COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 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) 68 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) 67 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

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) 68 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

1.3. 

1.4. 

1.5. 

1.6. 

1.7. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

3.4. 

4. 

5. 

Procedural issues and consultations......................................................................................4 

Purpose......................................................................................................................................4 

Identification .............................................................................................................................4 

Organisation and Timing ..........................................................................................................4 

Re-submission of Impact Assessment report ............................................................................5 

Background ...............................................................................................................................6 

Main sources of evidence..........................................................................................................7 

Consultations.............................................................................................................................9 

Problem definition ................................................................................................................11 

Nature and scope of problems.................................................................................................11 

Main challenges ......................................................................................................................12 

Objectives ..............................................................................................................................15 

General objectives...................................................................................................................16 

Specific objectives ..................................................................................................................16 

EU added value and subsidiarity.............................................................................................18 

Target groups ..........................................................................................................................19 

Policy options.........................................................................................................................19 

Analysis of impacts ...............................................................................................................22 

5.1. 

Economic, social and environmental impacts.........................................................................22 

5.1.1.  Option A (Baseline scenario)..................................................................................................22 

5.1.2.  Option B (Framework + new Agenda) ...................................................................................23 

5.1.3.  Option C (Long-term framework + OMC) .............................................................................25 

5.2. 

5.3. 

5.4. 

5.5. 

6. 

6.1. 

6.2. 

7. 

Assessment of most important impacts...................................................................................26 

Assessment of efficiency ........................................................................................................30 

Assessment of effectiveness....................................................................................................32 

Assessment of coherence ........................................................................................................34 

Comparing the options .........................................................................................................36 

Comparative analysis of options .............................................................................................36 

Choice of the preferred option ................................................................................................37 

Monitoring and evaluation...................................................................................................38 

Annex I: Report on the EU-wide public consultation .......................................................................40 

Annex II: White Paper Implementation table ...................................................................................54 

Annex III: The added value of EU action in relation to Health-Enhancing Physical Activity......59 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
1. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATIONS  

1.1. 

Purpose 

Article 165 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) gives the EU a 
new  competence  for  sport.  Article  165  calls  on  the  EU  to  contribute  to  the  promotion  of 
sporting  issues  and  provides  that  EU  action  should  be  aimed  at  developing  the  European 
dimension in sport. It is the Commission's role to develop and propose a suitable initiative to 
implement  these  new  provisions.  The  aim  of  the  Impact  Assessment  is  to  help  prepare  this 
initiative. 

1.2. 

Identification 

Lead service: DG EAC.E.3 (Sport Unit). 

Other  services  involved:  SG,  SJ,  DG  AIDCO,  DG  COMM,  DG  COMP,  DG  DEV,  DG 
ECFIN,  DG  EMPL,  DG  ELARG,  DG  ENTR,  DG  ENV,  DG  ESTAT,  DG  HOME,  DG 
INFSO,  DG  MARKT,  DG  JUST,  DG  REGIO,  DG  RTD,  DG  SANCO,  DG  RELEX,  DG 
TAXUD. 

Commission Work Programme reference number:  

2010/EAC/011: Communication on implementation of sport provisions; 

Subject: Proposal for the implementation of the sport provisions in Article 165 TFEU. 

1.3.  Organisation and Timing  

Action/Steps 

Inter-Service Group "Sport" 

Informal inter-service consultation about online questionnaire 

Questionnaire for online consultation approved  

Date 

19 February 2010 

22-26 February 

10 March 

1st  meeting  of  Inter-Service  Steering  Group  for  the  Impact  Assessment  –  discussion  of  Impact 
Assessment Roadmap1  

26 March 

Bilateral consultations with stakeholders 

February – June  

Launch of public consultation 

European Sport Forum & Informal Ministerial Meeting, Madrid 

End of consultation process (8 weeks after launch) 

Analysis of the results of the consultation process 

Finalisation of draft Impact Assessment Report 

7 April 

19-21 April 

2 June 

June 

30 June 

1 

The  Impact  Assessment  Roadmap  providing  a  first  description  of  the  planned  Commission  initiative 
was published at http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/planned_ia/roadmaps_2010_en.htm. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Inter-Service Steering Group meeting on draft Impact Assessment Report 

Submission of Impact Assessment Report to Impact Assessment Board 

Impact Assessment Board meeting 

Impact Assessment Board opinion 

Re-submission of Impact Assessment Report to Impact Assessment Board 

Impact Assessment Board final opinion 

1.4.  Re-submission of Impact Assessment report 

7 July 

30 July 

1 September 

3 September 

27 September 

11 October 

On  30  July  2010,  DG  EAC  submitted  to  the  Impact  Assessment  Board  (IAB)  an  Impact 
Assessment  report  (IA)  for  a  proposal  combining  a  political  Communication  and  a  limited 
spending  programme  in  the  field  of  sport.  Following  its  meeting  on  1  September  2010  the 
IAB requested to receive a revised draft IA report.  

The discussion in the IAB meeting and the comments from the Board revealed that there were 
important  underlying  constraints  with  regard  to  DG  EAC’s  proposal  for  a  new  spending 
scheme,  i.e.  a  2-year  EU  Sport  Programme  (2012-2013).  An  analysis  of  the  situation 
confirmed that there were three types of constraints: 

–  Political and budgetary constraints: It is the Commission’s obligation to carefully assess 
proposals for initiatives that require additional EU spending and to ensure that a proposal is 
conducive  to  meeting  the  EU’s  general  policy  objectives.  In  the  current  political  and 
economic  context,  a  cautious  approach  must  be  taken  regarding  the  mobilisation  of 
additional  financial  resources  for  new  policy  initiatives  within  the  remaining  margins  of 
the  ongoing  Financial  Perspectives  2007-2013.  The  mere  fact  of  a  new  Treaty  basis  for 
sport is an important but not sufficient justification for a proposal for a two-year EU Sport 
Programme  at  this  point  in  time.  While  there  is  awareness  in  the  Commission  about  the 
high expectations from sport stakeholders regarding financial support from the EU in line 
with the Treaty reference to “incentive measures” (Art. 165 TFEU), the remaining margin 
within  the  relevant  budget  line,  under  which  the  Programme  would  have  been  proposed 
(Heading  3B),  is  very  limited.  Thus  a  reasonable  financial  volume  of  the  first  EU  Sport 
Programme, which would have had the potential of meeting its objectives, could not have 
been  guaranteed.  A  proposal  for  a  Sport  Programme  with  too  small  financial  resources 
would have risked not ensuring the achievement of the envisaged programme objectives. 

–  Substantial constraints: DG EAC’s intended proposal for a two-year EU Sport Programme 
aimed  at  financial  support  for  transnational  networks  in  four  priority  areas,  building  on 
projects  financed  from  the  2009  and  2010  Preparatory  Actions  in  the  field  of  sport. 
Stakeholders’  great  interest  in  such  measures  could  be  demonstrated  (e.g.  through  the 
number of project proposals) and an independent evaluation of the Preparatory Actions is 
foreseen in 2011. However, no evaluation is available at this stage to justify the EU added 
value of such measures in an independent manner. An Impact Assessment for a future EU 
Sport Programme will be carried out drawing on the evaluation of the relevant Preparatory 
Actions in the field of sport. 

–  Procedural  constraints:  Necessary  adaptations  in  the  procedural  roadmap  have  caused 
constraints regarding the possibility for a timely implementation of the proposed two-year 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
Sport Programme as of 2012. Under the most optimistic scenario, the timetable foresaw the 
adoption of the proposal by the Commission at the very end of 2010. This would have been 
too risky an approach with a view to the inter-institutional adoption process in the EP and 
the  Council  under  the  ordinary  legislative  procedure,  which  may  not  have  allowed  for  a 
Decision by the end of 2011. 

These  three  elements  have  led  DG  EAC  to  reconsider  its  initial  plan  for  a  2010  initiative 
combining  a  policy  proposal  with  a  spending  programme.  The  initiative  of  a  political 
Communication is maintained, but no longer includes a proposal for a spending scheme 
for  2012-2013.  The  proposed  initiative  for  implementing  the  new  EU  competence  for  sport 
(Communication)  is  of  a  strategic  nature.  It  is  a  policy  measure  which  demonstrates  the 
Commission’s willingness to meet the high expectations from stakeholders who want to see 
the EU playing its role in promoting sport in line with the new Lisbon Treaty provisions on 
sport. 

According to the Board's observations and taking account of its recommendations, DG EAC 
submitted  the  present  revised  IA  on  27  September.  The  revised  report  in  particular  aims  at 
better demonstrating where the EU can add value to sport policy making (chapters 2 and 3). It 
identifies  key  challenges  in  7  areas  in  the  context  of  large  disparities  among  the  Member 
States. It also identifies suitable objectives that, in line with the new Treaty mandate, provide 
for policy support and coordination to address these challenges. To further clarify the choice 
of the proposed initiative (Communication providing for an EU framework for cooperation in 
sport),  the  available  policy  options  (chapter  4)  have  been  explained  in  greater  detail  and 
reduced to three choices, which has been mirrored in the assessment and comparison of the 
options  (chapter  5).  Three  options  are  considered  to  be  the  only  relevant  policy  choices 
following the decision not to propose any funding scheme at this stage. The assessment of the 
policy  options  has  been  significantly  deepened  based  on  four  criteria:  impacts,  efficiency, 
effectiveness  and  coherence.  Finally,  a  shortened  summary  of  the  consultation  process  has 
been annexed, the essence of which has been integrated into this IA report. 

On 11 October the Board issued its opinion on the re-submitted report. Overall the Board was 
satisfied with the quality of the report and the introduced changes. It explicitly welcomed the 
fact that no Programme would be proposed at this stage. The Board asked for some additional 
minor changes in the report that have been addressed in the present final version as follows: 
insertion of an annex (Annex III) to illustrate the added value of EU action relating to health-
enhancing  physical  activity,  in  particular  by  showing  disparities  among  the  Member  States 
(point  C.1  of  the  Board's  opinion),  inclusion  of  additional  information  regarding  Member 
States'  positions  in  the  annexed  consultation  document  (Annex  I)  and  verification  of  the 
quotes  made  therein  (point  C.2),  further  clarification  on  monitoring  and  development  of 
indicators (point C.3), and insertion of additional cross-references to the consultation process 
in the main document (point D). 

1.5.  Background 

The Lisbon Treaty gives the EU an explicit competence for sport for the first time, which has 
several implications including new formal structures for sport in the Council and a mandate to 
promote sport at EU level. The new EU competence for sport has triggered high expectations 
on the side of sport stakeholders, who since the inclusion of sport in the draft Constitutional 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
Treaty have eagerly waited to see their interests better promoted and the specific nature of the 
sport sector increasingly recognised at EU level.2  

Before the new competence entered into force, EU level activities in the field of sport were 
carried out solely on the basis of other Treaty provisions. Over the past years, cooperation in 
sport with the Member States took place exclusively on an informal basis. The Commission 
also developed a structured dialogue with the sport movement. These structures have proven 
to be very useful for the implementation of the Commission's 2007 White Paper on Sport3.  

Due to its societal and economic dimensions4 and its complex organisational structures, sport 
is  a  sector  that  shows  synergies  or  links  with  many  other  EU  policy  areas.  It  appears, 
however, that the EU’s potential, through interaction of its different policy areas, to support 
the sport sector in playing its part in Europe's society and economy, has not been fully used. 
The  new  EU  competence  for  sport  provides  an  opportunity  to  address  these  aspects  and  to 
thereby ensure that the positive effects of sport are of greater benefit for EU citizens and for 
European society as a whole. 

The basis for this Impact Assessment are the new provisions for sport enshrined in Article 165 
TFEU, the experience gained with the preparation and implementation of the White Paper on 
Sport, the ongoing Preparatory Actions in the field of sport launched in 2009 and 2010, and a 
broad consultation process carried out during the preparatory phase for the planned initiative 
in  the  first  half  of  2010.  These  elements  are  outlined  in  more  detail  in  sections  1.6  and  1.7 
below. 

1.6.  Main sources of evidence 

The new Treaty provisions on sport (Article 165 TFEU) foresee a competence providing for 
supportive,  coordinating  and  supplementary  measures.  They  give  clear  indications  for  the 
scope  of  EU  action  and  for  the  nature  of  actions  to  be  proposed  within  the  planned  EU 
initiative (see section 3.3). The new Treaty mandate also provides for the objectives that the 
planned  initiative  in  the  field  of  sport  is  aiming  to  achieve  and  which  are  addressed 
accordingly in this Impact Assessment (see chapter 3).  

The proposed EU initiative for which this Impact Assessment has been carried out builds on 
the 2007 White Paper on sport, which introduced a first informal setting for EU cooperation 
in sport and which was accompanied by an Action Plan "Pierre de Coubertin" that engaged 
the Commission.5 The implementation of the 53 Actions has required close cooperation with 
the Member States and sport stakeholders and has meanwhile almost been accomplished. The 
White  Paper  actions  had  been  solely  based  on  soft  policy  measures  (e.g.  exchange  of  good 

2 

3 
4 

5 

Also  the  European  Parliament,  in  its  “Written  Declaration  on  increased  European  Union  support  for 
grassroots  sports”,  calls  on  the  Commission  and  the  Member  States  to  promote  sport  for  all  and 
grassroots sport structures; 60 signatories as of 9.9.2010 (ongoing). 
COM(2007) 391, 11.7.2007. 
Sporting activity is an integral part of the daily lives of citizens. The Eurobarometer survey 2009 shows 
that 65% of EU citizens regularly engage in some form of physical activity. Sport also fulfils important 
functions  within  society  in  terms  of  public  health,  with  regard  to  the  inclusion  of  marginal  groups, 
within formal and non-formal education and as a means to reinforce active citizenship. On the economic 
side the sector, in particular through its professionalised and commercialised segments but also its non-
profit structures, generates growth, jobs and investment. 
A  "White  Paper  Implementation  Table"  illustrating  the  state  of  progress  in  implementing  the  Action 
Plan "Pierre de Coubertin" has been annexed to this report. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
practices,  mainstreaming,  studies,  conferences)  and  aimed  at  paving  the  way  for  the  then 
already expected entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty (Art. 165 TFEU). 

