WRITTEN QUESTION E-0031/01 by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Transfer system.
Date: 2001-01-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: contract, free movement of workers, professional sport, sports body, work contract

21.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 235 E/97

(2001/C 235 E/103)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0031/01

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2001)

Subject: Transfer system

Article 39 of the EC Treaty guarantees freedom of movement for employees. A debate has now been going
on for some time in the world of football about the extent to which the free movement of employees
applies in that area. It was originally announced that the Commission would be unveiling its vision of the
transfer system at the end of October, not least in the light of the abovementioned freedom of movement
for employees. So far, however, nothing has happened or only informal indications have been given.

The purpose of the following questions is to clarify this issue.

(a) Does the Commission acknowledge that the present football transfer system is an obstacle to the free

movement of employees?

(b)

If so, has it itself drawn up proposals to put an end to this situation? If not, why does it not
acknowledge this?

(c) Does a compromise exist between Fifpro (players(cid:146) trade union) and UEFA and FIFA? If so, what does

this compromise consist of? If not, is there a prospect of a compromise?

(d) According to press reports, one of Commissioner Monti(cid:146)s main misgivings concerns the access to an
independent civil judge after breach of contract. Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of
the EU grants everyone the right to an independent judge. To what extent is the Commission prepared
to negotiate this freedom?

(e) According to the proposals announced so far, UEFA is to introduce a ban on transfers for players up
to the age of 18 and a restricted system for players up to the age of approximately 24. Has the
Commission considered that this may involve discrimination on the grounds of age?

(f) According to recent press reports, Commissioner Monti wants a clearer picture of the revenue that
players generate for football clubs. Does the Commissioner share my view that this should not play
any role since the free movement of employees should be the overriding concern at all times?

(g) The declaration on sport set out in the annexes to the Presidency conclusions from the Nice summit
was keenly supportive of dialogue on the transfer system between sporting organisations, players(cid:146)
organisations and the Union. The last paragraph stated that any compromise must be subject to
compliance with Community law. What consequences will this have for the negotiations? Is the
Commission prepared to negotiate on the free movement of employees and other fundamental rights?

(h) Within what time-scale does it expect to introduce new rules for the transfer system?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2001)

On 5 March 2001, the Commission finalised discussions with the Presidents of FIFA and UEFA on
international football transfers.

Following the discussions, President Blatter has submitted a document which sets out the principles for
amendment of the present FIFA rules regarding international transfers, and has undertaken to modify those
rules in accordance with these principles, in July 2001. There will therefore be new rules for the next
football season. The general principles that will underpin FIFA(cid:146)s new rules are detailed in Press release IP/
01/314. On the basis of President Blatter(cid:146)s undertakings, Commissioner Monti confirmed to him that he no
longer has the intention to propose to the College that the Commission adopts a negative decision in the
competition procedure that is open against FIFA as regards its international transfer rules, subject to taking
proper account of the rights of the complainants in that case.

C 235 E/98

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.8.2001

The Commission started its proceedings on the basis of complaints from players(cid:146) representatives and clubs
in 1997 and 1998 which argued that the FIFA rules were illegal because they deny the footballers the right
to negotiate their way out of contracts. The Commission(cid:146)s objective since then has been to find a balance
between players(cid:146) fundamental right to free movement and the equally legitimate objective of integrity of
sports competitions and the stability of championships.

The Commission had several meetings with the players union, FIFPro,
discussions.

in the course of the recent

It is of particular note in this regard that:

(cid:129) FIFA rules will no longer prohibit players from taking contractual disputes to national courts, and

there will be no FIFA rule (and thereby control) as regards agreed international transfers;

(cid:129) A voluntary dispute resolution mechanism is envisaged, with members chosen in equal numbers by
players and clubs and with an independent chairman, that can review matters related to, for example,
breach of contract, sports sanctions, and the level of training compensation fees;

(cid:129) FIFA has agreed that after two seasons(cid:146) experience there will be a general review of the new
arrangements, and that it will review the findings with the various members of the football family.

The Commission also invited FIFA and UEFA to encourage clubs to start or pursue the social dialogue with
representative bodies of football players, and the Commission(cid:146)s assistance to social dialogue at European
level has been offered.

(2001/C 235 E/104)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0039/01

by Jeffrey Titford (EDD) to the Commission

(18 January 2001)

Subject: European Union target reduction in live animal experiments

The Chief Executive of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, Michelle Thew, recently stated:
(cid:145)The United Kingdom Government should be ashamed of its track record so far on animal experiments.
The Government has so far betrayed its pre-election pledge to significantly reduce the number of United
Kingdom animal experiments; it has failed to implement any strategy whatsoever to achieve the target of
a 50 % reduction in animal experiments adopted by the European Community, and it has failed the British
public who are increasingly frustrated with the Government(cid:146)s lack of action(cid:146).

1. When was this 50 % target reduction announced?

2.

By what committee of the European Commission was it announced?

3. Within what timescale is the 50 % reduction in live animal experiments to be achieved?

4. What monitoring arrangements have been put in place in the fifteen Member States of the European
Union?

5. What is the current progress in meeting the 50 % target reduction in each of the Members States of
the European Union, including the United Kingdom?

6. What action does the European Union propose to take in cases where insufficient progress is being
made towards the target reduction?