COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT   Accompanying document to the   COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS  Developing the European Dimension in Sport   COM(2011) 12 final SEC(2011) 66 final SEC(2011) 67 final
Date: 2011-01-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European citizenship, freedom to provide services, health care, social role, sport

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 18.1.2011 
SEC(2011) 68 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying document to the 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

Developing the European Dimension in Sport 

COM(2011) 12 final 
SEC(2011) 66 final 
SEC(2011) 67 final 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This impact assessment accompanies the Commission's Communication on "Developing the 
European Dimension in Sport". A summary of the main aspects of the impact assessment is 
presented hereafter. 

Background 

Article 165 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) gives the EU a 
new competence to support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States in the 
field of sport. The Treaty calls on the EU to contribute to the promotion of sporting issues and 
provides for EU action aimed at developing the European dimension in sport.  

Article 165 TFEU also contains a reference to "incentive measures in the field of sport", based 
on  which  the  Commission  could  have  considered  proposing  a  new  spending  scheme  within 
the ongoing Financial Perspectives, for instance a limited 2-year EU sport programme. While 
there  is  awareness  within  the  Commission  of  the  high  expectations  from  sport  stakeholders 
regarding financial  support from the EU  in line  with the Treaty mandate,  an  analysis  of the 
current situation has led to the conclusion that there are important budgetary and substantive 
constraints pleading against such a proposal at this stage. Firstly, the remaining margin within 
the relevant chapter of the EU budget is very limited. Thus, a financial volume which could 
have  allowed  a  first  EU  Sport  Programme  that  would  have  had  the  potential  of  meeting  its 
objectives could not be proposed. Secondly, the ongoing 2009 and 2010 Preparatory Actions 
in the field of sport have not yet been subject to an independent evaluation to justify the EU 
added value of a programme. An Impact Assessment for a future EU Sport Programme (as of 
2014), drawing on the evaluation of the relevant Preparatory Actions in the field of sport, can 
only  be  completed  in  2011.  These  considerations  have  led  DG  Education  and  Culture  to 
reconsider  its  initial  plan  for  a  2010  initiative  combining  a  policy  proposal  with  a  spending 
programme. 

This impact assessment is therefore carried out solely for a policy initiative (Communication) 
to implement the Lisbon Treaty in the field of sport. It builds on the new Treaty provisions 
and on a wealth of information gathered in the informal EU cooperation on sport over the past 
years, in particular the experience gained with the implementation of the 2007 White Paper on 
Sport and through a broad consultation process carried out in 2010. 

Problem definition 

As  a  first  step,  the  impact  assessment  addresses  the  need  for  EU  action  by  identifying  the 
main general and specific problems facing sport at EU level. Evidence suggests that there is 
scope for furthering the positive values and effects of sport, that there are threats jeopardising 
the sector’s potential to contribute to society and to the economy, and that the development of 
the sport sector faces particular challenges. 

However, no strategy has existed  so far for an EU approach to  sport that would engage the 
Commission and the Member States on the basis of a common agenda and that would be able 
to address the challenges in a comprehensive manner. The full potential of the sport sector to 
contribute  to  the  EU's  strategic  objectives  in  the  social  and  economic  fields  has  so  far 
remained unexploited. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

The identification of the specific problems and challenges was conducted keeping in mind the 
Treaty’s  mandate  and  the  necessity  to  exclusively  address  problems  that  are  relevant  at  EU 
level (subsidiarity). They have been identified as follows: 

–  Challenges connected with sport's health-enhancing, social and educational functions: 

•  Health concerns due to lack of physical activity; 

•  Social exclusion of disadvantaged groups and unused potential of sport; 

•  Unadapted systems to combine sport and education; 

–  Challenges for sustainable sport structures: 

•  Insufficient support for voluntary activity; 

•  Current  and  future  challenges  to  the  sustainable  funding  of  sport,  also  in  light  of  the 

regulatory changes in Member States in the gambling sector; 

•  Inadequate protection of intellectual property rights; 

–  Doping as a threat to the physical and moral integrity of sportspeople; 

–  Discrimination in sport on grounds of nationality; 

–  Unused scope for improving EU-level dialogue on sport; 

–  Perceived lack of legal clarity regarding the application of EU law to sport; 

–  Insufficient information on sport for the EU-27. 