The  actions  included  in  the  "Pierre  de  Coubertin"  Action  Plan  relate  to  sport's  societal  and 
economic dimensions  and  to  its organisation. They cover a broad range of topics which are 
relevant  for  the  Impact  Assessment  exercise  and the content of the planned  EU initiative in 
the  field  of  sport.  They  include  studies  on  specific  sport-related  themes  that  have  been 
commissioned by either the Sport Unit (DG EAC) or by other units and Directorates-General, 
notably a study on the training of young sportsmen and sportswomen in Europe6, a study on 
sports agents7, a study on volunteering in the EU8, a study on internal market barriers to sport 
funding9  (ongoing),  a  study  on  the  equal  treatment  of  non-nationals  in  individual  sport 
competitions10  (ongoing),  and  a  study  on  sport's  contribution  to  economic  growth  and 
employment11  (to  be  launched  in  2010).  They  also  include  views  of  the  general  public  that 
were  gathered  in  2009  through  a  special  Eurobarometer  survey  on  sport  and  physical 
activity12. They furthermore include specialised EU conferences in the field of sport, notably 
an EU Conference on Anti-Doping (May 2009), an EU Conference on Licensing Systems for 
Club Competitions (September 2009), and an EU Conference on sustainable funding models 
for  grassroots  sports  in  the  Internal  Market  (February  2010).13  The  actions  foreseen  in  the 
White  Paper  have  allowed  for  progress  in  specific  areas  where  a  high  degree  of  consensus 
emerged  for  further  action,  such  as  the  area  of  sport  and  health  where  the  Commission  can 
capitalise on the 2008 EU Physical Activity Guidelines14. 

Many of the focal areas addressed in the White Paper on Sport have been developed more in-
depth in six informal EU Working Groups in the fields of "Sport and Health", "Sport and 
Economics",  "Non-profit  sport  organisations",  "Anti-doping",  "Education  and  Training  in 
Sport" and "Social Inclusion and  Equal Opportunities in Sport".15 The progress achieved by 
the experts in these working groups, led by the Commission's Sport Unit, has been regularly 
reported to Member State Sport Directors and Sport Ministers. 

In  addition,  the  consultation  process  for  the  2010  initiative  has  revealed  that  there  are  new 
developments  and  challenges  inside  and  outside  sport  that  may  require  EU  level  action  in 
areas  not  yet  sufficiently  covered  in  the  2007  White  Paper  (e.g.  in  the  field  of  sport 

6 
7 
8 
9 

10 

11 

12 
13 
14 
15 

Public contract EAC/14/06. Results of the study: http://ec.europa.eu/sport/news/news492_en.htm. 
Public contract EAC/13/08. Results of the study: http://ec.europa.eu/sport/news/news879_en.htm. 
Public contract EACEA/2008/07. Results of the study: http://ec.europa.eu/sport/news/news900_en.htm. 
Public  contract  MARKT/2009/04/E.  Results  of  the  Conference  on  sustainable  funding  models  for 
grassroots sports in the Internal Market carried out in the framework of that study have been published: 
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/top_layer/sport_en.htm.  
Public  contract  EAC/19/2009:  http://ec.europa.eu/sport/news/news792_en.htm.  The  study  should 
consider the growing number of questions and complaints addressed to the Commission by European 
citizens,  informing  it  of  restrictions  on  access  to  sport  activities  and/or  sport  competitions  in  certain 
Member States and in various sports. 
Public contract to be published end of 2010: Sport is a cross-sectoral sector that shows strong synergies 
with other economic sectors (e.g. production, retail, infrastructure, tourism, education, media, betting). 
Through  the  activities  in  all  these  sectors  sport  directly  and  indirectly  contributes  to  macroeconomic 
output.  Research  and  studies  to  measure  the  economic  importance  of  sport  have  been  carried  out, 
however, not for the EU-27. 
Eurobarometer on Sport and Physical Activity, published in March 2010. 
Reports from these conferences have been published: http://ec.europa.eu/sport/index_en.htm. 
EU Physical Activity Guidelines, informally endorsed by EU Ministers responsible for sport in 2008. 
Reports from meetings of these Working Groups have been published:  
http://ec.europa.eu/sport/library/doc484_en.htm. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
information or regarding the specific nature of sport), or areas where no specific action was 
taken, such as certain financing-related aspects (e.g. intellectual property rights). 

The  2009  and  2010  Preparatory  Actions  in  the  field  of  sport16  focus  on  areas  that  have 
been  identified  in  the  cooperation  process  with  governmental  and  non-governmental 
stakeholders  over  the  past  years  as  relevant  for  possible  future  EU  funding.  They  cover  the 
areas  of  health-enhancing  physical  activity,  gender  and  sport,  sport  for  people  with 
disabilities,  education  and  training  in  sport,  anti-doping,  social  inclusion  of  migrants  in  and 
through sport, and volunteering in sport. Calls for proposals launched in these fields are aimed 
at testing suitable transnational networks and actions for possible support through a future EU 
Sport  Programme.  The  number  of  submitted  proposals  demonstrates  the  strong  interest  of 
stakeholders  to  get  involved  in  transnational  cooperation  in  sport.  An  evaluation  will  be 
carried out in 2011 and should provide an evidence base for assessing the added value which 
EU  financial  support  can  bring  to  sport.  The  results  from  this  evaluation  will  feed  into  an 
Impact Assessment in 2011 for a possible EU Sport Programme as of 2014. 

1.7.  Consultations 

To prepare the planned 2010 EU initiative in the field of sport, the Commission carried out 
broad  consultations  involving  the  Member  States,  the  sport  movement  and  other  sport 
stakeholders,  experts  as  well  as  the  public  at  large.  Given  sport's  horizontal  nature,  it  also 
ensured  a  closely  coordinated  approach  with  all  concerned  Commission  services.  The 
consultations covered both policy aspects of sport at EU level and aspects related to a possible 
future  Sport  Programme.  A  report  on  these  consultations  is  attached  to  this  Impact 
Assessment. 

(a) Member States: 

•  Informal meeting of EU Sport Directors (Barcelona, 25-26 February 2010); 

•  Informal meeting of EU Ministers responsible for sport (Madrid, 20-21 April 2010); 

•  First  formal  meeting  of  EU  Ministers  responsible  for  sport  in  the  Council  (Brussels,  10 
May 2010), prepared by the first meeting of the Council Working Party on Sport (Brussels, 
6 April 2010); 

•  Meetings of the informal EU Working Groups in the field of sport: 

–  Member State Working Group on the White Paper on Sport (3 February 2010) 
–  EU Working Group on Sport and Health (30 June 2010) 
–  EU Working Group on Anti-Doping (14 January and 27 May 2010) 
–  EU Working Group on Sport and Economics (10-11 June 2010) 
–  EU Working Group on Non-Profit Sport Organisations (17 February 2010) 
–  EU Working Group on Education and Training in Sport (19-10 May 2010) 

16 

Open calls EAC/21/2009 and EAC/22/2010 have been published: 
http://ec.europa.eu/sport/index_en.htm. A budget for the Preparatory Action 2011 has been proposed. In 
the framework of the 2009 Call for Proposals, the Commission provided financial support to 18 sport-
related projects, involving 150 sport organisations in Europe. Number of submitted proposals in 2009 
(four areas): 207 applications, in 2010 (three areas): 144 applications. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
–  EU  Working  Group  on  Social  Integration  and  Gender  Equality  in  Sport  (8  July 

2010). 

(b) Sport stakeholders: 

•  The  EU  Sport  Forum,  which  constitutes  the  main  dialogue  platform  between  the 
Commission and key sport stakeholders, was organised the second time in 2010 (Madrid, 
19-20 April) with discussions focussing on the implementation of the sport provisions in 
the Lisbon Treaty; 

•  Bilateral  und  multilateral  discussions  took  place  with  targeted  stakeholders  such  as 
European Sport Federations, the European Olympic Committees, other European umbrella 
organisations  for  sport,  national  umbrella  organisations  for  sport,  national  Olympic  and 
Paralympic committees, other actors in the field of sport at European level, social partners, 
and  other  international  and  European  organisations  such  as  the  International  Olympic 
Committee and international federations. 

(c) Relevant international organisations:  

•  Council of Europe; 

•  World Health Organisation, UNESCO. 

(d) The general public:17 

•  A public on-line consultation was conducted during the second quarter of 2010 (7 April - 2 
June). The online questionnaire was divided into two parts: "Addressing key challenges for 
sport in Europe" (Part I) and "Identifying policy priorities for EU action" (Part II). Public 
interest in this consultation was high and the response rate considerable (more than 1,300 
valid submissions). 

•  In addition to the online consultation, the Commission received 48 position papers related 
to the consultation process, mainly from sport organisations, but also from Member States. 
The  majority  of  these  contributions  provided  high-quality  input  for  sport-specific  topics 
ranging from health-related issues over aspects relating to education in sport to governance 
questions. However, they also reflected issues, which are not part of the EU's mandate as 
defined in Article 165 TFEU.  

•  The  outcomes  of  this  public  consultation  exercise,  including  the  list  and  the  full  text  of 
submitted  position  papers,  were  published  on  the  Sport  Unit's  website  on  28  July: 
http://ec.europa.eu/sport/index_en.htm 

(e) Group of Independent Sport Experts: 

•  Ten well-known independent experts with proven experience in the area of sport and the 
EU  were  consulted  on  the  implementation  of  the  new  Treaty  provisions  on  sport.  The 
Group  met  twice.  The  final  report  was  submitted  to  Commissioner  Vassiliou  in  mid-
September and published on the Sport Unit's website.  

17 

Consultations  with  the  general  public  were  carried  out  in  line  with  the  “General  principles  and 
minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by the Commission” - COM(2002) 704. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(f) Relevant services within the European Commission: 

•  An Inter-Service Steering Group for the Impact Assessment (ISSG) was established on the 
basis of the existing Inter-Service Group "Sport" which comprises the following services: 
SG, SJ, AIDCO, COMM, COMP, DEV, ECFIN, ELARG, EMPL, ENTR, ENV, ESTAT, 
INFSO,  JLS  (now  JUST  and  HOME),  MARKT,  REGIO,  RELEX,  RTD,  SANCO, 
TAXUD. The ISSG met twice, to launch the Impact Assessment process and to discuss the 
Impact Assessment Roadmap (26 March 2010) and to discuss the draft Impact Assessment 
Report (7 July 2010). 

•  Bilateral consultations have taken place between the leading service (EAC) and the main 
concerned  services  with  responsibilities  in  the  field  of  sport,  notably  COMP,  EMPL, 
HOME, JUST, MARKT, and SANCO. 

2. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

This chapter identifies the main challenges in the field of sport based on the experience gained 
in EU level cooperation in sport over the past years and more particularly taking account of 
the  results  of  the  consultation  process.  These  are  areas  where  coordinated  EU  action  is 
currently considered insufficient. The delineation of the problems takes account of the Treaty 
mandate. This chapter begins with a short summary of the nature and scope of the problems in 
light of their relevance for EU-level action. 

2.1.  Nature and scope of problems 

Most of the challenges and threats that sport is currently facing are related to the problems (A-
G)  identified  hereafter.  The  degree  to  which  individual  Member  States  benefit  from  the 
positive values and effects of sport or cope with the identified threats to sport varies widely 
from one Member State to the other. Many of the problems have a cross-border dimension; 
some are of a global nature and they cannot be efficiently solved at national level. It therefore 
appears that the EU could play its part in helping the Member States and the sport sector to 
address the challenges identified, in particular through: 

–  increased policy support from the EU level, in particular to enhance mutual learning and to 

build knowledge;  

–  better policy coordination among the Member States; 

–  measures supplementing already existing policies and actions at national level to increase 

their positive impact. 

A  general  problem,  however,  seems  to  relate  to  the  fact  that  there  is  to  date  no  defined 
framework  for  EU-level  cooperation  in  sport  to  address  the  identified  challenges  in  a 
structured, comprehensive and future-oriented way. No strategic approach exists that would 
engage the Commission and the Member States on the basis of a common agenda18 and that 
would be able to integrate sport’s cross-cutting nature. 

18 

The  2007  White  Paper  on  Sport  included  an  Action  Plan  which,  however,  only  committed  the 
Commission. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.2.  Main challenges 

A) Challenges connected with sport's health-enhancing, social and educational functions 

- Health concerns due to lack of physical activity 

According  to  a  2004  Eurobarometer  survey,  a  large  majority  of  EU  citizens  (78%)  cite  the 
improvement of health as the principal benefit of sport.19 The latest Eurobarometer survey20, 
however,  shows  that  39%  of  respondents  never  do  physical  exercise.  The  linkage  to  the 
school environment is likely to be one critical factor in this context. Studies show that the role 
of  sport  and  physical  activity  in  education  is  declining,  leading  to  health-related  impacts 
especially on the younger generation21. The problems of overweight and obesity are growing 
in the EU. They reduce the quality of life, put individuals' lives at risk and are a burden on 
health  budgets  and  the  economy.  In  the  public  consultation  process  in  2010,  stakeholders 
expressed  the  view  that,  like  all  governmental  actors  at  local,  national,  European  and 
international  level,  the  EU  has  to  make  a  contribution  to  efforts  aimed  at  counteracting  the 
current  trend22.  The  concept  of  health-enhancing  physical  activity  (HEPA)  seeks  to  address 
the problem. Some achievements have already been made but they need to be supported in a 
more targeted way. The 2008 EU Physical Activity Guidelines, developed in the EU Working 
Group  “Sport  and  Health”  and  informally  endorsed  by  EU  Ministers  responsible  for  sport, 
define  how  policies  and  practices  of  actors  (public  and  private)  at  all  levels  (EU,  national, 
local) can be used to make it easier for citizens to move more in their daily lives. However, 
interest in this approach among different Member States and different sport organisations has 
been  uneven.  Generally,  Member  States  that  have  the  lowest  level  of  physical  activity  have 
been the least active in the informal cooperation structures on HEPA. And sport organisations 
often do not reflect on the balance, within their structures and activities, between competitive 
and non-competitive activities, between what they offer to talented people with high sportive 
ambitions and what they offer to the general population. Local networks with different types 
of  actors  –  schools,  parents,  sport  clubs,  other  associations  –  can  explore  new  forms  of 
cooperation,  but  this  is  not  yet  the  case  in  many  Member  States  or  regions.  The  linkage  of 
local networks through EU-wide networks is currently being tested with limited EU funding23.  

