European Community, to draw up an opinion on this subject and to direct
Commission 7 (Education, Vocational Training, Culture, Youth, Sport and Citizens’ Rights) to undertake
the necessary preparatory work;

having regard to the draft opinion (CdR 37/99 rev. 2) adopted by Commission 7 on 1 July 1999
[rapporteurs: Mr Mientus (D) (PSE) and Mr Grafé (B) (PPE)];

having regard to the COR’s Opinion of 20 November 1997 on Equal opportunities for girls and boys in
leisure activities and especially in EU youth and sport programmes (CdR 182/97 fin) (rapporteur: Mrs
Barbro Sundback) (1),

Unanimously adopted the following opinion at its 30th plenary session of 15 and 16 September 1999
(meeting of 16 September).

1.

Introduction

1.1.
In the face of the challenges currently facing sport, the
Committee of the Regions believes that the EU should make
a contribution to the debate on improving the sporting
environment, without losing sight of the principle of subsidiar-
ity, the responsibilities of national, regional and local auth-
orities in this sector and, above all, the independence of sports
bodies. It therefore welcomes the Commission’s full analysis
of the distinctive features of European sport in the consultation
document produced by DG X — ‘The European Model of
Sport’. It particularly welcomes the process of open consul-
tation used to produce this analysis, as it enabled all the parties
concerned to express their standpoints.

1.2.
The COR calls on the Commission to take note of its
views in this matter in the report that the Vienna European
Council invited it to submit to the Helsinki European Council
on safeguarding current sports structures and maintaining the
social function of sport in the Community framework.

2. General comments

2.1.
By raising the issue of sport in the EU, the Commission
highlights its undoubted importance for the Member States,
especially at regional and local level. It has evolved into an
important and indispensable factor in society.

(1) OJ C 64, 27.2.1998, p. 81.

2.2.
European sport and the structures which have been
developed to support it — described by the Commission as
the ‘European model of sport’ — are enormously varied and
complex. They have led on the one hand to the idea of ‘sport
for all’, which places the emphasis on the social value of sport
in education, environment and health, and on the other to a
multifaceted model of competition which, as the Commission
clearly brings out, is characterised by a promotion/relegation
system.

As sport has acquired an increasingly high media
2.3.
profile, it has had to take on board two new aspects, which
may both be relevant, depending on the popularity of the
sport: (a) the economic aspect and (b) the idea of sport as
entertainment.

2.4.
Sport has come to play a significant economic role,
both for the individual and from the point of view of trade,
industry, tourism, entertainment etc. The funding of sport at
all levels, particularly the top amateur and professional levels,
and the pressures and influence exerted by television and
commercial sponsors on the organisation of competitions call
for budgetary and business strategies which no longer relate
solely to sporting considerations. The original status of
sportsmen and women has thus changed radically and the
sporting movement is faced with constraints which are beyond
the scope of the traditional structures of federations and clubs
as originally conceived.

2.5.
Sports federations are increasingly faced with commer-
cial issues; they have evolved into enterprises providing services
in the sports sector or have even become, in certain areas of
top-level competitive sport, businesses subject to the laws of

23.12.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 374/57

the market. More and more they are taking on the role of
employers in their own right. This implies in particular the
obligation to become more involved in the training of
sportsmen and women.

attention to the role of schools in sport in general, and to their
role in the academic education of top amateur and professional
sportsmen and women

2.6.
Consequently the COR stresses that the European
sporting movement must show pragmatism and consistency
in tackling the economic constraints which have arisen
because of the way it has developed. In this connection, the
promotion/relegation system, which the Commission quite
rightly points to as the main feature of the European model of
sport, would seem to be an important factor. Although this
system may well satisfy sporting requirements,
is no
longer adequate for a professional sector seeking the financial
investment required for its development.

it

2.7.
It is a considerable challenge to preserve the cultural,
educational and social values of the European model while
integrating it
into a coherent business framework which
reconciles sporting interests with the economic stakes of the
sporting world. To this end, proposals should be drawn up for
harmonising the general conditions governing professional
sportsmen and women. This would include initiatives to
combat unfair competition between financially strong and
financially weak associations.

3. Specific comments

3.1. Chapter 1: The European Model of Sport

3.1.1.
In its analysis in Chapter 1, the Commission tries to
demonstrate the problems it has encountered in applying
economic criteria to sport, and identifies the various interest
groups (associations, clubs, organisers, the media, etc.) and
main problems.