Objectives 

In  a  second  step,  the  impact  assessment  identifies  the  objectives  of  the  planned  initiative. 
Overall, the planned initiative should aim at  making a contribution to the EU’s overarching 
objectives  laid  down  in  the  Europe  2020  strategy  in  terms  of  sustainable  growth,  fighting 
unemployment, reinforcing social inclusion and advancing people’s Europe. 

In  strategic  terms,  the  planned  initiative  should  aim  at  providing  the  Commission  and  the 
Member  States  with  a  framework  for  EU-level  activities  in  the  field  of  sport  that  should 
foresee actions to be carried out on the basis of Article 165 TFEU. 

In line with the specific challenges identified, the impact assessment elaborates on the specific 
objectives that the planned initiative should aim to achieve: 

–  Promote the health-enhancing, social and educational functions of sport; 

–  Support sport structures based on voluntary activity; 

–  Protect the physical and moral integrity of sportspeople; 

–  Promote fairness and openness in sporting competitions; 

EN 

3 

   EN 

–  Enhance dialogue and cooperation with sport stakeholders; 

–  Increase understanding of the application of EU law to sport; 

–  Support an evidence base for sport in the EU-27. 

Under this chapter, the impact assessment furthermore analyses whether EU action is justified 
on grounds of subsidiarity and it describes the EU added value of the planned initiative. 

In line with the Treaty mandate and since Member States have full competence in the field of 
sport,  the  EU  initiative  will  not  substitute  the  actions  of  the  Member  States  but  propose 
additional action in full respect of subsidiarity requirements and in areas where experience has 
demonstrated  that  progress  in  addressing  the  challenges  identified  cannot  be  sufficiently 
achieved  by  Member  States  in  the  framework  of  their  national  constitutional  systems.  The 
planned initiative will not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the defined objectives, but 
take  account  of  proportionality  requirements  and  the  Treaty  mandate,  which  excludes 
harmonisation and only provides for soft tools for EU-level action. The planned EU initiative 
will be implemented on the basis of existing national and European structures.  

Regarding  the  rationale  for  European  added  value,  the  EU  will  act  as  a  catalyst  in  order  to 
increase  the  impact  of  national  actions  in  the  interest  of  sport.  The  EU-level  initiative  will 
allow for the development of activities that establish links between different organisations and 
actors  in  and  outside  sport,  including  in  particular  public  authorities  at  European,  national, 
regional  and  local  levels,  sport  organisations,  sport-related  organisations,  and  educational 
bodies.  The  actions  will  lead  to  the  exchange  of  know-how  and  good  practices  in  different 
areas relating to sport and physical activity (e.g. health, education, social inclusion). The EU 
can  thereby  provide  opportunities  for  cooperation  among  stakeholders  that  would  not  have 
existed without EU action.  

Policy options 

In  a  third  step,  the  impact  assessment  identifies  three  policy  options  that  represent  possible 
toolsets to meet the objectives identified: 

•  Option A:  Cooperation based on the 2007 White Paper on Sport (baseline scenario); 

•  Option B:  Definition  of  a  strategic  medium-term  framework  for  cooperation  in  sport, 

based on a new EU Agenda for sport (framework + new agenda); 

•  Option C:  Definition of a strategic long-term policy framework, based on the creation of 

an Open Method of Coordination in the field of sport (long-term framework + OMC). 

Assessment of impacts 

In the next chapter, each of the three policy options is assessed in relation to  

(1) 

(2) 

expected  economic,  social  and  environmental  impacts,  including  an  assessment  of 
most important impacts in terms of likelihood and magnitude; 

efficiency,  which  considers  the  relationship  between  inputs  and  the  desired  impacts 
and it also assesses the Commission’s ability to deliver; 

EN 

4 

   EN 

(3) 

effectiveness, which considers the likelihood of achieving the objectives the initiative 
tends to achieve; 

(4) 

coherence in relation to overarching goals of EU policy. 

a) Common to all options are the positive social and, to a lesser extent, economic impacts that 
could  generally  be  expected  from  measures  at  EU  level  aimed  at  promoting  the  societal 
functions of sport through action in core areas, i.e. health-enhancing physical activity, social 
inclusion,  education and training, and voluntary activity (e.g. leading to healthier and more 
inclusive  societies  as  well  as  to  enhanced  employability).  Strategically  oriented  and 
coordinated  policy  approaches  as  provided  for  under  Options  B  and  C  and  in  particular  an 
OMC  (Option  C)  are  likely  to  strengthen  these  positive  effects.  Further  political  efforts  to 
fight doping involving relevant stakeholders at national, European and international levels is 
likely to  have an  indirect positive effect  in terms of  an improved image for sport in society 
and credibility for sporting competitions. 