- Social exclusion of disadvantaged groups and unused potential of sport 

The  potential  of  sport  in  relation  to  social  inclusion  and  equal  opportunities  has  not  been 
sufficiently implemented in national and EU policy-making, as confirmed by stakeholders in 
the public consultation carried out in preparation of this initiative and within the EU Working 
Group  “Social  Inclusion  and  Equal  Opportunities  in  Sport”.  The  rights  of  people  with 
disabilities  need  further  attention  in  the  field  of  sport.  Sport  infrastructure  is  not  developed 
and  accessible  for  these  groups throughout  Europe.  Training  of  monitors  and  volunteers  for 
European  sport  events  for  people  with  disabilities  is  often  lacking  and  European 

19 
20 
21 
22 

23 

Special Eurobarometer 213 "Citizens of the European Union and sport" (November 2004). 
Eurobarometer 334 "Sport and Physical Activity" (March 2010). 
E.g. the EU study ‘Young people's lifestyles and sedentariness’ (2005). 
This  has  already  been  done  through  action  in  the  fields  of  health  and  consumer  protection,  research 
funding as well as in education and culture. Until now, however, more dedicated political mechanisms 
as well as dedicated funding have been missing. 
First results of the 2009 Preparatory Action in the field of sport suggest that in view of the variety of 
practices and actors in different Member States and in respect of the role of the Member States in this 
field, support for transnational projects and exchange of information and good practices is likely to have 
a high European added value. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
organisational structures are still in development. The popularity of sport and its social value 
are hardly used in specific integration-related programmes for immigrants or in programmes 
which  could  help  reach  the  aims  of  full  citizenship  and  prevent  people’s  exclusion  from 
society. Participation in organised sport, which could prevent people from social exclusion in 
communities,  is  especially  low  among  disadvantaged  groups.24  The  participation  rates  of 
women and girls in sport are not in balance with those of men and boys. Sport and its media 
coverage  contribute  to  gender  stereotypes  throughout  Europe.  Moreover,  the  number  of 
women in leadership positions in European and national sport governing bodies is still very 
limited. 

- Unadapted systems to combine sport and education 

Governmental  and  non-governmental  sport  stakeholders,  most  recently  in  the  public 
consultation carried out in the first half of 2010 and in the EU Working Group “Education and 
Training  in  Sport”,  have  regularly  expressed  concern  about  the  fact  that  the  contribution  of 
sport  and  physical  education  to  educational  objectives  and  the  prevention  of  early  school 
leaving is often not, or not sufficiently, recognised. Higher levels of EU mobility and a lack of 
qualified  coaches  and  trainers  in  the  sport  sector  increase  the  relevance  of  compatible 
qualification  systems  for  sport  professions,  as  confirmed  by  sport  organisations  in  their 
written  contributions  to  the  planned  initiative.  The  required  training  intensity  for  young 
talented  sportspeople  today  makes  it  very  difficult  to  ensure  their  school  education  (i.e.  a 
"dual  career"),  which  is  particularly  true  for  talented  athletes  who  practise  mainly  abroad.25 
Sport programmes for talented youth are often not open for people from outside the relevant 
Member State and quality standards are not transparent. 

B) Challenges for sustainable sport structures 

- Insufficient support for voluntary activity  

Volunteering in sport has a long tradition in most but not all parts of Europe. According to the 
2009 EU study on volunteering, up to 16% of the adult population volunteer in sport in the 
Nordic countries, while in some Eastern Member States structures for volunteering are much 
less  developed.  Experience  from  the  majority  of  Member  States  has  shown  that  voluntary 
activity is vital for running sport activities and managing sport structures, local sport clubs in 
particular. It helps ensuring that sport can be offered to all citizens and remains accessible for 
all. The study on volunteering and the exchange of views between Member States in the EU 
Working Group “Non-profit sport organisations” confirm challenges with regard to voluntary 
activity in sport in social terms (e.g. lack of recognition; lack of qualifications to ensure better 
employability;  dominance  of  male  volunteers),  political  terms  (e.g.  lack  of  national 
strategies),  legal  terms  (e.g.  lack  of  specific  legal  frameworks;  unclear  tax  regimes)  and 
economic terms26 (e.g. funding needs for local sport clubs; under-estimated economic value). 
Stakeholders participating in the public consultation called for increased support at EU level 
to address such challenges. 

24 
25 

26 

67% of Europeans are not member of any sport or fitness club (Eurobarometer 2009). 
The European Council in its 2008 Declaration on Sport called on the Commission to address the topic 
of combined high-level sports training and general education ("dual career"). 
For  instance,  the  European  Year  of  Active  Citizenship  through  Volunteering  2011  inter  alia  aims  at 
lowering the obstacles to volunteering and at empowering voluntary structures. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
- Discrepancies between developments in gambling markets and the financing of sport 

The organisation of gambling services, including those run by private operators and those run 
or licensed by the State, directly or indirectly contribute to the financing of sport activities in 
all  EU  Member  States.  Ongoing  developments  in  gambling  markets  and  changing  national 
regulatory  frameworks  for  gambling  have  led  to  perceived  challenges  on  the  side  of 
governmental  and  non-governmental  sport  stakeholders  with  regard  to  sustainable  income 
streams from gambling activities into sport. Stakeholders have pointed out the need to address 
the financial return for sport, especially grassroots sport, from the organisation of sport betting 
activities. 

- Inadequate protection of intellectual property rights 

Sports-related  intellectual  property  rights  (IPRs)  are  an  essential  source  of  income  for 
professional sport. Representatives of professional sport supported by many EU governments 
have repeatedly called on the EU to ensure better protection of these rights, including in the 
form  of  written  submissions  to  the  consultations  carried  out  in  preparation  of  the  planned 
initiative.  The  main  questions  concern  the  protection  of  IPRs  from  unauthorised  use,  the 
maintenance  of  practices  based  on  exclusive  territorial  licensing  and  the  balancing  between 
the sale of media rights and the public's right to information. In connection with IPR, the issue 
of  defining  a  property  right  for  the  organisers  of  sport  competitions  in  relation  to  the  event 
they  organise  while  ensuring  the  right  of  the  public  to  information  deserves  to  be  further 
examined. 

C) Doping threatening the physical and moral integrity of sportspeople 

Article 165 TFEU specifically requires the EU to protect the physical and moral integrity of 
athletes. The integrity of sportspeople is endangered by the doping phenomenon. Doping is a 
threat  to  European  sport  and  European  society  alike.  The  fight  against  doping  has  therefore 
been dealt with as a priority topic in the informal cooperation on sport and in the EU Working 
Group “Anti-Doping”. Many organisations are dealing with doping as a problem in high-level 
sports, including the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), national and regional anti-doping 
organisations,  WADA-accredited  laboratories  in  the  EU,  the  Council  of  Europe  and 
UNESCO.  In  relation  to  these  organisations,  the  EU  tends  to  get  involved  because  EU  law 
protects the individual rights of athletes and players. In spite of considerable efforts from the 
mentioned  institutions,  doping  remains  a  key  problem  in  high-level  sport.  In  recent  years, 
doping practices have spread most rapidly in amateur sport and fitness, which are almost not 
covered by anti-doping efforts in many Member States. 

D) Discrimination in sport on grounds of nationality 

While the Treaties prohibit discrimination based on nationality and enshrine the principle of 
free movement of workers, the European Court of Justice has taken into account the need to 
preserve certain specific characteristics of sport in past rulings dealing with the composition 
of  national  teams,  deadlines  for  transfer  rules  for  players  in  team  sport  competitions  and 
compensation for recruitment and training of young players. However, free movement rules 
do  not  only  apply  to  professional  players:  since  the  entry  into  force  of  the  TFEU,  any 
discrimination  on grounds of nationality is prohibited within the scope of application of the 
Treaties, which now includes amateur sport. A number of cases brought to the attention of the 
Commission and repeated calls for legal clarity from the sport movement indicate that there 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
are restrictions on access to sport activities and/or sports competitions in some Member States 
and in various sports. 

E) Unused scope for improving EU-level dialogue on sport 

Dialogue and cooperation involving sport stakeholders at international, European and national 
levels are a key condition for the success of the EU's dealings with sport and related policy 
processes.  Given  the  specific  organisation  of  sport,  the  diversity  of  actors  in  sport  and  the 
complexity of the topics to be addressed, the organisation of a balanced dialogue at EU level 
is a challenging task. The European Council in its 2008 Declaration on Sport called for further 
strengthening dialogue with the Olympic and sport movement at EU level. As a follow-up, the 
Olympic  and  sport  movement  and  EU  Member  States  in  the  informal  and  formal  structures 
for sport have made concrete proposals for a strengthened dialogue structure. While the EU 
Sport  Forum,  run  by  the  Commission,  is  a  widely  accepted  platform  for  dialogue  with  the 
main  European  sport  stakeholders,  thorough  reflection  is  needed  as  to  how  a  regular  high-
level dialogue on sport between the EU institutional level and the sport movement, including 
the Olympic movement, could be structured to remain efficient, representative and inclusive. 

F) Perceived lack of legal clarity regarding the application of EU law to sport 

A  perceived  lack  of  clarity  on  the  application  of  EU  law  to  sport,  Internal  Market  and 
Competition provisions in particular, have led sport stakeholders to repeatedly call for more 
certainty and increased guidance from the Commission. Such requests have increased in light 
of  the  new  Treaty  provisions  that  call  on  the  EU  to  take  account  of  sport’s  specific  nature 
when  promoting  European  sporting  issues.  While  the  White  Paper  on  Sport  has  already 
provided  comprehensive  explanations  on  the  application  of  EU  law  to  sport,  stakeholders 
claim  that  this  was  not  sufficient,  in  particular  as  regards  the  application  of  the  Treaty 
provisions and secondary law to sport in fields such as anti-trust, State aid, free movement of 
workers  and  services,  and  value-added  tax,  and  relating  to  both  professional  and  amateur 
sport. 

G) Insufficient information on sport for the EU-27 

Sound,  accurate  and  comparable  data  and  information  on  sport  for  EU-27  are  scarce. 
Developing a new policy area without such parameters is difficult and often delicate, since it 
has  to  be  based  on  assumptions.  Policy  making  in  sport  at  national  and  EU  level  would 
considerably  benefit  from  a  better  knowledge  base,  allowing  decision-makers  to  take 
informed  decisions.  EU  Sport  Ministers,  including  in  the  new  Council  structures,  and  sport 
stakeholders have repeatedly called on the Commission to provide EU-wide data in socially 
(e.g.  participation)  or  economically  (e.g.  growth  and  employment  in  sport)  oriented  issues. 
While work has started among a group of 12 Member States within the EU Working Group 
on Sport & Economics to measure the macro-economic impact of sport, no full picture for the 
EU-27  will  be  available  in  the  short  term.  Eurostat  has  not  yet  been  involved  in  providing 
specific statistics on sport. In light of the new Treaty competence for sport, this should change 
in the years to come. 

3. 

OBJECTIVES 

This chapter identifies the general and specific objectives of the planned EU initiative in the 
field  of  sport  in  response  to  the  challenges  identified  in  Chapter  2.  It  describes  the  added 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
value that EU involvement  should  seek  to provide, and it defines  the target groups that the 
initiative aims to reach. 

3.1.  General objectives 

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.  The  specific 
objectives listed hereunder (points A, B, E and G) are of relevance in this respect. Moreover, 
through action relating to objectives under point A), the initiative should make a contribution 
to the fulfilment of some of the key objectives of the EU Health Strategy 2008-201327. 

The new Treaty basis provides the opportunity to develop the European dimension in sport in 
a new policy context. The planned EU initiative should aim at providing the Commission and 
the Member States with a strategic framework as a basis for EU level activities in the field 
of  sport  that  could  foresee  actions  to  be  carried  out  on  the  basis  of  article  165  TFEU  in 
connection, or not, with other Treaty provisions but in full respect, always, of the fundamental 
principles  provided  in  the  Treaty.  Such  an  EU  framework  should  be  coherent  and  closely 
coordinated  with  EU  policies  and  programmes  in  areas  that  relate  to  sport,  such  as  health, 
education  and  training,  youth,  regional  development  and  cohesion,  social  inclusion, 
employment,  citizenship,  justice,  home  affairs,  research,  as  well  as  internal  market  and 
competition. The framework should help the sport sector to play its part in contributing to the 
EU’s overall objectives, in particular the Europe 2020 strategy.  

3.2.  Specific objectives 

The initiative seeks to address the challenges identified in section 2.2 by defining actions with 
clear EU added value in line with the experience gained from informal cooperation in sport 
and  the  2010  consultation  exercise.  The  main  specific  objectives  that  the  initiative  seeks  to 
achieve result directly from the Treaty mandate (Article 165 TFEU). 

A) Promote the health-enhancing, social and educational functions of sport 

The initiative should put a strong focus on promoting the health-enhancing, social inclusion 
and  educational  functions  of  sport  by  providing  for  new  actions  where  EU  involvement  is 
considered beneficial and of added value. The initiative should in particular facilitate policy 
approaches  that  identify  best  practice  examples  and  that  address  the  existing  disparities 
between the Member States in order to lead to: 

–  more health-enhancing physical activity in Europe as a result of policies that make it easier 

for citizens to move more in their daily lives; 

–  more  participation  of  disadvantaged  group  in  (organised)  sport;  better  access  to  sport  for 
persons with disabilities, more gender equality in sport, better integration of and respect for 
disadvantaged groups in communities through sport activities and events; 

27 

COM(2007) 630. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
–  increased physical activity in formal and non-formal education, a dual career environment 
for  talented  sportspeople,  and  increased  transparency  of  qualifications  in  sport  furthering 
European mobility in sport. 

B) Support sport structures based on voluntary activity 

The  initiative  should  seek  to  develop  policy  approaches  and  actions  that  contribute  to 
sustainable sport  structures  in  EU  Member States.  These should include in particular policy 
support to 

–  promote  voluntary  activity  in  sport  based  inter  alia  on  the  outcomes  of  the  EU  study  on 

volunteering; 

–  contribute  to  a  more  sustainable  financing  for  grassroots  sport  based  inter  alia  on  the 
outcomes  of  the  EU  study  on  internal  market  barriers  to  sport  funding  and  in  relation  to 
planned EU level initiatives in the field of gambling; 

–  better  protect  sport-related  intellectual  property  rights  in  light  of  the  EU  Digital  Agenda 

initiative while ensuring the right to access to information; 

–  further  strengthen  solidarity  mechanisms  within  sports  (e.g.  from  top  level  to  grassroots 

sport). 