3.1.5.
The COR realises that the high profile and media
impact of sport may also lead to manipulation action in
political, economic, social and individual terms. However, the
sport itself should not be held responsible for what society or
individuals choose to do with it. The COR calls on the
Commission to always make a sharp distinction between the
sport itself and any misbehaviour.

3.1.6.
the COR
On the subject of changes (point 2)
considers that the description of developments is inaccurate,
incomplete and also partly untrue. A large number of sporting
events other than competitions were already taking place
before 1950. The parallel drawn between European integration
and European sports competitions seems contrived, given that
European championships have existed since as early as 1886.

3.1.7.
The COR would emphasise that, although the contri-
bution of sports lotteries in most EU Member States is not
negligible, sport is funded chiefly by national, regional and
local authorities. Although business sponsorship has now
become an inevitable financial top-up, in most cases this only
applies to sports where the professional sector has a high
media profile. The COR would therefore like to see some
thought given to appropriate measures to reduce the differ-
ences between the financial resources of federations adminis-
tering high-profile sports and those promoting activities which
do not meet media and in particular ratings criteria. The
COR feels that the Commission should not play down the
contribution which sportsmen and women, their families and
thousands of volunteers make to sports funding.

3.2. Role of the national federations (point 4.1)

The COR would emphasise that sports clubs play a
3.1.2.
fairly considerable part in the cultural and social development
of our society. It feels that the Commission has ignored the
essential role of local authorities in providing support for local
sporting activities, in terms both of funding and infrastructure.
The COR feels that the Commission should highlight this
aspect and state its readiness to preserve and support it.

European sport is managed on the basis of one
3.2.1.
federation at EU level and of national and regional federations,
in accordance with the legal structure of each Member State.
The COR considers it important to preserve this rule for
European sport by means of political and administrative
measures. This should be backed up by the EU’s business
legislation.

3.1.3.
The Commission contrasts the European system with
the one in North America. In the COR’s view, the latter is
centred too much on a business and market-oriented approach
to sport, making a clear distinction between professional and
amateur sport and giving them totally separate structures. The
COR therefore retains its faith in and asserts its preference for
the European socio-cultural model.

3.1.4.
The COR, like the Commission, would emphasise
the special characteristics of the European model and does not
want
the inclusion of an economic factor to jeopardise
traditional values. It asks the Commission to pay particular

In the developed European world of sport

(the
3.2.2.
European model of sport), each level of the federation system
(pyramid model) has its own specific role. At the top of the
pyramid, the European federations are primarily responsible
for technical rules, competition provisions, organisation of
competitions at European level and cooperation between
national federations to promote and develop sports. Further-
more, one of
the federations’ key roles is to train and
permanently monitor the officials needed for the development
of athletes at all levels. The question of whether a European
league can be properly and effectively managed must be
decided by the relevant federations themselves.

C 374/58

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

23.12.1999

3.2.3.
The COR would point out that real market oppor-
tunities exist for only a very few federations (football, tennis,
motor sports). The national federations are usually able to
fulfil their commercial role.

3.2.4.
The idea of ‘sport for all’, which is widespread in
Europe, involves individual sporting activity independently of
sports associations. It is therefore an important factor in
promoting the health and well-being of the general public.
Investment by the public sector or by public associations in
this area is consequently appropriate to this type of activity.
The COR would stress that this in no way clashes with the
activities of sports federations, which are more closely geared
to their own specialities.

The COR feels it is unlikely that federations will lose
3.2.5.
grassroots members or top members if conditions ensure that
the sports federations at national and European level are
sufficiently robust.

3.4.3. Whether the principle of solidarity can be upheld
depends on the formation of supranational leagues. If such
leagues are set up under the competence of the European
federation, the solidarity principle ‘holds good’. However, if a
‘closed league’ is set up outside the federation, then sound
economic principles should always be applied.

3.4.4.
The COR believes that the few federations which can
raise substantial revenue through marketing activities and
broadcasting rights should be eligible for exemptions, e.g.
from the competition restriction.

3.4.5.
To date, sports federations at national and European
level have not been applying the solidarity principle adequately.
Almost all income from the sale of television rights remains in
the professional sector. A large part (as much as possible) of
this revenue should in future be passed on to the youth and
amateur sectors, so as to take pressure off the sports promotion
budgets of local and regional public bodies.

3.2.6.
The COR would emphasise that the federations must
be free to decide autonomously which events, measures and
competitions they want to organise at European level. The role
of the EU here is simply to create the economic and social
environment in which sport can develop satisfactorily.

