WRITTEN QUESTION E-1912/02 by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Commission. FIFA and UEFA's de facto monopoly.
Date: 2002-07-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: broadcasting, competition law, consumer protection, pay television, professional sport, public financing, sports body, sports facilities

17.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92 E/115

(2003/C 92 E/162)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2155/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 July 2002)

Subject: Marshall Islands

With reference to Marshall Islands, will the Commission draw up a list of projects approved for financing
under the EU budget in 2001 and state the total amount of investment for that year?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-1867/02, E-1868/02, E-1869/02, E-1870/02,
E-1871/02, E-1872/02, E-1873/02, E-1874/02, E-1875/02, E-1876/02, E-1877/02, E-1878/02,
E-1879/02, E-1880/02, E-1881/02, E-1882/02, E-1883/02, E-1884/02, E-1908/02, E-1909/02,
E-1996/02, E-1997/02, E-1998/02, E-1999/02, E-2000/02, E-2001/02, E-2002/02, E-2003/02,
E-2004/02, E-2005/02, E-2006/02, E-2007/02, E-2008/02, E-2009/02, E-2134/02, E-2135/02,
E-2136/02, E-2137/02, E-2138/02, E-2139/02, E-2140/02, E-2141/02, E-2142/02, E-2143/02,
E-2144/02, E-2145/02, E-2146/02, E-2147/02, E-2148/02, E-2149/02, E-2150/02, E-2151/02,
E-2152/02, E-2153/02, E-2154/02 and E-2155/02
given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to
Parliament’s Secretariat a table containing the information requested.

It should be noted that the figures contained in the summary table by country are also to be found in the
‘Financial Tables’ portion of the Annual Report on the Implementation of the EC’s External Assistance.

(2003/C 92 E/163)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1912/02

by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Commission

(2 July 2002)

Subject: FIFA and UEFA’s de facto monopoly

The Commission and the European Union of Football Associations (UEFA) recently reached agreement on
a set of new rules governing live broadcasting rights with regard to major football matches. According to
Commissioner Monti, the agreement would be good news for clubs, for broadcasters and for consumers.

However, consumers are having to depend more and more on the good will of certain broadcasters or on
the latter’s ability to finance the broadcasts from commercial advertising. As the FIFA World Cup shows,
more and more matches are becoming available only on pay-channels.

Nevertheless, most of the infrastructure used by football clubs was funded from the public purse. Security
at matches has to be provided by central government or by local authorities. In other words, the costs are
borne by the public, but the profits go into private pockets. Uninformed by any sporting spirit, these
economic entities are exploiting the public’s infatuation with football as a de facto monopoly which
enables them to rake in the profits without doing anything in return for the central government or local
authorities which have to bear any collateral expenditure.

What measures will the Commission take to put an end to this manifest abuse perpetrated by the bosses of
FIFA (who rule like potentates over a multinational undertaking which is not subject to any public
scrutiny), of UEFA and of the major football clubs? Should not minimal public service rules be imposed
with respect to sporting events such as the World Cup and the European Cup?

C 92 E/116

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

17.4.2003

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2002)

The Honourable Member seems to be referring to the case regarding the joint selling of the media rights of
the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) Champions League where the Commission has issued
a statement of objections against UEFA. The Commission’s procedure has caused UEFA to propose a
number of remedies designed to respond to the Commission’s competition concerns. These remedies are
currently under examination.

In analysing the restrictive effect of the arrangement, the Commission examines whether the conditions for
an exemption are possible. The Commission wishes to ensure that the very important media rights of
football tournaments are not sold in a way that harms competition on media markets and which, as a
consequence, harms viewers. However, Community competition law is neutral as to on which market the
owner of the rights chooses to sell the TV rights. As a matter of competition law, the Commission does
not give any preferential treatment of the market for pay-TV over the market for free-TV or vice-versa.
However, the Television without Frontiers Directive provides that Member State may draw up a national
list of events of major importance to society, which must be broadcast on TV channels accessible to the
large majority of the population (cid:1) in effect on free-TV. In Member States where such lists exist, they often
include UEFA and the International Federation of Football Association (FIFA) football.

Before giving its final approval of the settlement regarding the UEFA Champions League, the Commission
wishes to give third parties the opportunity to comment on the result and it will publish a notice in the
Official Journal describing the new arrangements and inviting third parties to submit comments on the
new arrangements.

(2003/C 92 E/164)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1913/02

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(2 July 2002)

Subject: The euro (cid:1) compatibility of Vatican City State (VCS) legislation with Community law

The Monetary Agreement between the Italian Republic, on behalf of the European Community, and the
Vatican City State and, on its behalf, the Holy See (1), which authorises the VCS to issue euros:

(a)

stipulates that the Vatican City State is represented by the Holy See within the meaning of Article 3 of
the Lateran Treaty,

(b) makes reference to the ‘principles established in the existing Agreements between the Vatican City
State and the Italian Republic and in particular in the Treaty between the Holy See and Italy of
11 February 1929 and amendments thereto’ (Recital 1),

(c) provides that ‘financial

institutions located in the Vatican City State may have access to payment
systems within the euro area under appropriate terms and conditions determined by the Banca d’Italia
with the agreement of the European Central Bank’ (Article 10).

Furthermore, Article 11 of the Lateran Treaty stipulates that all central bodies of the Catholic Church
(which include the central bank, the Istituto Opere di Religione (IOR))
from any
interference on the part of the Italian State’.

‘shall be exempt

Given the above, would the Commission state:

(cid:1) what financial institutions are located in the Vatican City State, which of them have been granted

access to payment systems within the euro area, and under what conditions;

(cid:1) whether it considers Article 11 of the Lateran Treaty to be compatible with Community law;

(cid:1) whether the Italian state is able, not least from a legal point of view, to monitor the activities of the

IOR?

(1) OJ C 299, 25.10.2001, p. 1.