C) Protect the physical and moral integrity of sportspeople 

The initiative should pave the way for the Commission and the Member States to join forces 
in the fight against doping and should contribute to the protection of the health and well-being 
of athletes. The initiative should in particular support the emergence of consistent anti-doping 
policies  and  actions  at  national  and  European  level  and  in  international  fora  (WADA,  CoE 
and  UNESCO).  This  should  include  support  for  the  exchange  of  good  practices  between 
relevant  actors,  including  preventive  measures  targeting  amateur  sport  and  fitness.  A 
particular focus should be on cooperation with national data protection authorities. 

D) Promote fairness and openness in sporting competitions 

The initiative should aim at developing policy approaches and actions to contribute to fairer 
and  more  open  sport  competitions.  This  should  include  in  particular  the  free  movement  of 
professional  and  amateur  sportspeople,  where  the  initiative  should  provide  for  continued 
monitoring  of  compliance  with  the  EU  legal  framework  while  also  taking  account  of  the 
specific nature of sport. 

E) Enhance dialogue and cooperation with sport stakeholders 

The initiative should aim at contributing to efficient and inclusive dialogue and cooperation in 
sport at European level by providing appropriate EU level structures. The initiative should in 
particular ensure a strengthening of the existing structured dialogue with sport stakeholders by 
committing to the EU Sport Forum as the key annual platform for dialogue and exchange and 
by proposing  a high-level structured cooperation between the Olympic  and sport movement 
and the EU institutions. 

F) Increase understanding of the application of EU law to sport 

To address calls from stakeholders for more legal clarity regarding the application of EU law 
to  sport,  the  initiative  should  aim  at  identifying  areas  where  the  Commission  could  provide 
guidance  with  the  aim  of  increasing  understanding  on  the  side  of  sport  stakeholders.  The 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
initiative should in particular provide for limited, but structured future assistance for Member 
States and sport stakeholders aimed at guidance on the interpretation of the specific nature of 
sport.  Possible  areas  could  be  the  reconciliation  of  provisions  on  nationality  with  the 
organisation of competitions in individual sports on a national basis, transfers in team sports, 
the application of state aid law to sport, or the application of the VAT regime to sport. 

G) Support an evidence base for sport in the EU-27 

The initiative should seek to strengthen the knowledge base about sport in the EU in order to 
facilitate  informed  policy  decisions  at  European,  national,  regional  and  local  levels  and  to 
support sport organisations and other interested stakeholders in their activities. The initiative 
should  support  enhanced  cooperation  and  exchange  of  best  practices  involving  e.g. 
academics, the sport industry, the sport movement and public authorities. The initiative should 
also support ongoing work led by the Commission aimed at measuring the economic impact 
of  sport,  and  it  should  pave  the  way  for  including  sport  in  the  EU's  annual  statistical 
programme. The possibility of establishing a sport monitoring function in the EU should be 
studied. 

3.3.  EU added value and subsidiarity 

The EU's right to act in the field of sport is explicitly set out in Article 165 TFEU. According 
to Article 6 TFEU, Union action in the field of sport should consist of measures to support, 
coordinate  or  supplement  the  actions  of  the  Member  States.  Regarding  the  scope  of  EU 
action, the main task according to the Treaty is the promotion of European sporting issues and 
the  development  of  the  European  dimension  in  sport.  Article  165  TFEU  provides  for  the 
adoption  of  incentive  measures,  while  any  harmonisation  of  the  laws  and  regulations  of  the 
Member  States  is  excluded.  It  also  provides  for  the  adoption  of  Council  Recommendations 
further  to  a  proposal  by  the  Commission.  The  new  provisions  do  not  detract  from  the 
application of fundamental Treaty provisions, such as EU Internal Market rules, to sport. 

The architecture of the EU initiative will be designed according to this mandate, including the 
possibility  of  Council  Recommendations,  and  in  full  respect  of  the  underlying  legal 
framework provided by the Treaty with relevance for sport.28 The initiative should contribute 
to complementarity, synergy and compatibility with relevant EU policies and programmes. 

Since Member States retain their full competence in the field of sport, the EU initiative will 
not  substitute  the  actions  of  the  Member  States  but  propose  action  in  full  respect  of 
subsidiarity  requirements  and  in  areas  where  experience  (e.g.  from  implementing  the  White 
Paper)  has  demonstrated  that  progress  in  addressing  the  challenges  identified  cannot  be 
sufficiently  achieved  by  Member  States  in  the  framework  of  their  national  constitutional 
systems.  Furthermore,  no  action  will  be  envisaged  that  would  be  in  conflict  with  the 
fundamental principle of the autonomy of sport organisations and representative structures. 

In view of the large disparities among the Member States in the sport sector, European added 
value will mainly be achieved through the identification and dissemination of good practices 
and  support  networking.  The  EU  will  act  as  a  catalyst  in  order  to  increase  the  impact  of 
national  actions  in  the  interest  of  sport.  The  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 

28 

There are no legal limits on the EU’s right to act in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
                                                 
organisations, sport-related organisations, educational bodies, and which 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).  This  will  contribute  to  the  identification  of  innovative 
solutions  to  address  challenges  common  to  several  Member  States.  It  will  also  be  a  tool  to 
promote the creation and development of European networks in the field of sport. The EU can 
thereby provide opportunities for cooperation among stakeholders that would not have existed 
without EU action. Existing disparities between Member States can thereby be addressed. In 
addition,  the  global  or  transnational  nature  of  some  of  the  problems  identified  exceeds  the 
capacity of action of each individual Member State and can better be addressed at EU level.29 

The  planned  EU  initiative  will  not  go  beyond  what  is  necessary  to  achieve  the  defined 
objectives.  It  takes  account  of  proportionality  requirements  and  the  Treaty  mandate,  which 
excludes harmonisation and only provides for "soft" tools for EU-level action. The initiative, 
in line with Article 165 TFEU, does not have a regulatory objective. It will be implemented 
on  the  basis  of  existing  national  and  European  structures.  The  initiative  will  be  designed  to 
simplify  and  improve  existing  regulation  in  order  to  reinforce  rule  compliance  and 
effectiveness in line with the EU proportionality principle.  

3.4.  Target groups 

–  Member States’ public authorities (national, regional, local levels); 

–  International  sport  organisations  (International  Olympic  Committee,  international  sport 
federations  and  other  international  sport  organisations,  including  leagues,  professional 
sport  organisations,  amateur  sport  organisations  and  leisure  and  outdoor  activity 
organisations); 

–  European sport organisations (European Olympic Committees, European sport federations 
leagues,  professional  sport 

and  other  European  sport  organisations, 
organisations, amateur sport organisations and leisure and outdoor activity organisations); 

including 

–  National  sport  organisations  (National  Olympic  Committees,  confederations,  federations, 

regional organisations, leagues, clubs etc.); 

–  Other European sport-related organisations (e.g. in the fields of education, media, sporting 

goods); 

–  International  and  European  organisations,  such  as  the  Council  of  Europe,  the  WHO, 

WADA and UNESCO; 

–  Organisations representing employees in the sport sector; 

–  Organisations  representing  sportspeople  and  support  staff  (trainers,  coaches,  volunteers, 

…); 

–  Citizens at large (e.g. minority groups, pupils, students, seniors, etc.). 

4. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

The following policy options represent the toolsets that can be used to address the problems 
identified  in  Chapter  2  and  to  seek  the  objectives  outlined  in  Chapter  3.  They  are  coherent 

29 

Examples illustrating disparities between Member States with regard to physical activity can be found 
in Annex III. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
                                                 
with  the  Treaty  mandate  to  support,  coordinate  and  supplement  the  actions  of  the  Member 
States. No new financial incentives will be proposed under any of these options.30 

Option A:  Cooperation based on the 2007 White Paper on Sport (Baseline scenario) 

Nature of the tool: 31 

•  Loose cooperation format; continuation of informal EU level cooperation with the Member 
States  and  of  dialogue  with  sport  stakeholders  on  the  basis  of  the  activities  developed 
through the implementation of the White Paper (Action Plan "Pierre de Coubertin"); 

•  No new  policy  actions; no new structured EU level agenda for informal  cooperation and 

formal discussion in the Council. 

Description of policy actions: 

•  Finalisation  of  the  implementation  of  the  Action  Plan  "Pierre  de  Coubertin"  (few 

remaining soft-policy measures engaging the Commission); 

•  Continuation  of  ongoing  EU  level  activities  will  be  limited  and  will  include:  support 
through the exchange of views and best practices with Member States according to an ad-
hoc  agenda,  experts’  cooperation  within  the  six  informal  Commission-led  Working 
Groups32, the provision of a platform for stakeholder involvement, mainstreaming of sport 
in EU programmes and funds, monitoring of compliance with EU law (e.g. free movement 
of workers). 

Focus areas: Topics should be in line with the three main strands of action identified in the 
White Paper (sport’s social role, economic dimension, organisation), and focus on those areas 
where  informal  cooperation  has  been  most  fruitful,  i.e.  promotion  of  health-enhancing 
physical activity, of education and training in sport, of social inclusion in and through sport, 
and of volunteering; the fight against doping; the development of an evidence-base. 

Option B:  Definition  of  a  strategic  medium-term  framework  for  cooperation  in  sport, 
based on a new EU Agenda for sport (Framework + new Agenda) 

Nature of the tool: 

•  Strategic  EU  framework  for  cooperation  in  sport  as  a  basis  for  the  identification  of 

medium-term priorities; 

•  New EU Agenda for action in the field of sport involving cooperation with Member States, 
sport organisations, international bodies, third countries and other interested stakeholders. 
No compulsory targets will be defined; action will be mainly based on exchange of good 
practices and mutual learning. 

30 

31 

32 

The implementation of the ongoing and planned Preparatory Actions 2009, 2010 and 2011 will however 
continue until mid-2013, when the implementation of the last projects will be finalised (see section 1.6). 
Account should be taken of the fact that, from the beginning, the White Paper was intended to pave the 
way for the coming into force of the new sport provisions in the Treaty. 
See section 1.6. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Description of policy actions: 

•  Building on the activities developed on the basis of the White Paper on Sport, proposal for 
a strategic EU framework for cooperation in sport for endorsement by the Council, which 
is  designed  to  support  Member  States'  policies  through  the  definition  of  medium-term 
objectives and through a new EU Agenda providing for actions engaging the Commission and 
the Member States in their respective spheres of competence. 

•  Actions in the new EU Agenda provide inter alia for 

–  support  for  policy-making  processes  and  for  the  development  of  new  policy 
initiatives through “knowledge building” (e.g. surveys / studies / analysis / legal 
guidance  for  specific  areas;  development  of  an  evidence-base,  such  as 
Eurobarometer surveys and EU Sport Fact Sheets) and “knowledge-sharing” (e.g. 
exchange of best practices; conferences / workshops / expert meetings for specific 
areas;  an  annual  EU  Sport  Forum  as  the  main  platform  for  stakeholder 
involvement); 

–  coordinated  approaches  in  some  selected  areas  (e.g.  role  for  the  EU  in  the  fight 

against doping); 

–  the  adoption  of  Council  outputs  in  areas  where  sufficient  progress  could  be 
achieved  (e.g.  Council  Recommendations  based  on  the  EU  Physical  Activity 
Guidelines); 

–  continued  mainstreaming  of  sport  into  EU  programmes  /  funds  and  increased 
synergies with other EU policies relating to sport (e.g. health, education, internal 
market). 

Focus  areas:  Topics  for  the  new  EU  Agenda  should  include  all  those  areas  identified  by 
stakeholders in the 2010 consultation process that are relevant for EU level action, including 
new themes that have not yet been addressed in informal and formal EU discussion on sport, 
i.e.  health-enhancing  physical  activity;  education  in  sport;  social  inclusion  in  and  through 
sport;  voluntary  activity  in  sport;  financing  of  sport  (incl.  gambling,  IPR);  the  fight  against 
doping  in  sport;  free  movement  and  nationality  of  sportspeople;  clarification  on  the 
application  of  EU  law  to  sport;  enhanced  dialogue  with  sport  stakeholders;  sport 
information/evidence-base. 

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) 

Nature of the tool: 

•  Long-term framework for EU policy-making in sport (as a basis for identification of long-
term  priorities)  with  defined  policy  cycles  and  annual  updates  involving  Member  States, 
sport organisations, international bodies, third countries and other interested stakeholders; 

•  Creation  of  an  OMC  for  selected  sport  topics  providing  for  strongly  coordinated  policy 
actions  (incl.  definition  of  common  targets,  indicators,  monitoring  and  reporting 
requirements for Member States). 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
Description of policy actions: 

•  Building on the activities developed on the basis of the White Paper on Sport, proposal for 
a  strategic  framework  for  EU  policy  making  in  sport  for  endorsement  by  the  Council, 
designed  to  coordinate  Member  States'  policies  and  actions  through  the  definition  of 
common longer-term objectives within multi-annual policy cycles; 

•  Following  the  priorities  defined  by  the  Council  for  implementing  the  policy  framework, 

creation of an OMC for selected areas within the multi-annual work programme.  

Focus  areas:  An  OMC  at  this  stage  appears  most  realistic  for  health-enhancing  physical 
activity, dual careers, social inclusion, volunteering and anti-doping. 

5. 

ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS  

This chapter identifies the likely economic, social and environmental impacts of the planned 
actions  of  the  EU  initiative  in  light  of  the  different  policy  options  (section  5.1),  based  on 
which a short assessment of the most important impacts is carried out (section 5.2, table 2). 
The  latter  feeds  into  the  assessment  of  the  efficiency  of  the  options,  which  considers  the 
correlation  between  inputs,  in  terms  of  human  resources,  and  desired  impacts  (section  5.3, 
table 3). The following section (section 5.4, table 4) assesses the effectiveness of each option 
to reach the objectives defined in Chapter 3. The coherence of the options with regard to the 
EU’s policy objectives is assessed in the final section (section 5.5, table 5). 