3.4.6.
Though the equality principle is not yet being put
into practice, it could be achieved if certain exceptions from
sound financial practice were made absolutely conditional on
compliance with appropriate requirements.

3.3. Closed competitions (point 4.2)

3.5. Promotion of sport (point 4.4)

3.3.1.
The COR would point out that this is primarily a
technical issue. The necessary decisions will have to be taken
by the federations concerned as a matter of
their own
responsibility. It is not appropriate for the state to intervene
here. However, if federations are not strong enough to resolve
the issue themselves in a spirit of solidarity, then sound
economic principles should always be applied.

3.4. Solidarity (point 4.3)

3.4.1.
The COR would emphasise that solidarity is a
principle intrinsic to sport. The educational and social role of
sport is to a large extent determined by the concept of
solidarity. This social
function is a fundamental part of
the European system, and the Vienna European Council in
December 1998 specifically asked that it be maintained within
the Community framework. Sport can only be entitled to
‘special treatment’ if solidarity is practised at every level of
sporting activity. This applies both to clubs, which must make
their contributions to sports associations at regional and
supraregional level, and to associations, which must fulfil their
duties towards clubs and their members.

3.4.2.
One of the objectives of EU sports policy should be
to fight against the distinction between top-level sport and
youth and amateur sport. It is unwise to base the approach to
sport on this distinction, for these two facets intermingle
permanently and influence one another.

3.5.1.
promoting sport is dealt with in point 3.4.6.

The problem of how to attain the objective of

3.5.2.
Public funding for sports is based on the principle of
subsidiarity and can only become relevant where clubs and
associations are unable adequately to fulfil their social role
using their own resources. The contribution to be made by
clubs and associations themselves should therefore be topped
up by revenue from commercial activities.

3.5.3.
The COR considers that use of public funding is only
justified for areas of sport that are in the public interest
(welfare-oriented) or non-profit making. Hence public funds
may not be drawn on to provide financial support for the
promotion of professional sport and commercial activities of
sports organisations.

3.5.4.
The COR would stress that, with a few exceptions
(football, tennis, motor sports), the national federations are
unable to provide funding for youth and amateur sports from
their own resources, which means they are dependent on
regional authorities (municipalities and Länder) for promotion
of these sectors.

The question of whether sport can be adequately
3.5.5.
promoted with a system of closed competitions is dealt with
in point 3.3.

23.12.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 374/59

3.6. European model of sport (point 4.5)

that

the sports

The COR considers

3.6.1.
structure
developed in Europe should in principle be supported and
maintained. It would emphasise that it is not the government’s
task to oversee sports structures and organisations. That must
remain the responsibility of independent sports organisations.
However, the state must regulate so as to create an environ-
ment in which sport and sports organisations can fulfil their
role.

3.7. Chapter 2: Sport and Television

3.7.1.
The chapter on sport and television essentially gives
an accurate picture of the problems faced, although the
analysis is occasionally cursory,
inaccurate and on certain
points imprecise. For instance, the COR would say that sport
and television have been developing in tandem only in respect
of the small number of sports that attract media attention,
which are more in the public eye than the world of mass sport.

3.7.2.
The media strongly influence the development of
sport, but this factor is not adequately illustrated by the
examples given. It is wrong to say that income from television
broadcasts has become the main source of funding for most
types of sport. Only a very small number of sports attract the
level of media interest required to achieve this.

3.7.3.
The focus on the narrow sector of media sports is
understandable given the role of the broadcasting market, but
this should not be allowed to obscure the world of sport as a
whole, which represents a much broader sphere in economic
terms. Since media sports have an indirect impact on the
whole spectrum of sports in Europe, decisions about the legal
framework for this sector have both medium-and long-term
implications for the future structure and organisation of sports
in Europe, with which the majority of Europeans identify
through belonging to clubs and associations — and even in
other contexts.

3.8.2.
Solidarity means that the commercial gains made in
a certain small number of sports should not be amassed by
privileged sectors of the sporting world, but be available to
help fund the costly youth and amateur sectors. The trend
towards privatising ‘commercially viable sports’ and promot-
ing youth sports through public money must be resisted. This
can only be achieved by making sport associations better able
to provide support. This should be one objective of an EU
sports policy.

3.8.3.
An important and appropriate way of ensuring that
joint (or association) interests prevail over private interests is
through collective selling (i.e. by several associations grouping
together) of copyright, retransmission rights or television
rights.