New action aimed at policy coordination in other areas, such as support for sport structures 
(e.g.  action  aimed  at  ensuring  sustainable  financing  of  grassroots  sport)  potentially  has 
positive  economic  impact  in  terms  of  more  stable  and  better  adapted  sport  structures  in 
increasingly  competitive  markets,  which  potentially  enhances  the  quality  of  sport  services, 
which in turn can help to ensure people’s access to local sport structures. Political approaches 
to tackle discrimination in sport (e.g. action in the field of free movement of sportspeople) can 
have a positive impact on the functioning of the Internal Market and can also help avoiding 
discrimination  of  EU  citizens.  Policy  action  aimed  at  more  legal  clarity  regarding  sporting 
rules  through  increased  understanding  about  the  application  of  EU  law  to  sport  thanks  to 
specific  guidance  at  EU  level  is  likely  to  have  a  positive  impact  on  the  functioning  of  the 
Internal Market, as it potentially helps the sport sector to develop its activities within a sound 
legal  framework.  It  can  also  help  avoid  tensions  between  different  actors  or  legal  conflicts. 
Support  aimed  at  improving  EU  dialogue  and  cooperation  structures  can  lead  to  better 
cooperation with stakeholders as well as inclusive and transparent processes. Experience from 
other  sectors,  e.g.  education,  culture,  youth,  shows  that  political  support  for  developing  an 
evidence base for the EU-27 can lead to better informed national and European policy making 
based  on  sound  economic  reasoning,  for  instance  regarding  public  spending  or  investment 
decisions. Access to information of sufficient quality can equally benefit other actors, such as 
sport organisations, which have to ensure sound economic management of their activities.  

Regarding  environmental  impacts,  the  report  recognises  that  sport,  in  particular  large  sport 
events,  can  to  some  extent  negatively  affect  the  environment.  All  options,  although  to 
different degrees, can potentially promote environmentally friendly approaches. 

Each  of  the  options  is  then  assessed  in  terms  of  the  likelihood  that  the  most  important  and 
desired  positive  impacts  will  occur  and  their  magnitude.  The  most  important  impacts  are 
identified  to  be  threefold:  improvement  of  public  health,  social  inclusion  of  disadvantaged 
groups, and contribution to employability and jobs. The likelihood and magnitude is generally 
found  to  be  higher  for  Options  B  and  C  than  for  Option  A  given  the  strategic  political 
framework and new actions foreseen under these options as compared to the baseline. 

b) The efficiency of Option A has been assessed very low, despite the positively rated human 
resources  implications  and  despite  the  fact  that  the  Commission  would  have  the  systemic 
capability to deliver. The reason for this assessment are the high likelihood that this Option 
would  not  reach  desired  impacts  and  the  fact that  a  mere  continuation  of  ongoing  activities 

EN 

5 

   EN 

appears to be difficult to justify in light of the new Treaty mandate that explicitly calls for EU 
action  in  the  field  of  sport.  In  contrast  to  Option  A,  Option  C  requires  proportionately  high 
inputs  in  terms  of  human  resources,  while  the  likelihood  of  this  option  to  reach  desired 
impacts  is  high  to  very  high.  An  improvement  of  efficiency  must  therefore  be  assumed  for 
Option  C  in  relation  to  the  baseline.  Regarding  the  ability  to  deliver,  there  is  to  date  no 
experience with launching an OMC in a new horizontal policy area like sport. At this early 
stage of formal EU cooperation in the field of sport, there is not yet sufficient evidence for a 
developing  consensus  for  an  OMC.  Option  C’s  ability  to  deliver  has  therefore  been  rated 
negative in comparison with the baseline. The assessment of efficiency of Option B comes to 
a  more  balanced  result  as  regards  both  the  relationship  between  impacts  (high  likelihood  of 
reaching  desired  impacts)  and  inputs  (no  additional  human  resources  needs).  Moreover,  the 
ability  to  deliver  has  been  rated  very  high  as  compared  to  the  baseline,  given  the  stated 
support  from  governments  and  stakeholders  for  the  approach  suggested  under  Option  B. 
Overall efficiency for Option B has therefore attained the highest score among the options. 