5.1.  Economic, social and environmental impacts 

5.1.1.  Option A (Baseline scenario) 

Activities  carried  out  on  the  basis  of  the  White  Paper  on  Sport  have  only  had  indirect 
economic  impact  until  today.33  The  continuation  of  the  policy  activities  until  2012  and  the 
finalisation of the few remaining actions of the Action Plan "Pierre de Coubertin" within the 
informal  EU  cooperation  and  dialogue  structures  for  sport  therefore  cannot  be  expected  to 
change this assessment. Without new EU action the expected innovation potential inherent to 
sport will not be used to the benefit of many of the target groups mentioned in section 3.4 and 
the opportunity to encourage the sector’s contribution to the EU’s economic ambitions will be 
missed. Considering social impact, activities carried out on the basis of the White Paper on 
Sport until today have forged more regular and structured cooperation in sport at EU level, on 
the basis of which a number of topics could be addressed more efficiently than in the past.34 
The  continuation  of  these  activities  and  the  finalisation  of  the  few  remaining  actions  of  the 
Action  Plan  "Pierre  de  Coubertin"  can,  however,  not  be  expected  to  lead  to  further 
improvements in this respect.35  

33 

34 
35 

Positive  examples  include  work  carried  out  in  the  Working  Group  “Sport  &  Economics”  aimed  at 
developing  a  statistical  tool  to  measure  the  economic  impact  of  sport;  or  cooperation  with  the  sport 
movement in order to address the free movement of sportspeople in the Internal Market. 
Examples include progress made in the field of sport and health. 
Likewise,  the  continuation  of  the  activities  launched  within  the  Preparatory  Actions  2009-2011  until 
2013, despite the advantage linked to networking activities and despite the positive impacts in terms of 
health, employment and inclusion, cannot be expected to have a sustainable or measurable economic or 
significant social impact given the small budget and limited number of projects financed (PA 2009: 18 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The White Paper on Sport illustrated that sport activities, in particular big sport events, have 
an environmental impact. For example, sport events can have significant impacts on the use 
of natural resources and generation of waste.36 The White Paper encouraged the “greening” of 
sport  especially  through  environmentally  sound  management.  Sport  organisations  and  sport 
event  organisers  were  encouraged  to  adopt  environmental  objectives  in  order  to  make  their 
activities  environmentally  sustainable,  for  instance  through  participation  in  the  Eco-
Management  and  Audit  Scheme  (EMAS).  The  implementation  of  the  White  Paper  has  led 
sport organisations to consider EMAS certification.37  

5.1.2.  Option B (Framework + new Agenda) 

An initiative comprising a strategic policy framework, including a new EU Agenda for action 
committing  the  Commission  and  the  Member  States,  can  be  expected  to  have  positive 
economic and social impacts. 

Regarding  economic  impact  action  aimed  at  increased  levels  of  physical  activity  along  the 
concept  of  health-enhancing  physical  activity  covering  sectors  such  as  sport,  health, 
education, transport, public safety and working environment, can lead to a healthier society, 
which  may  imply  considerable  savings  in  the  longer  term  (medical  costs,  health  insurance, 
drug sales). Member States' expectations in this direction have been expressed in all meetings 
of  the  Working  Group  Sport  &  Health  since  its  creation  in  2006  and  confirmed  in  many 
informal  meetings  of  EU  Sport  Directors  and  Sport  Ministers.38  Similarly,  stronger  links 
between the education and sport sectors, especially increased time spent on sport and physical 
activity in and around education and a better quality of national programmes, can contribute 
to a healthier society and are positively correlated with reduced health-care costs. 

Political  support  for  volunteering  in  sport  aimed  at  promoting  voluntary  activity  and  at 
encouraging  a  higher  quality  of  services  provided  by  sport  organisations  and  sustainable 
funding  of  these  organisations  can  potentially  have  a  positive  economic  impact  in  terms  of 
furthering better adapted structures in increasingly competitive markets. A financial return to 
sport from gambling activities, including lotteries, can positively impact on the maintenance 
of sport structures at grassroots level.39 Better protection of sport-related IPRs against illegal 

projects  for a  total  amount  of  € 4m;  PA  2010: 13   projects  /  € 2.5m;  PA 2011:  Commission  proposes 
€ 1m, CULT Committee proposes € 10m). 
On the other hand, the environment can also affect the practice of sport: warmer climate conditions, for 
instance,  can  compromise  sport  activities  such  as  winter  sports.  Water  pollution,  air  pollution, 
stratospheric  ozon  deterioration,  habitat  loss,  toxic  waste,  pesticide  residues,  noise,  traffic  emissions, 
climate change and indoor air quality constitute threats to the safe practice of sport. 
Several sport events and many sport facilities have already received EMAS certification (e.g. Nürburg 
Ring  race  circuit,  golf  courses, Turin 2006 Winter Olympics,  stadiums  for  the  2008 UEFA  European 
championship in Austria, the Ryder Cup, London Olympics 2012). In the framework of the Preparatory 
Action 2009, co-funding was provided to the organisation of the 10th European Youth Olympic Festival 
in Tampere (July '09) including requirements regarding sustainable development. 
Effects are expected based on the knowledge generated from a study commissioned by the Commission, 
carried out by an EU-wide inter-university consortium and published in January 2005: "Young People's 
Lifestyle and Sedentariness". This study confirmed that overweight and obesity have risen dramatically 
in the EU and are linked to unhealthy eating habits on the one hand and insufficient physical activity on 
the other. The study also revealed that the decrease in daily physical activity has been more dramatic 
than  the  increase  in  energy  consumption.  Against  this  backdrop,  any  measures  that  will  allow 
Europeans  to  be  more  physically  active  can  be  expected  to  reduce  overweight  and  obesity  levels, 
improve individual and public health, and lead to a better quality of life for individual citizens, reduced 
health costs for public budgets and improved productivity for businesses. 
According to reports from several Member States and sport organisations. 

36 

37 

38 

39 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
piracy  has  high  relevance  for  ensuring  financial  income  for  the  professional  sport  sector, 
which is supportive to investments in the sector and which in turn may positively impact on 
economic growth and jobs in the EU. 

Promoting  free  movement  of  sportspeople  has  a  positive  impact  on  the  functioning  of  the 
Internal Market.  

Strengthened efforts to fight doping involving all relevant stakeholders at national level and in 
cooperation with responsible European and international organisations may have an indirect 
positive  effect  in  terms  of  an  improved  image  for  sport  and  credibility  for  sporting 
competitions, thus attracting more sponsors and spectators.40 

More  legal  clarity  regarding  sporting  rules  through  increased  understanding  about  the 
application of EU law to sport thanks to specific guidance at EU level has a positive impact 
on the functioning of the Internal Market, as it potentially helps the sport sector, in particular 
professional sport, to develop its activities within a sound legal framework. 

Experience  from  other  sectors,  e.g.  education,  culture,  youth,  shows  that  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 social impact policy action aimed at increased levels of physical activity along the 
concept of health-enhancing physical activity as well as stronger links between the education 
and sport sectors as described above will have a positive impact on public health and can lead 
to  a  healthier  society.41  Regarding  education  and  training,  support  for  developing  a  dual 
career environment can positively affect the transition of talented athletes into labour markets. 
More  transparency  of  qualifications  in  sport  can  positively  influence  the  functioning  of  the 
sport  labour  market.  The  option  also  bears  the  potential  to  indirectly  contribute  to  greater 
equality in society, in particular regarding women, people with disabilities and other minority 
groups. 

Political  support  for  voluntary  activity  in  sport  contributes  to  the  sustainability  of  sport 
structures, which provide valuable opportunities to ensure people’s involvement with society 
in  terms  of  participation,  active  citizenship  and  non-formal  learning.  Encouraging  the 
sustainable financing of grassroots sport (e.g. public support, income streams from gambling 
services,  solidarity  mechanisms  within  sport)  potentially  enhances  the  quality  of  sport 
services and, in turn, ensures people’s access to local sport structures. 

Addressing  the  challenges  relating  to  free  movement  and  nationality  can  help  avoid 
discrimination of EU citizens that make use of their right to free movement. 

Strengthened efforts to fight doping involving all relevant stakeholders at national level and in 
cooperation  with  responsible  European  and  international  organisations  contributes  to 

40 

41 

The  negative  economic  effects  of  doping  on  sport  disciplines,  teams  and  individual  sportspeople  are 
well illustrated in sports such as cycling (e.g. withdrawal of sponsorship).  
See footnote 39. 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
                                                 
protecting  the  integrity  of  sportspeople  and  sport  competitions,  as  well  as  to  improving 
individual and public health.  

More legal clarity regarding sporting rules through increased understanding of the application 
of EU law to sport thanks to specific guidance at EU level can help avoid tensions between 
different actors (e.g. public authorities, sport movement) 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,  for  instance  education  or  culture,  shows  that  support  for  an 
evidence-base  for  the  EU-27  can  lead  to  informed  policy  making,  e.g.  using  sport  as  a 
contribution to healthier and more inclusive societies, as well as to informed decision making 
within the sport sector. 

Regarding  environmental  impact,  in  addition  to  the  effects  described  under  Option  A,  an 
initiative with a strategic policy focus can promote environmentally friendly approaches and 
the  implementation  of  voluntary  schemes  through  the  structured  dialogue  with  sport 
stakeholders.  Topics  could  include  aspects  relating  to  sport  organisations'  possible  need  to 
adapt  to  climate  change  or  to  develop  sustainable  activities,  e.g.  environmentally  friendly 
services.  The  application  of  the  EU  environmental  legal  framework  has,  however,  not 
surfaced as a problem for sport in the consultation process. 

5.1.3.  Option C (Long-term framework + OMC) 

A long-term EU framework  for  policy-making and cooperation in sport with defined policy 
cycles and annual update is expected to generally have similar positive economic and social 
impacts as described under policy Option B. The indirect effects on society and employment 
can  be  expected  to  be  even  greater  and  may  increasingly  benefit  specific  target  groups.  In 
addition,  through  the  proposed  tool  of  an  Open  Method  of  Coordination  (OMC)  in  selected 
areas more efficient EU-level review and coordination mechanisms apply and positive direct 
and indirect economic and social effects can be achieved in a shorter timeframe. This is true 
for  areas  where  a  high  degree  of  political  consensus  has  already  been  achieved  through  the 
informal  and  formal  cooperation  at  EU  level,  for  instance  regarding  health-enhancing 
physical  activity  (based  on  the  EU  Physical  Activity  Guidelines),  social  inclusion  in  and 
through sport (based  on  the  work carried out at EU level in 2010), education (based on the 
work carried out at EU level since 2008), volunteering in sport (based on the work carried out 
at EU level in 2009, 2010 and in view of the European Year 2011) and strengthened efforts in 
the field of anti-doping (based on the work carried out at EU level and in the context of the 
Council  of  Europe  over  the  past  years).  Improvements  in  timing  and  quality  of  delivered 
information could be achieved through the exchange of best practices and benchmarking. 

For other areas the creation of an OMC does not seem realistic in the short term, but in the 
longer  term  economic  and  social  impacts  could  be  expected.  For  instance,  addressing  the 
challenges  relating  to  fairness  and  openness  in  competitions  (e.g.  free  movement  of 
sportspeople)  could  have  a  direct  positive  impact  on  the  functioning  of  the  Internal  Market 
and on individuals (e.g. athletes), higher than the one described under Option B. An OMC in 
the  field  of  structured  dialogue  potentially  could  lead  to  more  consistent  national  dialogue 
mechanisms on EU sport matters, which have been neglected in a number of Member States. 

Regarding environmental impact, in addition to the effects described under Options A and 
B,  a  long-term  policy  framework  is  likely  to  have  more  impact  on  the  environment,  since 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
concerns  linked  to  the  practice  of  sport  could  be  addressed  as  a  horizontal  approach  within 
multi-annual policy cycles. 

5.2.  Assessment of most important impacts 

The assessment of impacts in this section is of a qualitative nature since it is not possible to 
quantify the impacts. This section analyses the likelihood of each option to reach benefits in 
terms  of  positive  impacts.  For  this  purpose,  in  a  first  step,  the  most  important  impacts  are 
identified and, in a second step, an impact matrix is used to present the assessment in terms of 
the  likelihood  that  the  impact  will  occur  and  in  terms  of  the  estimated  magnitude  of  each 
impact. 

In light of the assessment under section 5.1 and taking account of wider policy objectives, the 
following are the areas where EU intervention in the field of sport can be expected to produce 
the  most  important  impacts.  A  diagram  illustrates  the  “chain  of  effects”  illustrates  for  each 
area: 

–  Contribution  to  public  health:  Direct  positive  effects  of  policy  actions  in  the  fields  of 
health-enhancing  physical  activity  and  of  education  can  be  expected,  in  particular  if 
combined with a strategic framework as provided for under Options B and C. An increased 
policy  focus  on  the  concept  of  health-enhancing  physical  activity  at  EU  level  and 
promotion of the implementation of physical activity guidelines at national level, including 
in  less  advanced  Member  States,  will  increase  daily  physical  activity  levels  of  European 
citizens.  Likewise  promoting  the  time  and  quality  of  sport  and  physical  activity  in  and 
around  education  can  contribute  to  a  healthier  society.  A  rising  level  of  physical  activity 
among Europeans can be expected to e.g. reduce overweight and lead to a better quality of 
life  for  individual  citizens  and,  in  turn,  to  reduced  health  costs  for  public  budgets  and 
improved  productivity  for  businesses  in  the  mid-  to  longer  term.  Protecting  the  physical 
integrity  of  sportspeople  through  more  coordinated  policy  approaches  at  national, 
European and international levels regarding the fight against doping can make an indirect 
contribution  to  individual  and  public  health.  Thus,  and  in  line  with  the  EU's  mandate  to 
promote  healthy  lifestyles,  the  planned  EU  initiative  in  the  field  of  sport  not  only 
represents a major follow-up to the Commission's White Paper on Obesity42, but will also 
contribute to achieving some of the objectives of the EU Health Strategy43. 