Only very few associations (football, tennis, motor
3.8.4.
sport) are able to derive substantial income from collective
selling. They should be invited to make proposals to the
Commission for a differentiated and transparent system of
allocating revenue. In the COR’s opinion, as much income as
possible from television rights should be earmarked for youth
and amateur sport activities in order to relieve the pressure on
public regional sports promotion budgets.

3.8.5.
Institutional coordination is also essential if there is
to be effective cooperation between professional sport and
sport for young people and the general public. Such coordi-
nation could operate either within a sports association span-
ning both sectors or on the basis of contractual agreements.

3.8.6.
As to whether collective selling should be permitted
as a means of guaranteeing fair competition or whether it
should be linked to a solidarity fund, the COR considers that,
as mentioned in point 3.8.2 as high as possible a proportion of
television revenue — which is tax-exempt for the beneficiaries
and/or sports associations — should go to the youth and
amateur sectors. Here the solidarity fund issue is less important.

3.8. Collective selling and duration of exclusivity (point 9.1)

3.8.1.
Sport in Europe is essentially shaped by the work of
sports associations and clubs, which deliver an important and
comprehensive public service by providing sports facilities and
competition opportunities for everybody, on a voluntary basis
and throughout the European Union. This effort deserves to
be supported and encouraged through public funding,
especially at regional
level, where development has been
guided by the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity. The
principle of subsidiarity requires that public funding can only
be in the form of top-ups, i.e. to supplement existing resources
and means.

3.8.7.
Sporting events and competitions of commercial
interest to the media are organised by associations at certain
times of the year (competitions, tournaments, cups). It would
be sufficient if exclusive rights were granted for only one of
those occasions. Holders of exclusive rights should also be able
to authorise their sale to third parties or to effect such sales
themselves.

3.8.8.
when exercising their collective sale rights.

Associations should be obliged to call for tenders

C 374/60

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

23.12.1999

3.9.

Interpenetration between sport and the audiovisual industry
(point 9.2)

3.11. The role of public TV (point 9.4)

3.9.1.
The COR considers that the purchase or control by
the media or business of national league sports club facilitates
the corruption of sport. Sports associations should be given
the legal means to prevent such takeovers through their articles
of association.

3.9.2.
The conversion of sports clubs into business organis-
ations would allow interpenetration and make it possible to
control several clubs involved in sports competitions. It would
then become easier to manipulate competition results and
compromise the future of sport.

In view of their basic public service role, public
3.11.1.
broadcasting companies must provide comprehensive and
well-publicised coverage of the full range of sporting activities
Besides shaping opinions and fostering political awareness,
the traditional broadcasting role has a cultural dimension,
embracing culture in the broader sense, which naturally
includes sport.

At the moment public broadcasting companies are
3.11.2.
barely meeting this requirement, if at all. More pressure must
be put on them to respect this obligation.

3.9.3.
To safeguard the sporting ethic, businesses should
not be allowed to purchase sports clubs. That would run
counter to the principles underpinning sport as well as the
objectives of cooperation between sports organisations.

3.11.3.
Public television should show minority sports as
part of its public service role. In Germany, public TV channels
are required to give adequate programming time to all sports,
including ‘minority sports’.

3.10. The right to information (point 9.3)

3.10.1.
The COR sees pay-TV as posing a risk to sport if
pay-TV channels acquire exclusive rights with excessively
lengthy, and therefore generally unacceptable, lifespan. They
could be tempted to pay large sums of money for such
exclusive rights in order to secure a foothold and develop
markets. Public access to televised major sporting events would
then be seriously impeded and market distortion would result.
So as to safeguard the aforementioned social role of sport, it is
necessary to ensure that public channels retain broadcasting
rights to sports events and consequently to regulate in an
appropriate manner the world of pay-TV which, because of
its exclusive rights to broadcast certain sports events,
is
undermining the right of everyone to enjoy sport as a
spectator.

3.10.2.
In view of their socio-political responsibility and
the principle of solidarity sports associations should be
encouraged to reject agreements that might well bring them
short-term financial gains but would prevent the general public
from seeing sporting events on television. Such practices
would compromise the development of sport in Europe and
ultimately rebound on the sports associations themselves.

3.10.3.
If TV channels become shareholders in major
European clubs, they will affect the decisions taken by leading
European sports bodies. In other words, they will influence the
rules of the game more, making sports more of a spectacle and
above all dictating the organisation and timing of matches.
Sports ethics are therefore under threat.