c)  Regarding  its  effectiveness,  each  option  is  assessed  with  regard  to  the  strategic  objective 
(new  strategic  approach  to  EU-level  cooperation  in  sport)  and  the  seven  specific  objectives 
that  the  initiative  aims  to  achieve.  Option  A  does  not  meet  the  strategic  objective  and  only 
makes  a  very  limited  contribution  to  achieving  the  specific  objectives.  Options  B  and  C, 
through  the  creation  of  an  EU  framework  for  sport,  can  reach  the  strategic  objective. 
Concerning  the  achievement  of  objectives  related  to  core  areas  where  an  OMC  can  most 
likely  be  implemented,  the  effectiveness  of  Option  C  is  rated  higher  than  that  of  Option  B. 
Similarly,  through  targeted  actions  foreseen  in  the  EU  Agenda  for  areas  aimed  at  tackling 
objectives  relating  to  fairness  and  openness  in  competitions,  dialogue  and  cooperation  in 
sport,  and  regarding  more  clarity  on  the  application  of  EU  law  to  sport,  Option  B  must  be 
rated higher than Option C. As an aggregated score, the likelihood of Option C to reach the 
objectives is assessed to be slightly higher than that of Option B. 

d) The coherence of the options is assessed with regard to the overarching goals of the Europe 
2020 strategy, the EU Health Strategy and the functioning of the Internal Market. Option A, 
given the lack of any new action, is not considered to be coherent with the overarching goals. 
Options  B  and  C  both  make  a  contribution  to  growth  and  jobs,  public  health,  and  to  the 
Internal  Market.  It  is  assumed  that  a  long-term  policy  approach  providing  for  an  OMC  is  a 
slightly more coherent approach to reach general EU policy goals, in particular those relating 
to Europe 2020 (by helping the sport sector develop its full growth and jobs potential), which 
is expressed in the slightly higher value of Option C in comparison with Option B. 

Comparison of options / choice of preferred option 

The following chapter of the report summarises the comparison of the options in light of the 
four criteria based on the assessment of impacts, efficiency, effectiveness and coherence. 

•  The  positive  economic  and  social  impacts  of  Options  B  and  C  are  likely  to  be  similar, 
while the new EU Agenda, provided for under Option B, seems particularly conducive to 
furthering them. The level of impact can be expected to be slightly higher under Option C, 
that would result in an OMC for certain core areas of EU-level cooperation in sport (e.g. 
health-enhancing physical activity). 

•  Concerning efficiency, Options A must be rated very low. Despite a much higher level of 
inputs,  Option  C  is  likely  to  be  more  efficient  as  compared  to  the  baseline,  but  more 
difficult  to  deliver.  Option  B  is  more  efficient  than  the  baseline  and  more  efficient  than 

EN 

6 

   EN 

Option  C.  Moreover,  the  Commission’s  ability  to  deliver  desired  impacts  reaches  the 
highest score under Option B. 

•  Regarding  effectiveness,  the  attainment  of  the  objectives  cannot  be  guaranteed  under 
Option  A,  while  Options  B  and  C  both  reach  the  strategic  objective  and  the  specific 
objectives. Option C is likely to produce slightly higher effects. 

•  Regarding  the  coherence  criterion,  Option  A  is  not  conducive  to  achieving  the  EU's 
overarching social and economic goals while Options B and C can both make a valuable 
contribution. Option C, providing for an OMC, is considered the most suitable instrument. 

The impact assessment concludes that Option B is the most appropriate way to respond to the 
challenges  faced  by  sport  in  the  EU  and  to  implement  the  sport  provisions  of  Article  165 
TFEU. Option B is the most balanced option and the one that is likely to provide the greatest 
net benefits in this phase of developing the EU dimension in sport. 

On this basis, the Commission will propose a Communication defining a policy framework 
for  cooperation  in  sport  at  EU  level,  including  a  new  EU  Agenda  for  sport.  The 
Communication  should  also  announce  an  Impact  Assessment  for  a  possible  EU  Sport 
Programme from 2014 onwards, in order to complement the cooperation framework. 

Monitoring and Evaluation 

Finally,  the  impact  assessment  presents  an  overview  of  the  planned  steps  regarding 
monitoring and evaluation, notably by listing a first set of core indicators of progress towards 
meeting  the  general  and  specific  objectives  pursued  by  the  proposed  initiative  (Option  B). 
Part  of  the  proposed  EU  framework  for  cooperation  in  sport  will  be  an  evaluation  in  2015, 
which  should  provide  an  opportunity  to  consider  the  possible  introduction  of  an  OMC  for 
certain aspects of cooperation in sport at EU level. 

EN 

7 

   EN