42 
43 

A Strategy for Europe on Nutrition, Overweight and Obesity related health issues - COM(2007) 279. 
The  Strategy  is  based  on  four  guiding  principles:  1)  Shared  Health  Values,  2)  Health  is  the  Greatest 
Wealth,  3)  Health  in  All  Policies  (HIAP),  4)  Strengthening  the  EU's  Voice  in  Global  Health.  By 
fostering exchange on HEPA, including by mobilising sport and physical activity to contribute to health 
promotion, the Commission can contribute to the attainment of Principle 1 and, if international contacts 
are  used,  Principle  4.  In  this  respect,  Europe  may  have  much  to  share  with  the  rest  of  the  world. 
Principle  2  represents  the  realisation  that  health  is  not  just  a  cost,  but  equally  an  investment  and  that 
healthy  societies  are  strong  societies.  Principle  3  reflects  the  fact  that  the  objectives  set  can  only  be 
achieved  via  the  integrated  cooperation  of  all  sectors,  as  recommended  in  the  EU  Physical  Activity 
Guidelines  (2008).  Four  Objectives  have  been  formulated  on  the  basis  of  these  Principles,  of  which 
Objective  1  "Strengthening  the  EU's  Voice  on  Global  Health"  and  Objective  2  "Protecting  Citizens 
from Health Threats" can be furthered directly through the proposed measures. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
                                                 
inclusion 

in  mainstream  society  of  vulnerable  groups  and 

–  Contribution to more inclusive societies: In line with the EU's ambitions to promote the 
to  overcome 
active 
discrimination and increase the integration of people with disabilities, ethnic minorities and 
immigrants,  direct  positive  effects  can  be  expected  from  policy  actions  aimed  at  the 
inclusion of women, people with disabilities and immigrants in sport and through sport into 
society, in particular if combined with a strategic framework as provided for under Options 
B  and  C.  Deep-rooted  disadvantages  faced  by  people  because  of  their  personal 
characteristics  prevent  them  from  fully  participating  and  contributing  at  all  levels  of 
society, including sport. The initiative will help address this challenge through EU action, 
which  is  supportive  to  the  development  of  equality  policies  and  encourages  exchange  of 
good practices between actors in the field of sport and improve the use of the potential of 
European  and  national  sport  activities  to  more  inclusive  societies.  Regarding  equality 
between women and men, for instance, the EU initiative will contribute to increasing the 
number  of  women  in  leadership  positions  (e.g.  as  members  of  management  bodies  of 
national,  European  or  international  sport  organisations).  Direct  positive  effects  of  the 
initiative can also be expected regarding the right of people with a disability to participate 
in sport, in line with the EU human rights approach to disability issues, e.g. through better 
access to sport facilities. A contribution could  thereby be made to the implementation of 
the  UN  Convention  on  the  Rights  of  People  with  Disabilities.44  Positive  effects  can  be 
expected  for  disadvantaged  citizens  who  will  have  increased  opportunities  to  actively 
participate  in  society  through  membership  and  paid  or  non-paid  (voluntary)  activity  in  a 
civic organisation, such as a sport club. The intercultural dialogue between different groups 
in  society  will  be  activated.  More  cost  effective  and  efficient  approaches  are  likely  to 
develop  at  national  level  through  the  exchange  of  best  practices  at  EU  level  regarding 
success factors for sport interventions favouring social inclusion. European sport-networks 
could  raise  awareness  and  contribute  to  social  inclusion  and  the  fight  against 

44 

The  European  Community  is  a  signatory  to  this  Convention,  which  establishes  disability  as  a  human 
rights issue and matter of law. The core elements of the EU disability strategy – which combines anti-
discrimination, equal opportunities and active inclusion measures – are based on the Convention. The 
rights  recognised  by  the  Convention  cover  almost  all  policy  fields,  including  sport.  Accordingly, 
implementation of the Convention needs to be part of a strategic approach to disability. 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
discrimination  through  the  organisation  of  European  events,  competitions  and  other 
activities. 

–  Contribution  to  employability  and  jobs:  Direct  and  indirect  positive  effects  on  labour 
markets  can  be  expected  as  a  result  of  policy  actions  in  the  fields  of  education,  social 
inclusion  and  volunteering,  in  particular  if  combined  with  a  strategic  framework  as 
provided for under Options B and C. High elite sportspeople are better prepared to a new 
career  because  of  the  regulated  combination  between  education  and  sport.  Better 
qualifications  and  increased  recognition  of  qualifications  in  sport,  as  well  as  increased 
mobility  of  sport  support  staff  (e.g.  coaches,  volunteers)  enhance  the  employability  of 
people  active  in  the  sport  sector.  Through  the  use  of  the  manifold  non-formal  learning 
opportunities  existing  within  sport  (e.g.  through  volunteering)  people,  especially  young 
people,  acquire  skills  that  qualify  and  prepare  them  for  the  job  market.  The  job  creation 
potential in the sport sector is dynamic and particularly high when considering the synergy 
effects  with  related  sectors45.  Calculations  in  three  Member  States  confirm  the  direct 
effects generated in the sector46: in Austria 5.8% of total employment is sport-related, as 
compared  to  2.2%  in  Cyprus  and  2%  in  the  United  Kingdom.  Through  the  promotion  of 
sport at EU level by the planned EU initiative, further impacts in terms of job creation can 
be expected, both in the sport sector (professional sport and fitness sector in particular) and 

45 

46 

These  cover  all  activities  that  are  inputs  for  sport  (e.g.  sectors  necessary  for  doing  sport  such  as 
production of equipment, construction of infrastructure, education) and all activities that require sport as 
an input (e.g. sectors which are related to sport activity such as tourism, TV, health, sport betting, sport 
food, sport-related R&D). 
"Sport  Satellite  Accounts –  A  European  Project:  First  Results",  published  in April  2010  with  support 
from the European Commission, DG EAC. 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
in related upstream and downstream sectors (e.g. sporting goods industry). Finally, indirect 
positive effects on jobs can be expected as a result of policy measures aimed at sustainable 
and  stable  sport  structures  that  in  turn  could  help  ensure  that  current  jobs  can  be 
maintained and additional jobs created (Options B and C). 

Table 2 hereafter assigns the likelihood of the impact (very probable, probable, less probable, 
unlikely,  very  unlikely)  and  estimates  its  magnitude  (very  high,  high,  medium,  low,  very 
low).47  A  combined  value  has  been  attributed  to  rate  these  impacts  in  comparison  with  the 
baseline. The last column attributes an aggregated score for each option. 

47 

Regarding unpredictable externalities that may impact on the likelihoods and magnitudes, such as the 
current economic context, the table builds on a realistic scenario according to which, even in the worst 
case, only a marginal effect could be expected on the cooperation mechanisms proposed. The possible 
medium  and  long-term  impacts  of  the  current  economic  context  and  related  challenges  that  put 
constraints  on  national  and  EU  budgets  and  that  imply  new  strategic  policy  choices  are  difficult  to 
predict. Policy making in sport is not an exception. The importance that policy makers at national and 
European level wish to attach to sport in the upcoming years will partly depend on how the economic 
situation  develops.  There  are  two  basic  scenarios:  The  first  scenario  presumes  stagnation  and  a 
relatively  long  period  of  revitalisation  until  the  effects  of  the  economic  crisis  disappear.  The  second 
scenario would be a positive one, according to which the European economy will overcome the current 
challenges  in  a  shorter  term.  Under  the  first  scenario  and  provided  Options  B  or  C  were  applied,  a 
negative impact could be expected on the timeframe during which the policy objectives can be achieved 
and, in the worst case, it would lead to a lack of political support for coordinated EU action in the field 
of  sport  and  less  committal  initiatives  that  in  turn  would  be  less  conducive  to  promoting  sport  in 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
The  following  key  to  describe  the  value/score  of  the  options  is  used  for  all  tables  (2-6) 
hereafter: 

Table 1: Definition of values 

Symbol 

= 

Key 

Baseline or equivalent to baseline 

+ / ++ / +++ 

Minor to major improvement compared to baseline 

- / - - / - - - 

Minor to major worsening compared to baseline 

Table 2: Likelihood and magnitude of impacts 

Improvement of 
public health 

Social inclusion of 
disadvantaged groups 

Contribution to 
employability and jobs 

Likelihood  Magnitude  Likelihood  Magnitude  Likelihood  Magnitude 

Less 
probable 

 Very low  

Less 
probable 

Very low 

 Unlikely 

Very low 

Option A 
Baseline 

- Value - 

Option B 
Framework + 
new EU Agenda 

= 

Very 
probable 

Medium 

Very 
probable 

= 

++ 

= 

Medium 

Probable 

Low 

+ 

- Value - 

++ 

Option C 
Framework + OMC 

Very 
probable 

High 

Very 
probable 

High 

Probable 

Medium 

- Value - 

++/+++ 

++/+++ 

++ 

Aggregated 
score 

= 

++ 

++/+++ 

5.3.  Assessment of efficiency 

The assessment of the efficiency of the options considers the relationship between inputs, in 
terms  of  Human  Resources,  and  the  desired  impacts.  It  also  considers  the  Commission’s 
ability to deliver, in terms of internal processes to handle the implementation of each option 
and of political support. 

Option A 

The  baseline  scenario  does  not  involve  any  budgetary  expenses.  The  needs  for  human  and 
administrative  resources  continue  to  be  covered  within  the  allocations  granted  to  the 
managing  services  in  the  framework  of  the  annual  allocation  procedure.  For  the 
implementation of this option, the current staff in DG EAC's Sport Unit (8 AD-level, 6 AST-
level) would not need to be increased. On the contrary, after the finalisation of the ongoing 
Preparatory  Actions  (in  2012/2013)  reductions  in  staff  could  be  expected.  However,  the 

Europe. As logic suggests, the second scenario would have the opposite, positive effect on the impacts 
of the policy options. 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
attainment  of  impacts  through  implementation  of  this  Option  would  be  less  probable  or 
unlikely, with the risk that the impacts will not occur.  

Given the experience with the implementation of the White Paper on Sport over the past three 
years,  the  systemic  capability  of  the  baseline  scenario  is  excellent.  However,  the 
implementation  of  this  option,  which  would  amount  to  a  continuation  and  subsequent 
reduction of current activities and processes, appears extremely difficult to justify in light of 
the new Treaty mandate that explicitly calls for EU action in the field of sport. 

From the point of view of efficiency this option must therefore be rated very low.  

Option B 

The proposed new EU Agenda for sport has been designed so as to keep implications in terms 
of resources necessary for its implementation as limited as possible. No additional budget is 
required  under  the  ongoing  financial  framework.  The  needs  for  human  and  administrative 
resources  continue  to  be  covered  within  the  allocations  granted  to  the  managing  services  in 
the framework of the annual allocation procedure. No additional administrative burden is to 
be  expected  in  the  Member  States.  The  implementation  of  the  EU  framework  for  sport,  in 
particular the actions foreseen in the new EU Agenda during the next 4-5 years, is likely to 
require additional sport and sport-related tasks in some European Commission services (e.g. 
COMP, EAC, EMPL, ESTAT, MARKT, JUST, REGIO, SANCO). However, these tasks are 
not likely to have human resources implications in those DGs. Considering the relatively high 
likelihood  and  magnitude  of  this  option  to  contribute  to  the  desired  impacts  through  policy 
measures  based  on  the  new  EU  Agenda  for  sport,  the  efficiency  of  this  option  must  be 
considered high as compared to the baseline. Although at this stage, in view of the fact that 
sport is a new EU competence area, there are no hard data to corroborate this claim, it seems 
highly  likely  that  public  health,  social  inclusion  and  employment  benefits  induced  by  EU 
action would come at low costs. 

Regarding  the  ability  to  deliver,  Option  B  can  build  on  the  experience  of  implementing  the 
White Paper on Sport, which suggests that the Commission, and DG EAC in particular, has 
the expertise to handle the implementation of this option and related internal processes. The 
policy process to ensure the implementation of the initiative, involving the Commission and 
the Member States, could start immediately. The consultation process with the Member States 
and the sport movement in 2010 has shown strong support for such an approach. The ability 
to deliver therefore can be rated very high. 

Option C 

As the most complex of the options, Option C is expected to lead to more significant demands 
in terms of additional human and administrative resources. Experience from other DG EAC 
policy  areas  indicates  that  the  implementation  of  an  Open  Method  of  Coordination  (OMC) 
will  significantly  increase  the  workload  for  the  leading  policy  unit.  It  will  also  require 
intensified cooperation with a larger number of services within the European Commission. It 
is estimated that the choice of this option would lead to additional costs in terms of input (i.e. 
3 AD and 1 AST) in comparison with the other options.48 The demands in terms of input for 

48 

The implementation of an OMC is also likely to raise the administrative burden in the Member States, 
since  the  introduction  of  reporting  requirements  increases  business  as  usual  costs  in  public 
administrations. 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
                                                 
this  option  compared  to  the  baseline  have  to  be  seen  in  light  of  the  higher  likelihood  and 
magnitude  of  the  option  to  contribute  through  an  OMC  to  the  desired  impacts.  Efficiency 
must  be  considered  higher  than  for  Option  A.  While  Option  C,  in  proportionate  terms,  is 
likely to produce slightly higher impacts than Option B, the level of input associated with the 
implementation  of  Option  C  in  terms  of  human  resources  would  be  much  higher  than  in 
Option B. Efficiency is consequently lower for Option C. 

Regarding the ability to deliver, Option C is the most challenging to assess due to the lack of 
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 or political support for an OMC, which renders the smooth and timely 
implementation of Option C difficult. The ability to deliver has therefore been rated very low. 

Table 3 hereafter takes account of the analysis in section 5.2 to rate the "expected impacts" 
(first  column),  it  defines  the  inputs  by  determining  the  "human  resources  needs"  (second 
column)  and  establishes  the  "input/impact  relationship"  (third  column)  to  evaluate  the 
efficiency.  Aggregated  scores  take  account  of  the  "ability  to  deliver"  (fourth  column)  as  an 
additional element to assess efficiency. 

Table 3: Efficiency of options 

Likelihood + 
magnitude  
of desired 
impacts 

= 

++ 

Human Resources 

Impacts / 
Inputs 

Ability 
to 
deliver 

Aggregated 
score 

no additional staff; 
decrease after 2012/2013 

= 

= 

= 

no additional staff 

++ 

+++ 

++/+++ 

Option A 
Baseline 

Option B 
Framework + new EU Agenda 

Option C 
Framework + OMC 

++/+++ 

additional staff:  
DG EAC49: 3AD + 1 AST 

+ 

- - 

+ 

5.4.  Assessment of effectiveness 

The  effectiveness  of  each  option  is  assessed  by  determining  the  likelihood  of  achieving  the 
objectives defined in Chapter 3.  