3.11.4. With regard to question 1, the COR challenges the
Commission’s view that the public service role does not
encompass sports programmes. However, a list of criteria
should be drawn up that can be used to assess whether a given
event falls into the category of pure entertainment, and should
therefore not be shown by public TV, or whether it is one
where the nature and objectives of sport are central and hence
covered by the public service role.

3.12. Chapter 3: Sport and Social Policy

3.12.1.
In Chapter 3 the Commission tackles the social
aspect of sport. It highlights the social functions of sporting
(a) education,
activity and the areas where they operate:
(b) environment, (c) health and (d) employment.

3.12.2.
In the face of today’s social challenges, clubs and
associations have tended to monopolise the concept of sport,
an idea often conveyed by political decision-makers. A similar
phenomenon can be observed in the heath and welfare sector,
which has been taken over by the private sector for purely
commercial purposes (fitness centres).

3.12.3.
In the education sector, the COR believes the EU
has a key role to play in recognition of the qualifications, vital
to organisation of the sporting movement. In addition, the EU
should make it easier for sportsmen and women and coaches
to practise in the various Member States by encouraging the
removal of obstacles to free movement.

3.10.4.
In order to ensure that the broadcasting of major
sports events is not monopolised by coded or pay-TV channels,
the TV without frontiers directive must be applied by all
Member States so as to guarantee free access for television to
major sports events.

3.12.4.
The COR would emphasise that sport is a cultural
component of our societies, a vector of individual and social
values;
it contributes to the well-being of all and to their
integration into society. These are important values, flowing
naturally from the practice of sport and the structure of the
sporting movement.

23.12.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 374/61

3.12.5. We may therefore ask: ‘Can using sport for purposes
other than leisure and transcending one’s limits provide
constructive answers to the problems of society? If so, does
there need to be a special policy for implementing this aspect
which is alien to the sporting movement and its spirit?’

The sporting movement is an integral part of our
3.12.6.
society. The COR would stress that there is nothing better than
the club for promoting this ideal and helping young people to
develop their personalities and physical fitness and become
socially integrated, possibly via the sport itself. One of the
basic aspects of the social role of sport is also its capacity to
further the social integration of the physically or mentally
handicapped. The task of the sporting movement should
therefore be recognised and confirmed. This calls for genuine
recognition of the sporting movement as a social partner. The
COR would emphasise that sports clubs are not businesses
and sports associations are not industrial organisations in the
company law sense but associations which fulfil a public
function, essentially on the basis of a voluntary commitment
by members of the public. The sports sector is nevertheless an
important economic sector, representing more than 1,5 % of
the EU’s GNP, and as a service sector it offers a wide range of
outlets.

3.12.7.
The COR therefore believes it essential that the
sporting movement’s relationship with the EU should be
founded on principles which, while respecting the individual
rights of sportsmen and women, safeguard the independence
of the sporting movement and hence its ability to move with
the times and adapt to changes in the rules laid down by
the world sporting movement. The Commission must also
intervene, where it has the authority to do so, to further the
individual protection of sportsmen and women and their
personal fulfilment.

3.12.8.
A warning note nevertheless needs to be sounded.
Managing sport by means of regulations and circulars is no
easy matter. Sport is an extremely varied activity, both in
sporting and in political terms.

3.12.9.
Apart from the fact that each sport has very specific
characteristics, the institutional approach to sport varies from
one EU country to another (see annex), thus complicating the
task of coordination at European level.

3.12.10.
Further, the various aspects of sport which could
prompt the EU to intervene, encompass a number of very
different
fields — education, health, safety, environment,
employment, training, infrastructure etc. — which in many
Member States do not come within the remit of the minister
for sport.

The COR would emphasise that the Commission’s
3.12.11.
introduction of an overall policy for sport must give appropri-
ate pointers so that the sporting movement has rules which

enable it to set up structures which guarantee that everyone
can practice a sport, whatever their level of competence.

3.13. Sport and equal opportunity

3.13.1.
The COR would stress that a ‘sport for all’ policy
based on the principle of equal opportunity is an integral part
of the European model of sport and must be supported and
promoted. This means guaranteeing that all citizens, including
those with disabilities and regardless of age, sex, race or
social/economic background, are able to practice sport. This
approach includes measures to create conditions encouraging
girls and women to take part in sporting activities and in the
management of decisionmaking and administrative bodies, in
the light of their own particular needs as highlighted in the
COR opinion on equal opportunities for girls and boys
in leisure activities and especially in EU youth and sport
programmes. Promoting such accessibility to sport means that
sports facilities must be expanded. Some countries of the
European Union are currently discussing changes to the school
year, and this will mean rationalizing the use of infrastructure
and hence new investment by local authorities, who are
responsible for the sports facilities attached to schools.

