WRITTEN QUESTION P-1528/00 by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Council. The Bosman case ‐ revision of the EC Treaty and addition of a protocol on professional football or sport in general.
Date: 2000-05-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European social policy, free movement of workers, professional sport

C 72 E/70

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.3.2001

It is up to the Member States to adopt the appropriate regulations to implement these requirements.
Directive 1999/31/EC must be transposed into national law by 16 July 2001. The building of residential
estates, however, does not fall under the scope of the Directive.

(2001/C 72 E/083)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1528/00

by JosØ Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Council

(5 May 2000)

Subject: The (cid:145)Bosman case(cid:146) (cid:129) revision of the EC Treaty and addition of a protocol on professional football

or sport in general

The (cid:145)Bosman decision(cid:146) (1) has profoundly altered the nature of football in Europe, as the Commission has
recognised. That ruling established that Article 39 of the EC Treaty (ex Article 48) prohibits the adoption
of any rule by sporting associations (including national associations and UEFA) limiting the use by football
teams of professional players who are nationals of other Member States. The richer clubs (cid:129) which
generally belong to the small number of countries with richer national markets (cid:129) have thenceforth been
able to recruit players who, often even at the apprentice stage, are induced to leave their original clubs in,
usually, their home Member State. The result is that football has been divided into a big-capital, big-
business branch in a few countries, and a minor branch resigned to losing its best assets to the ever-
spiralling financial attraction exerted by the centres of power. This ultra-deregulated free-for-all has led to
the actual sports results being largely predetermined beforehand: it is essentially money that wins, not
sporting merit in the broader sense. Openness in sport is being jeopardised; so too are the basic principles
of sporting competition, as deeply rooted in our societies. Europe itself and its diversity are suffering too.
Nonetheless, the Commission, as represented by Commissioner Viviane Reding in her statements to the
press, has now suggested that one (cid:145)remedy(cid:146) for this problem could be to devise mechanisms to ensure
solidarity between rich and poor clubs, and, in particular, to redistribute the colossal sums arising from
television rights. These two questions are, however, completely separate. Television rights may legitimately
be considered a purely commercial matter, to be dealt with under the general rules; the point at issue,
however, is, directly and specifically, the validity of the rules governing a sport as such with respect to the
make-up of teams. It is not acceptable for the EC Treaty to intervene in this area, inducing decisions which
run counter to the sporting interest. Unfortunately, it seems that the intention is, once again, to reduce the
matter to economic and financial criteria alone, at a time when, precisely because of the ever-growing
weight of that aspect, sport in general and football in particular are increasingly being emptied of their
true character. It is surely up to the EU institutions to resolve this sporting problem, instead of continuing
to listen to the language of money alone. The only solution is to revise the EC Treaty by (cid:129) as has already
been suggested in several quarters (cid:129) annexing a protocol designed to protect in full any regulations
practised by sports authorities where major and specific interests of a particular sport are at stake.

Does the Council endorse the Commission(cid:146)s position as recently stated? If not, does the Council intend to
include these problems, given their considerable social repercussions, in the agenda for the 2000 IGC, with
the specific objective of revising the EC Treaty by annexing a specific protocol, as has already been
suggested, notably by the current Presidency?

(1) Case C-415/93, Union royale belge des sociØtØs de football association and others / Jean-Marc Bosman and others

and Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) / Jean-Marc Bosman (cid:129) 15 December 1995.

Reply

(18/19 September 2000)

The Council is well aware of the developments in professional football after the ruling of the Court of
Justice in the (cid:145)Bosman case(cid:146).

The Council has not, however, taken any position on these developments and has not received any
proposals from the Commission with a view to regulating the issue described in the question.

6.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 72 E/71

As regards the Intergovernmental Conference, the agenda, as established at present, does not include the
revision of the EC Treaty in respect of sport in the way suggested in the question or otherwise. As the
Honourable Member is probably aware, the Council has no role in the Conference of the Representatives
of the Governments of the Member States and is therefore unable to comment on work being undertaken
by the Conference.

(2001/C 72 E/084)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1543/00

by Mikko Pes(cid:228)l(cid:228) (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 May 2000)

Subject: Progress on the horizontal plan for the development of rural areas

rural development was

Finland(cid:146)s horizontal plan for
the end
of October1999. The programme contains plans relating to environmental subsidies for agriculture and
aid to less favoured areas (LFAs). The Finnish programme should have been the first to be considered.
The problems which had arisen were resolved and all the necessary clarifications and additional informa-
tion had been forwarded in time. The horizontal plan for rural development was to have been discussed at
the meeting of the STAR committee on 29 March. However, this discussion was postponed to the meeting
on 26/27 April. The Commission has now sent Finland a new notification stating that it will not be
possible for STAR to consider the plan until May.

forwarded to the Commission at

The Finnish Agriculture and Forestry Ministry has confirmed that the last date for applying for a subsidy in
respect of Spring 2000 is 26 May. No later than that date farmers will have to commit themselves for five
years to new environmental and LFA aid schemes. Specialised contracts for the commitment of environ-
mental subsidies were due to have been finalised on 24 April.

The farmers have been put in an impossible position.

1. What does the Commission intend to do about this?

Can the farmers alter their commitment to aid schemes after the Commission and national decisions

2.
have been made and notified to the farmers?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2000)

The Finnish horizontal rural development plan was foreseen to be presented to the committee on
agricultural structures and rural development (STAR-committee) on 29 March 2000. However, due to
some pending problems of the Finnish action plan under the Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 Decem-
ber 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural
sources (1), the point was withdrawn to ensure further clarification of the situation. The April 2000
meeting of the STAR-committee was partially cancelled as the committee on the development and
conversion of regions acted as STAR-committee dealing only with objective 1 issues. Therefore, the
Finnish plan was on the agenda of the STAR-committee on 24 May 2000 when a favourable opinion was
given. The final step on the approval procedure will be the Commission decision.

Agri-environmental support can be granted to farmers who give commitments for at least five years.
However, Member States may provide for adjustment of commitments during the period of operation,
provided that: the approved programme includes the scope for such adjustment, and the adjustment is
duly justified, having regard to the objectives of the undertaking.

(1) OJ L 375, 31.12.1991.