Option A 

The baseline scenario does not foresee the development and implementation of a strategic EU 
approach to sport that would engage the Commission and the Member States. The loose form 
of  cooperation  introduced  by  the  Commission’s  White  Paper  would  remain  the  basis  for 
cooperation.  Because  the  informal  cooperation  between  experts  in  the  6  Commission-led 
Working  Groups50  is  fruitful,  a  limited  contribution  to  the  achievement  of  the  set  specific 

49 

50 

Human  Resources  under  Heading  5  of  the  multiannual  financial  framework  ("Total  administrative 
expenditure"). 
See section 1.6. 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
objectives  could  be  expected  in  the  fields  of  health-enhancing  physical  activity,  social 
inclusion in and through sport, education and training in sport, voluntary activity, anti-doping 
and sport information (objectives A, B, C, G). However, the lack of a clear policy framework 
that would ensure a follow up to the results from these works does not allow for an effective 
attainment  of  these  objectives.  Without  any  new  action  as  foreseen  under  this  option,  only 
very  marginal  to  no  progress  can  be  expected  in  addressing  legal  concerns  related  to 
discrimination in sport and the lack of legal clarity, which should be tackled by objectives D 
and  F  respectively.  It  is  not  possible  through  this  option  to  effectively  improve  dialogue 
structures  in  sport  (objective  E)  given  the  lack  of  a  strategic  and  structured  framework 
underpinning such  debates. Sport stakeholders clearly want to see the EU taking action and 
would not be willing to engage in any form of strengthened dialogue without a new agenda 
that addresses their concerns. 

Option B 

The EU framework for cooperation introduced by this option meets the strategic objective in 
the medium-term (for the next 4-5 years), i.e. in this early phase of developing a new field of 
EU  competence.  The  proposed  new  EU  Agenda  for  sport  foresees  specific  actions  that  are 
designed to tackle all the problems identified and to directly contribute to the achievement of 
all specific objectives (A-G). Given the nature of the proposed tools at hand to implement the 
Agenda  (i.e.  'soft'  policy  measures  as  defined  in  chapter  4)  there  are  limits  to  the  extent  to 
which  the  objectives  can  be  reached.  The  likelihood  of  reaching  the  objectives  to  a  large 
extent  depends  on  the  willingness  of  Member  States  and,  to  a  lesser  extent,  of  sport 
stakeholders  to  engage  in  the  processes  to  implement  the  proposed  actions.  However,  the 
formal and informal discussions with the Member States and the public consultations provide 
strong evidence that governments and stakeholders want to increasingly engage in EU-level 
cooperation to develop the new EU dimension in sport referred to in the Treaty and that there 
is  strong  support  for  an  EU  Agenda  for  action  to  implement  the  new  Treaty  mandate.  The 
proposed EU Agenda builds on the White Paper on Sport and can capitalise on the progress 
made over the past three years in terms of substance and regarding cooperation structures for 
developing a first EU approach to sport. Generally, a contribution to the achievement of the 
set  objectives  in  the  field  of  health,  social  inclusion,  education  (A),  volunteering  (B)  and 
doping (C) must be considered probable given the high consensus among all involved actors 
for EU level action. Under this option, the EU can very probably achieve more open and fair 
competitions  (D)  through  additional  guidance  provided  in  the  field  of  free  movement  (e.g. 
guidance  as  foreseen  in  a  specific  staff  working  document).  Action  to  ensure  strengthened 
dialogue structures (E) would also be envisaged. The explicit call from Member States and the 
sport movement to establish such a dialogue suggests that this objective can be reached. The 
action which foresees an assistance mechanism to provide guidance on the application of EU 
law to sport  very probably contributes to increased understanding among sport stakeholders 
(F).  Proposed  action  in  the  field  of  sport  information,  such  as  studying  the  feasibility  of  a 
sport  monitoring  function,  can  result  in  concrete  follow  up  to  support  an  evidence  base  for 
sport (G). 

Compared to the baseline the effectiveness of Option B must therefore be rated high to very 
high. 

Option C 

The EU policy framework coordinating Member States policies as introduced by this option 
allows for a very effective attainment of the strategic objective due to its long-term basis. As 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
discussed  in  previous  sections  of  this  IA,  the  proposed  introduction  of  an  OMC  in  selected 
areas will depend on Member States' priorities. At this stage it seems most relevant for areas 
where there is a high degree of consensus among the Member States and sufficient progress in 
the substantial debates at EU level (i.e. health-enhancing physical activity, dual careers, social 
inclusion, volunteering, and anti-doping). Given the nature of the tool of an OMC providing 
for targets, reporting and monitoring mechanisms, the likelihood of achieving at least part of 
the  related  objectives  (A,  B,  C  and  G)  is  slightly  higher  than  under  Option  B.  The 
achievement  of  objectives  D  and  F  must  be  considered  less  likely  under  Option  C  as 
compared  to  Option  B  that,  through  the  EU  Agenda,  foresees  specific  action  to  address  the 
challenges  identified.  It  should  be  noted  that  for  many  areas  identified  in  the  consultation 
process and which should be addressed by the planned initiative, no sufficient basis exists to 
establish a review and coordination mechanism, and certainly not in the short term. There are 
also areas where an OMC is not an adequate tool, e.g. in the field of sport governance, where 
the autonomy of sport needs to be respected and where it is not for the EU to tackle related 
challenges  through  a  review  and  coordination  mechanism.  This affects  the  likelihood  of  the 
achievement  of  objective  F.  Regarding  strengthened  dialogue  with  the  sport  movement, 
Option  C  can  contribute  to  achieving  the  objective  (E),  since  Member  States  seem  to  be 
willing to push the topic forward in the Council regardless of a specific action proposed in the 
EU Agenda. 

The following table illustrates the likelihood (certain, very probable, probable, less probable, 
unlikely, very unlikely) of the options to achieve the strategic and the specific objectives. 

Table 4: Effectiveness of options 

Option A 
Baseline  

Option B 
Framework + 
new EU 
Agenda 

Option C 
Framework + 
OMC 

Strategic objective 

very unlikely 

certain 

certain 

A.  Promote  the  health-enhancing,  social  and  educational 
functions of sport 

less probable 

probable 

very probable 

B. Support sport structures based on voluntary activity 

less probable 

probable 

very probable 

C. Protect the physical and moral integrity of sportspeople 

unlikely 

probable 

very probable 

D. Promote fairness and openness in sporting competitions 

very unlikely 

very probable 

probable 

E. Enhance dialogue and cooperation with sport stakeholders 

very unlikely 

very probable 

very probable 

F. Increase understanding of application of EU law to sport 

very unlikely 

very probable 

probable 

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

unlikely 

probable 

very probable 

s
e
v
i
t
c
e
j
b
o
c
i
f
i
c
e
p
S

Aggregated score

= 

++/+++ 

+++ 

5.5.  Assessment of coherence 

The coherence of the options is assessed in relation  to the objectives of EU policy, in particular the 
overarching  goals  of  the  Europe  2020  strategy,  the  EU  Health  Strategy  and  the  functioning  of  the 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Internal Market. Accordingly, an assessment is made as to how the options can make a contribution to: 

•  Europe 2020, in terms of growth and jobs; 

•  Social cohesion; 

•  Public health policy; 

•  Functioning of the Internal Market. 

Option A 

The  White  Paper  does  not  include  additional  actions  that  would  be  conducive  to  the  EU's 
ambitions  as  defined  in  the  Europe  2020  strategy  or  with  regard  to  social  cohesion.  As 
outlined in the introductory part of this report, one of the main underlying concerns regarding 
the current EU's dealings with sport is that sport's potential to make a contribution to the EU's 
overarching social and economic goals has been neglected in EU  policy making. Regarding 
public health, the informal works that have been carried out at EU level until today illustrate 
that  the  promotion  of  physical  activity  is  coherent  with  the  EU's  Public  Health  Strategy.  In 
order  to  make  a  distinct  contribution,  however,  additional  action  in  the  field  of  health-
enhancing physical activity, including follow-up at formal Council level, would be necessary. 
However, this is not foreseen under this option. Regarding the White Paper's contribution to 
the  functioning  of  the  Internal  Market,  some  progress  has  been  made  on  the  basis  of  the 
implementation  of  the  "Pierre  de  Coubertin"  Action  Plan  in  fields  such  as  free  movement. 
However, the Commission is still regularly receiving complaints from market actors (e.g. in 
the fields of free movement and taxation). Moreover, the consultation process confirmed that 
there  are  developments  within  the  sport  sector  (e.g.  new  regulations  from  sport  governing 
bodies) and in sectors impacting on sport (e.g. gambling, IPR) that cannot be addressed on the 
basis of the White Paper, but require new action at EU level. The policy approach under this 
Option is therefore not coherent with the EU's strategic goals. 

Options B and C 

In  contrast  to  Option  A,  Options  B  and  C  can  make  a  contribution  to  achieving  the  EU's 
strategic goals in the social and economic fields (as already referred to in section 3.1 and in 
the analysis of impacts in sections 5.1 and 5.2). 

Option B provides for a policy framework and a new EU Agenda which aim at using sport's 
potential to contribute to the objectives of Europe 2020. Regarding growth, account should be 
taken  of  the  fact  that  sport  is  a  very  dynamic  sector.  For  instance,  recent  work  covering 
selected  Member  States  has  shown  that  sport-related  value  added  amounts  to  3-4%  of  total 
value added, even without considering indirect or induced effects.51 Giving an impetus to the 
promotion of sporting issues and sustainable sport structures (as called for in Art. 165 TFEU) 
through  actions  proposed  in  a  new  EU  Agenda  is  coherent  with  Europe  2020  ambitions. 
Regarding  the  coherence  of  this  option  with  the  employment  goals  of  Europe  2020,  the 
analyis and diagram in section 5.2 have already illustrated the effects of EU-level action in the 
field of sport to enhance employability in and beyond the sport sector. Likewise, coherence of 
this  Option  with  the  EU's  objectives  for  social  cohesion  and  public  health  can  be  assumed, 

51 

"Sport  Satellite  Accounts –  A  European  Project:  First  Results",  published  in April  2010  with  support 
from the European Commission, DG EAC 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
                                                 
following the analysis in section 5.2. Through the foreseen actions to address the lack of legal 
clarity  regarding  the  application  of  EU  law  (including  fundamental  freedoms)  to  sport,  this 
option makes a direct contribution to the better functioning of the Internal Market. 

The same general considerations are valid for Option C. It can be assumed that an initiative 
with a long-term vision for an EU approach to sport providing an OMC with targets, reporting 
and monitoring mechanisms is coherent with the four abovementioned general policy goals. 
For a "soft" policy area like sport, a framework using an OMC must, however, be considered 
to be an even more suitable instrument to help the sport sector develop its full growth and job 
potential (Europe 2020) and to contribute to strategic goals in the field of public health. As 
explained in previous sections in this report, an OMC seems most relevant for selected areas, 
including health-enhancing physical activity (based on the EU Physical Activity Guidelines) 
and  education  (e.g.  regarding  qualifications).  Coherence  of  Option  C  with  the  two  general 
policy  goals  connected  with  these  fields  can  therefore  be  assumed  to  be  higher  than  that  of 
Option B. 

The following table attributes a value to this assessment. 

Table 5: Coherence of options 

Option A 
Baseline 

Option B 
Framework + 
new EU Agenda 

Option C 
Framework + OMC 

Growth 

Jobs 

Cohesion 

Health 

Internal Market 

Aggregated score 

6. 

COMPARING THE OPTIONS 

= 

= 

= 

= 

= 

= 

++ 

+ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

+++ 

++ 

++ 

+++ 

++ 

++/+++ 

This chapter first compares the short-listed options by applying different criteria based on the 
above analysis, which leads in a second step to the identification of the preferred option.  

6.1.  Comparative analysis of options 

Based on the above assessments and comparison of policy options, conclusions can be drawn 
regarding the strengths and weaknesses of  the  individual policy options with regard to their 
ability to address the problems identified in Chapter 2. For this comparative analysis, Options 
B and C are differentiated on the basis of their performance against the following four criteria 
and compared to the baseline (Option A): 

–  Impacts: to illustrate how the options are conducive to reaching desired impacts (analysis 

in sections 5.1 and 5.2); 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
 
–  Efficiency: to assess the ratio of desired impacts and required inputs, including the systemic 
capability  of  the  competent  Commission  services  to  handle  the  implementation  of  each 
option (analysis in section 5.3); 

–  Effectiveness: to assess the extent to which the options achieve the strategic and specific 

objectives of the proposal (analysis in section 5.4); 

–  Coherence: to assess the coherence of the different options with overarching objectives of 

EU policy making (analysis in section 5.5). 

While  Options  B  and  C  can  both  reach  desired  impacts,  the  likelihood  and  magnitude  of 
desired impacts is slightly higher for Option C. Option B must however be considered much 
more  efficient  than  Option  C  considering  the  level  of  inputs  required.  Both  options  are  also 
capable of reaching the objectives identified, whereas Option  C must be considered slightly 
more effective, especially in the longer-term through the proposed OMC providing for review 
and coordination mechanisms for certain areas. Options B and C are both coherent in terms of 
their  ability  to  help  reach  objectives  in  other  policy  areas.  In  the  longer  term,  through  the 
proposed tool of an OMC, Option C is slightly more coherent.  

The  aggregated  scores  (from  tables  2-5)  resulting  from  the  assessments  made  in  Chapter  5 
have  been  transposed  in  the  following  final  comparative  assessment  of  Option  B  and  C  in 
relation to the baseline: 

Table 6: Comparative analysis 

Option A 

Option B 

Option C 

Baseline scenario 
– 
Continuation of 
cooperation based 
on the White 
Paper on Sport 

Definition of a 
medium-term EU 
framework for 
cooperation in 
sport + 
new EU Agenda 
for action 

Definition of a 
long-term 
framework for 
policy 
coordination 
+ 
OMC for certain 
policy areas 

(likelihood 

and 

Impacts 
magnitude) 

Efficiency 

Effectiveness  

Coherence 

= 

= 

= 

= 

++ 

++/+++ 

++/+++ 

++/+++ 

+ 

+++ 

++ 

++/+++ 

6.2.  Choice of the preferred option 

In this starting phase of more comprehensive EU-level cooperation in the field of sport, the 
higher efficiency of Option B must be considered as greatly outweighing the slightly higher 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
 
 
likelihood/magnitude  of  impacts  and  the  slightly  higher  effectiveness  of  Option  C.  At  this 
stage, Option C is difficult to implement in terms of required inputs and given the current lack 
of  political  readiness  for  the  creation  of  an  OMC.  At  this  early  stage  of  formal  EU  level 
cooperation in sport, the analysis suggests that Option B is most attainable.  

Therefore, based on the analysis under 6.1, Option B – "Definition of an EU framework for 
cooperation  in  sport"  is  concluded  to  be  the  most  appropriate  way  to  respond  to  the 
challenges  faced  by  sport  in  the  European  Union  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. 