3.14. Sport and doping

3.14.1.
The COR notes with satisfaction that, at its meeting
the European
in Vienna on 11 and 12 December 1998,
Council emphasised the need to intensify the fight against
doping and invited the Member States, the Commission and
international sports bodies to look in particular at better
coordination of existing national measures.

3.14.2.
The COR would stress that national measures need
to be coordinated and harmonised if prevention, investigations
and sanctions are to be effective, since this is a problem which
goes beyond national frontiers. The COR therefore supports
the European Parliament’s call for the Commission to submit
proposals for a harmonised public health policy to combat
doping (Resolution of 17 December 1998).

3.14.3.
The COR would draw particular attention to the
need to compile a common list of substances which are
banned in the EU, to avoid an abnormal situation in which
substances are permitted in some Member States and banned
in others.

3.14.4.
The COR notes the proposal to set up an inter-
national anti-doping agency recently tabled by the IOC at
its World Conference in Lausanne in February 1999. The
Committee believes such an agency should be independent
and should be responsible for verifying compliance with
minimum standards for checks and sanctions.

C 374/62

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

23.12.1999

The COR notes with satisfaction the conclusions of
3.14.5.
the informal meeting of Sports Ministers of
the EU in
Paderborn, on 31 May-2 June 1999, which stressed that the
course of the IOC World Conference on Doping in Lausanne
demonstrated the importance and interest for Europe to speak
with one voice on the establishment of an Anti-Doping Agency
and endorsed coordination with the Council of Europe on this
It welcomed the creation of an independent and
matter.
transparent international Anti-Doping Agency which would
involve the European Union.

The COR notes that very young athletes can be
3.14.6.
involved in doping (sometimes as young as 12) and advocates
paying particular attention to protecting young people against
this practice. It also backs the European Parliament’s call
for EU support
for education and awareness campaigns,
particularly in schools, youth clubs and youth organisations.

3.14.7.
In this context the Committee notes the need to
oppose the trend towards the unbridled commercialisation of
sport and distortion of the public image of sport in the media,
which can lead to the destruction of purely sporting values as
a result of drug-enhanced performance.

4. Conclusions

4.1.
Sport is an everyday fact of life for Europeans. More
than 100 million Europeans practice a sport and there are
thousands of sports clubs as well as many associations and
federations. From the point of view of a citizens’ Europe, sport
has more to contribute than any other measure to the
formation of personal identity; because of what it can achieve
in terms of education, health and social integration it represents
a cultural and social phenomenon which is increasingly
coming to be recognised as an important factor both in the
lives of people in Europe’s regional and local authority areas
and for the whole process of European integration.

4.2.
The aim of a European Union sports policy should
therefore be to introduce and develop, by suitable changes to
European legislation, a framework of conditions which will
enable sport in European regional and local authority areas to
fulfil its socially valuable tasks and which will promote its
development, with due regard to the principle of subsidiarity
and the responsibilities of national, regional and local auth-
orities, as well as the independence of sports organisations.
The COR welcomes the invitation put forward at the informal

Brussels, 16 September 1999.

meeting of sports ministers of the European Union in Pader-
born on 31 May-2 June 1999, which called on the European
Commission to set up a working group to work out how the
concerns of sport can be taken into account in the EU Treaty.
The subsidiarity principle is in fact vital here since local and
regional authorities play a key role in social
integration.
Against this background, these authorities are in a position to
use sport as a means of promoting integration. They should
therefore be allowed sufficient freedom of action to achieve
this, in addition to the establishment of a global European
Union sports policy.

The COR notes with satisfaction the conclusions of the
4.3.
1st EU Conference on Sport, on 20-23 May 1999 in Olympia,
which highlighted the conviction that European Sport as
diverse as it may be, has common characteristics that need to
be preserved from possible commercial distortions. It was
stressed that democracy and solidarity, the two principles
defining European sport, need to be preserved and that sport
should be able to fit into the new commercial framework in
which it has to evolve without losing its identity or autonomy,
upon which its social dimension rests.

