WRITTEN QUESTION E-0537/03 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Local authority subsidies paid to football clubs run as businesses in order to help them to remain competitive and to make extremely high payments to players.
Date: 2003-02-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: State aid, application of EU law, competition law, distribution business, economic support, interpretation of the law, municipality, professional sport, sports body

21.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280 E/65

(2003/C 280 E/067)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0537/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 February 2003)

Subject: Local authority subsidies paid to football clubs run as businesses in order to help them to remain

competitive and to make extremely high payments to players

1.
Does the Commission still see any genuine difference between football clubs and other commercial
undertakings, given that, in recent decades, football has rapidly changed from being a leisure activity,
played by amateurs under the auspices of an association of clubs, via professional football, with footballers
becoming employees of non-commercial undertakings,
the entertainment
industry, with some clubs even being listed on the Stock Exchange?

to becoming a branch of

2.
How does the Commission view the fact that local authority subsidies to football clubs, which were
essential in an era when the sport was still a voluntary recreational activity, with the populace closely
identifying with their local amateur clubs, are still being paid (cid:1) and, in some cases, increased (cid:1) in a
period of commercial exploitation, competition and extremely highly paid professional footballers?

3.
Does the Commission agree with me that the current manner in which subsidy relationships operate
principally results in commercial profits being retained by the clubs, with any risks or losses being borne
by taxpayers, that competition with other commercial organisations is being supported from the public
purse and that this supports the clubs in their efforts to lure professional footballers away from each other
by promising them extremely high salaries?

4.
In the current situation, does the Commission deem it desirable to protect local authorities from the
increasing pressure under which they find themselves to help their local clubs to succeed against the
competition as far as possible by means of financial injections? Is it seeking to restrict local authority
subsidies geared towards competition instead of towards recreation as far as possible to amateur clubs with
no commercial background?

5.
How does the Commission intend to eliminate the lack of clarity and conflicts of interpretation
which constantly recur with regard to its attitude to one-off subsidies for investment by football
undertakings and one-off subsidies with regard to major expenditure or paid with a view to the clubs’
surviving bankruptcy, funding of the construction or renovation of commercially operated stadiums,
structural annual support, etc.?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2003)

football clubs that engage in economic activities,

Professional
like transferring players, concluding
advertising and sponsorship contracts and distributing merchandising articles are to be considered
undertakings within the meaning of the competition rules of the EC Treaty. Therefore, for the purpose of
applying Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty, professional football clubs are in principle treated in the
same way as other undertakings.

Having regard to the answer to question 1, subsidies and any other transfer of financial resources to
professional football clubs are to be assessed under Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty, that is to say, aid
granted by a public authority which distorts competition and has an effect on trade is in principle
incompatible with the common market and prohibited, unless it is found compatible by the Commission.

This question refers to a ‘current manner in which subsidies relationships operate’ in this sector. To the
Commission’s knowledge, however, State interventions in the field of football take several forms that may
warrant a different assessment as regards presence of State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the
EC Treaty.

C 280 E/66

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

21.11.2003

State aid control policy is aimed at avoiding that undue distortion of competition affects trade between
Member States. It is the responsibility of the competent authority within the Member States to design and
to decide on the promotion of sports activities and its funding, either at amateur or professional level,
while respecting the Community rules on State aid where necessary. As to the distinction between amateur
and professional football clubs, the distinction seems indeed relevant as only the latter might be considered
to be ‘undertakings’.

As already indicated, professional football clubs which are considered to be undertakings are subject to the
State aid rules even if the peculiarities of sport have to be taken into account in the spirit of the Nice
Declaration. Since the application of State aid rules is relatively new in this sector, the Commission’s policy
has to be developed on the basis of individual cases.
In its practice up to now in this sector the
Commission has found that under certain circumstances financing may not constitute State aid in the sense
of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, i.e. when the state subsidies served an educational objective (see the
Commission decision in file N 118/00, published on the Commission’s website) or where the financing
was granted for the construction of stadiums which can be under certain, restrictive, conditions considered
as general infrastructure.

The Commission will continue to develop and clarify its policy in this area, when it will be asked to give
its views in specific cases. Of course, certainty as to the position of the Commission regarding a particular
situation can only be obtained via proper notification by the Member State under the state aid rules.

(2003/C 280 E/068)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0567/03

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 February 2003)

Subject: Conflict of interests at the Commission

Mr Detlef Eckert, head of the INFSO.01 unit (Analysis, policy planning, eEurope (cid:1) strategy formulation
unit reporting to the Director-General) has been granted unpaid leave (CCP) for three years.

According to the Financial Times, Mr Eckert is currently working for Microsoft. It would appear that he
dealt with the Microsoft case and the firm’s dominant position as part of his responsibilities in formulating
a strategy for the sector, as confirmed by Mr Ed Black, President of the Computer & Communications
Industry Association.

1. What administrative measures does the Commission intend to take vis-à-vis this manifest instance of
a conflict of interests?

2.
On what information did the Commission’s spokesman base his statement that Mr Eckert had not
dealt with the Microsoft case, given that the people he was in contact with firmly maintain that the
opposite was true?

3. What investigations has the Commission conducted into the damage which any proven convergence
of interests between Mr Eckert and Microsoft would cause to EU industries and the Commission’s supplies?

Can the Commission guarantee that

4.
Commissioner Monti, did not receive information, however incomplete, on the Microsoft case?

the competition services, placed under the authority of

Does the Commission not consider, in any case, that all the strategies relating to the IT sector should

5.
immediately be reviewed?