4.4.
The COR notes that because the powers conferred on
the EU by the Treaty have so far been limited to the economic
aspects of sport, the basic premises of sport and its importance
for a citizens’ Europe have been unduly obscured. The COR
considers that a European policy for sport should be developed
with greater emphasis on the vital cultural and socio-economic
role of sport in Europe. This policy, quite apart from purely
economic questions such as sporting competitions and legis-
lation governing restrictive agreements law, the free movement
of professional sportsmen and women or television without
frontiers, should cover topics such as the contribution of sport
to Agenda 2000, the public utility of clubs and foundations,
and the special importance of voluntary activity, the contri-
bution of sport in the context of a European voluntary service,
its input in revision of the European programmes for youth,
integration of persons with disabilities, measures to assist
women, action against hooliganism, and the impact of the
tobacco and alcohol advertising ban on the financing of
sporting events.

4.5.
The phenomenon of sport in European regional and
local authority areas also depends on the general conditions
framed at European level. Any future European policy for
sport should therefore aim to preserve and develop European
sporting structures along the lines of a ‘European model of
sport’.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Manfred DAMMEYER

23.12.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 374/63

APPENDIX

to the Opinion of the Committee of the Regions

HOW SPORT IS ORGANIZED IN EUROPE

GERMANY

GENERAL FRAMEWORK FOR SPORT

Germany has a federal structure comprising 16 ‘Länder’ (states). This federal structure means that responsibilities
pertaining to matters of sport are shared between the different ‘Länder’.

Organized sport falls mainly within the remit of non-government sporting organizations.

The federal government, ‘Länder’ and local authorities provide the legal and material basis and support for sports
bodies which have insufficient staff and financial resources. The subsidiarity principle is applied to any promotional
measures. The constitutional division of responsibilities, sponsorship and the public promotion of sport come under
the responsibilities of the ‘Länder’.

The federal government is principally concerned with national and supranational sporting issues.

AUSTRIA

GENERAL FRAMEWORK FOR SPORT

The way sport is organized in Austria is based on the activities of autonomous federations and clubs.

The state does, however, have a number of responsibilities for providing support, particularly at the level of the nine
‘Länder’, but also at national level.

GOVERNMENT STRUCTURES

N a t i o n a l

The Federal Ministry for Education and Cultural Affairs is responsible solely for school sport (physical education).
Other tasks such as the allocation of subsidies to sports bodies, clubs and local authorities and the promotion and
organization of national sporting events come under the responsibility of the federal chancellery.

R e g i o n a l

Legally, sporting issues fall within the (autonomous) competence of the nine federal
‘Länder’ which are thus
responsible for promoting sport in general. The sports councils (Landessporträte) are responsible for the administrative
side of sport. Cooperation has been set up between the federal and ‘Land’ bodies to coordinate promotional measures
of national interest.

BELGIUM

GENERAL FRAMEWORK FOR SPORT

Sport in Belgium is organized on a voluntary, independent basis by sports associations. Public authorities have a
mainly complementary role to play which consists of measures to encourage people to practise sport and to support
private initiative, subject to certain conditions. This complementary role does not prevent public authorities taking
their own initiatives (such as Sport for All, training for sports administrators, etc.).

Sport comes under cultural issues and therefore falls within the responsibility of the three communities which make
up Belgium.

C 374/64

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

23.12.1999

DENMARK

Sport in Denmark is covered mainly by the non-government sector and is amateur-based. Despite growing support
from the public authorities, the freedom and independence of voluntary bodies are not only respected, but considered
a key tool in teaching practical democracy. Public authorities must create the framework necessary for people to be
able to practise sport, while it is the job of voluntary bodies to encourage and organize sport within this framework.

The public and voluntary sectors favour recreational sport rather than competitive sport, and attach key importance
to sport at local level.

Local authorities grant financial aid to local sports clubs in the form of investment for building and operating
sporting facilities. In addition, there are grants for local club activities and for the hire of halls and sports fields.

SPAIN

At present sport in Spain is organized on the basis of cooperation between the public and private sectors. Both
sectors are responsible for the promotion and development of physical and sports activities.

The main public bodies are:

— the Higher Sports Council;

— generally, in each autonomous community, a Directorate General for Sports;

— at local level, a Sports Council.

Sport in the private sector is organized in parallel with the allocation of administrative responsibilities:

1)

at national level:

— the Spanish Olympic Committee (COE);

— sports federations for the various disciplines;

— professional leagues with professional teams;

— a number of multi-sports associations;

2)

at autonomous community level:

— regional federations for the various sporting disciplines;

— regional sporting associations;

3)

at local level:

— sporting associations and clubs.

FINLAND

GENERAL FRAMEWORK FOR SPORT

The general aims of Finnish sporting policy were set out in the law on sport which came into force in 1980.

Responsibilities are shared out as follows: public administration of sport is responsible for creating conditions
favourable to sporting activity, while sporting organizations are responsible for holding sporting events.

FRANCE

GENERAL FRAMEWORK FOR SPORT

Sport is organized and developed on the basis of a specific system which brings together public bodies and private
groups within a specific legislative and regulatory framework.

23.12.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 374/65

This particular approach to the public administration of physical and sporting activities is based on the recognition
that these activities are in the public interest and is a special feature of the French sports system.

GREECE

GENERAL FRAMEWORK FOR SPORT

The Secretariat-General for sport and the Ministry for Education are developing Greece’s sports system with two
main objectives:

— high level economic and scientific support for sport in cooperation with sporting federations and scientific

sports centres;

— economic and organizational support for sport amongst the general public, both at central and local level, in

collaboration with local authorities, clubs and other social and sporting institutions.

‘Sport comes under the supreme protection and supervision of the State’ (Article 16 of the Constitution).

IRELAND

GENERAL FRAMEWORK FOR SPORT

Irish sports policy is firmly based on the principles of the European sports charter, but factors such as research into
participation levels and strategy also influence decision-making.

The government’s sports policy recognizes the independence of sporting associations and has undertaken to make a
contribution to the development of sport.

ITALY

GENERAL FRAMEWORK FOR SPORT

Sporting activities are organized by the sports movement, from the clubs at grassroots level to the Italian National
Olympic Committee (CONI) at its head.

The State plays a complementary role and undertakes to promote the conditions for the general public to be able to
freely practise their preferred sports.

The ‘institutional’ law on the CONI (1942) did not delegate any of the State’s powers to this Committee but formally
recognized the role and responsibilities it had already been exercising since it was set up.

The State allocated the proceeds of sports betting to fund the CONI (1948) and confirmed its status as public body.

The CONI therefore has three key functions:

— it is a non-governmental public body;

— it is the Federation of Sports Federations;

— it is the National Olympic Committee recognized by the IOC (International Olympic Committee).

LUXEMBOURG

GENERAL FRAMEWORK FOR SPORT

Sport in Luxembourg is hallmarked by a complementary approach and division of tasks between the autonomous
sports movement and public authorities at national and local level.

C 374/66

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

23.12.1999

PORTUGAL

GENERAL FRAMEWORK FOR SPORT

The government is involved in organizing sport through the State Sports Secretariat, which is answerable to the
Prime Minister and has government administrative back-up from three public bodies: the IND, CAFD and CAAD.

The Secretary of State for Sport is responsible for sport at government level and is responsible for policy and
decision-making. He is supported on the operational side by the three public bodies responsible for the coordination
and development of State action and administrative and financial support for sporting activity, under the supervision
of the member of government responsible for sport.

UNITED KINGDOM

GENERAL FRAMEWORK FOR SPORT

The bodies responsible for sport and leisure are the Department of National Heritage, the Scottish Office, the Welsh
Office and the Northern Ireland Education Department; the Welsh Sports Council, the Scottish Sports Council and
the Northern Ireland Sports Council; local authorities; national associations; federations; and the voluntary and
commercial sectors.

Local authorities’ commitment to sporting needs is covered by a variety of official measures which are not, however,
mandatory. Local authorities are under no legal obligation to provide conditions favourable to practising sport.

The UK Sports Councils of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are the agencies for developing and
financing sport and are responsible in a variety of ways for promoting sport, improving participation in sport, raising
performance standards and improving infrastructure.

SWEDEN

GENERAL FRAMEWORK FOR SPORT

Sport in Sweden is a vast, independent movement managed by a central body: the Swedish Sports Confederation.

Local sports clubs do, however, constitute the basis of the sports movement.

The Swedish system allocates a central role to the Swedish Sports Confederation. Although the confederation is a
strictly non-government body, the government has delegated a number of tasks to the confederation. The government
finances the confederation and provides a minimum of finance for the administrative work of the federations.

NETHERLANDS

GENERAL FRAMEWORK FOR SPORT

The development and implementation of sports policy come under the shared responsibility of the public authorities
and autonomous sports organizations. The private sector is free to determine its own policy for which public
authorities provide financial, organizational and infrastructure support.

The basic principle is therefore that public authorities are not involved in determining policy, insofar as national
sports organizations are capable of taking responsibility for this themselves. Nevertheless, this principle does not
prevent the public authorities — as part of the trade-off between public support and private initiative — from
retaining some policymaking independence on the basis of their own responsibilities for sports.