A  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament  will 
define the strategic policy framework and introduce a new EU Agenda for sport with concrete 
actions.  In  order  to  meet  requests  from  stakeholders  for  financial  incentives  for  sport  that 
could  support  the  policy  agenda,  the  Communication  should  also  announce  an  Impact 
Assessment  addressing  the  relevance,  effectiveness,  efficiency  and  utility  of  a  possible  EU 
Sport  Programme  from  2014  onwards,  in  order  to  complement  the  policy  cooperation 
framework.  

7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

The  Commission  will  continue  its  dialogue  with  public  and  private  stakeholders  and  with 
expert practitioners. The Commission will also actively engage in the continued institutional 
dialogue  with  the  Council,  the  European  Parliament,  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  and  the 
European  Economic  and  Social  Committee.  A  number  of  conferences,  seminars  and  other 
discussions are scheduled for the period after publication of the Communication. These will 
provide  the  Commission  with  opportunities  to  receive  feedback  from,  and  exchange  views 
with, representatives of sport organisations and Member State governments. 

The following table provides an overview of the core indicators of progress towards meeting 
the  general  and  specific  objectives  pursued  by  the  proposed  initiative  (Option  B).  At  this 
stage, only eight indicators are mentioned which can be considered to be tangible in a short to 
medium  timeframe  based  on  the  existing  formal  and  informal  cooperation  structures  in  the 
field of sport. More indicators will be developed in the course of the implementation process, 
once  a  better  assessment  can  be  made,  and  subject  to  a  thorough  discussion  with  relevant 
governmental  and  non-governmental  stakeholders.  This  is  the  case  for  indicators  relating  to 
fields  such  as  social  inclusion,  education  and  training,  volunteering  and  anti-doping.  The 
relevant informal Working Groups in the field of sport will be instrumental to help develop 
additional  indicators.  Regarding  processing  of  data  and  information,  the  Commission  will 
regularly  present  progress  reports  to  the  formal  (Council  Working  Party)  and  informal 
structures (e.g. EU Sport Directors, EU Sport Forum). 

Part of the proposed EU framework for cooperation in sport is an evaluation of the latter in 
2015, which should provide the opportunity to consider the possible introduction of an OMC 
(Option C) for certain aspects of cooperation in sport at EU level. 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
Strategic objective 

Indicator 

Processing 

Table 7: Indicators 

Strategic EU framework for 
cooperation in sport 

(1) Established EU-level political 
cooperation based on agreed 
objectives and an agenda for action  

Endorsement of the framework for 
cooperation by the Council 
(Resolution); Commission to 
regularly report on progress regarding 
the implementation of the new EU 
agenda for sport in the Council 
Working Party on Sport 

Specific objectives 

Indicators 

Processing 

Promote the social and 
educational functions of sport 

(2) Number of Member States 
implementing EU Physical Activity 
Guidelines 

(3) Number of women in leadership 
positions in sport 

Support sport structures, in 
particular those based on 
voluntary activity 

(4) Number of (sustainable) local 
clubs offering access to sport for the 
general public 

Enhance dialogue and 
cooperation with sport 
stakeholders 

(5) Frequency of meetings with sport 
stakeholders at EU level 

(6) Satisfaction of stakeholders (e.g. 
new Eurobarometer) 

Increase understanding of the 
application of the EU legal 
framework to sport 

(7) Number of complaints or 
infringement proceedings 

Support an evidence base for 
sport in the EU-27 

(8) Number of established EU 
statistics and surveys on sport 

Based on national reports in the 
Working Group "Sport & Health", 
Commission to report to the Council 
Working Party on Sport 

Commission to gather feedback from 
sport stakeholders and researchers; 
possibly also by means of a 
Eurobarometer survey before 2014 

Commission to gather feedback from 
sport stakeholders and researchers; 
possibly also by means of a 
Eurobarometer survey before 2014 

Commission to organise an annual 
EU Sport Forum; Commission to 
keep track of meetings with European 
sport stakeholders 

Commission to gather feedback from 
sport stakeholders; possibly also by 
means of a Eurobarometer survey 
before 2014 

Commission to ensure internal 
monitoring (in particular involving 
the following services: COMP, 
EMPL, MARKT, HOME, JUST, SG, 
TAXUD) 

Commission and Member States to 
monitor sport data collection and 
publication of sport surveys  

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Annex I: Report on the EU-wide public consultation 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

With the entry into force of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) on 
1 December 2009, sport became one of the EU’s supporting, coordinating and supplementing 
competences. Based on Article 165 TFEU, the EU should develop action aimed at promoting 
sport in Europe. 

In  preparation  of  its  proposals  to  implement  the  new  Treaty  provisions,  the  Commission 
carried  out  broad  consultations  with  all  concerned  parties,  the  centrepiece  of  which  was  an 
online consultation in the first half of 2010. 

The  objective  of  the  public  consultation  was  twofold.  Firstly,  it  aimed  at  gathering 
stakeholders’ views on the key challenges for sport in Europe. Secondly, it intended to help 
the  Commission  identify  priority  areas  for  action,  including  possible  incentive  measures,  at 
EU level.  

Regarding  possible  incentive  measures,  Member  states  and  experts  were  invited  to  identify 
areas where incentive measures at EU level would be desirable in the framework of a possible 
sport  programme  and  to  define  priority  areas.  The  results  of  the  consultation  as  regards 
possible incentive measures are summarised in sections 2.1 and 2.2 below. 

In  parallel  to  the  online  consultation,  the  Commission  carried  out  broad  consultations 
involving the Member States, the sport movement and other sport  stakeholders and experts. 
The  Commission  received  a  wealth  of  written  contributions  in  the  form  of  position  papers 
from stakeholders. 

In  line  with  the  Commission’s  general  principles  and  standards  governing  consultation  of 
interested  parties,  this  Report  describes  the  public  consultation  process  and  provides  an 
overview of the wide range of suggestions received and the diversity of opinions expressed in 
the course of this process. Without claiming to be exhaustive, the Report highlights the key 
trends and concerns arising from the contributions.  

It should be noted that the results of the consultation complement the experience gained with 
the  implementation  of  the  2007  White  Paper  on  Sport,  including  evidence  gathered through 
EU  studies  conducted  on  selected  topics  (training  and  education  in  sport,  sport  agents, 
volunteering  in  sport),  surveys  carried  out  at  EU  level  (Eurobarometer  2010)  and  EU 
conferences in the field of sport (EU Sport Forum 2008, EU Sport Forum 2010, anti-doping, 
licensing systems, funding of grassroots sport). 

2. 

SUMMARY: RESULTS OF THE CONSULTATION 

The  consultation  process  in  the  first  half  of  2010  produced  a  satisfactory  result  in  terms  of  volume, 
scope and depth of contributions. 

2.1 

Stakeholders and General Public 

The EU Sport Forum, which constitutes the main dialogue platform between the Commission 
and key sport stakeholders, was organised the second time in 2010 (Madrid, 19-20 April) with 
discussions  focusing  on  the  implementation  of  the  sport  provisions  in  the  Lisbon  Treaty.  In 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
addition  to  the  Forum,  the  Commission  held  a  large  number  of  bilateral  und  multilateral 
discussions  with  targeted  stakeholders  throughout  the  first  half  of  2010.  These  stakeholders 
included  European  Sport  Federations,  the  European  Olympic  Committees,  other  European 
umbrella organisations for sport, national umbrella organisations for sport, national Olympic 
and  Paralympic  committees,  other  actors  in  the  field  of  sport  at  European  level,  social 
partners,  and  other  international  and  European  organisations  such  as  the  International 
Olympic Committee and international federations. 

An online public consultation was launched on 7 April 2010 and remained open until 2 June 
2010.  The  online  questionnaire  was  based  on  the  Interactive  Policy-Making  Tool  and 
consisted  of  a  range  of  multiple-choice  questions  divided  into  two  parts,  "Addressing  key 
challenges for sport in Europe" (Part I) and "Identifying policy priorities for EU action" (Part 
II).  The  questions  took  account  of  the  Treaty  mandate  to  develop  EU  action  in  the  field  of 
sport as enshrined in Article 165 TFEU. Only fully completed questionnaires were accepted. 

In addition to filling out the structured part of the online questionnaire, respondents replying 
on behalf of organisations were invited to provide supplementary written contributions. The 
Commission received almost 50 position papers as a contribution to the consultation process, 
most during the period when the online consultation was open but some before or after this 
period. 

Most of the written papers provided high-quality input on sport-specific topics ranging from 
socially driven issues over economically oriented suggestions to sport governance aspects. It 
should be noted, however, that many of the recommendations included in the position papers 
reflected issues which are not part of the EU's mandate as defined in Article 165 TFEU and 
which  can  only  be  dealt  with  at  national  or  regional  levels  (e.g.  suggestions  for  direct  EU 
financing of local sport clubs). 

The online consultation was a success as more  than 1,300 valid submissions were received. 
Approximately  30%  of  respondents  filled  out  the  questionnaire  on  behalf  of  their 
organisations52.  This  ratio  demonstrates  that  the  online  consultation  reached  a  considerable 
number of respondents outside organised sport.  

Online questionnaire – number of replies 

Number of replies

Percentage of total number of replies

As an individual 

On behalf of an organisation 

Total 

935

391

1326

70.5%

29.5%

100%

Regarding  the  nationality  of  respondents,  all  EU  nationalities  except  Cypriots  and 
Luxembourgers  were  represented.  Belgium  ranked  first  on  the  list  with  16.1%  of  replies, 
followed by France (15%) and Spain (14.8%), as outlined in the following chart: 

52 

The  term  “organisation”  has  been  used  in  a  wide  sense,  including  sport  organisations  (e.g.  a  sport 
federation),  sport-related  organisations  (e.g.  a  sports  betting  provider),  public  authorities  (e.g.  a 
Ministry)  or  public  bodies  (e.g.  a  sport  agency),  as  well  as  private  companies,  research  centres  or 
universities. 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
IE
2%

HU
1%

EL
3%

DE
8%

FR
15%

Respondents distribution by nationality

IT
10%

LV
1%

PL
2%

PT
1%

RO
2%

SK
3%

ES
15%

BE
16%

SE
3%

Other
2%

AT
1%

FI
3%

UK
5%

NL
1%

DK
1%

CZ
2%

BG
1%

Regarding  the  nature  of  responding  organisations  that  filled  out  the  online  questionnaire  or 
submitted  a  written  contribution,  sport  organisations  were  the  most  active  in  replying  and 
provided almost two-thirds of the contributions. The repartition of participating organisations 
is visualised in the chart hereafter: 

Participating organisations

59%

6%

1%

3%

5%

Results 

12%

14%

A sport organisation

A non-governmental, non-sport
organisation
A public authority/body

A private company

A research centre or university

A consultancy

Other

The  following  summary  synthesises  the  results  of  the  online  questionnaire,  relevant 
contributions  contained  in  the  written  submissions  and  positions  presented  at  the  EU  Sport 
Forum and other bilateral and multilateral discussions. 

The  replies  to  the  online  questionnaire  were  rated  with  a  corresponding  relative  value  of 
points  between  3  (strongly  agree)  and  -3  (strongly  disagree).  The  analysis  of  the  replies 
demonstrated  an  impressive  degree  of  consensus  between  the  two  groups  of  respondents 
(individuals  and  organisations)  for  a  large  majority  of  issues.  Some  questions  showed 
particularly high scores assigned by both individuals and organisations. 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
 
 
Concerning key challenges for the EU in the field of sport, replies to questions 4, 5, 8, 16, 18, 
24, 28, 35, 38, 39, 41 and 42 of Part I (see section 3 below) demonstrated that all of the sub-
areas of the questionnaire were found to be important by the general public as well as by the 
organised  sport  sector.  Replies  to  questions  4  and  24  represented  the  highest  cumulative 
value, highlighting public concern about insufficient presence of sport and physical activity in 
education and about the doping phenomenon as a threat to the physical and moral integrity of 
sportspeople. This was confirmed by a number of position papers and at bilateral meetings. 

The  degree  of  consensus  between  the  two  groups  of  respondents  was  even  more  significant 
regarding  Part  II  of  the  questionnaire,  which  sought  respondents’  views  on  policy  priorities 
for EU action. While almost all areas were ranked highly, replies to questions 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 
15,  18,  27,  33,  34  and  36  received  the  highest  scores (see section 3 below). A considerable 
number of respondents referred to the fact that there were a number of tasks that the EU could 
do in relation to the social and educational functions of sport. Support and promotion of sport 
as a health-enhancing activity ranked particularly high in the replies and was also frequently 
mentioned in the position papers. 

Great demand for action at EU level relating to social inclusion was also manifested at the EU 
Sport Forum. The need to support accessibility and to work on education and prevention of 
exclusion was also mentioned. According to stakeholders, special attention should be paid to 
activities  at  local  level.  Attention  was  called  to  the  difference  between  integration  through 
sport and integration in sport. Stakeholders agreed that a higher level of integration in sport 
was needed to achieve real integration through sport. 

Volunteering represented another topic that received strong support in the framework of the 
consultation. Replies to the online questionnaire highlighted the need for better recognition of 
voluntary activity in sport and the elimination of obstacles to volunteering. 

To sum up, the consultation served as an important source of information to identify areas that 
can be considered as representing key challenges for sport in Europe from the perspective of 
stakeholders and the general public, and notably the following: 

•  Availability of sport and physical activity at all levels of education; 

•  Insufficient recognition of voluntary activity in sport; 

•  Doping as a major threat to fairness in sporting competitions; 

•  Lack of stable funding for grassroots sport; 

•  Lack  of  attention  for  the  societal  value  of  sport  as  compared  to  its  commercial 

aspects; 

•  Commercial pressure endangering the original spirit of sport based on fair play. 

The  online  questionnaire  also  gave  useful  indications  regarding  priority  areas  for  possible 
future incentive measures. Most areas that received high scores in the structured questionnaire 
were  also  reflected  in  the  written  contributions  and  at  the  various  meetings.  The  areas 
receiving  the  highest  degree  of  funding  priority  from  the  general  public  and  stakeholders 
were: 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
•  Promotion  of  the  social  and  educational  functions  of  sport,  including  health-
enhancing physical activity, participation levels in sport, quality training for sport 
professionals, integration of sport in education policies, sport for all and sport in 
relation to social integration and social inclusion; 

•  Recognition of and support for volunteering in sport and the promotion of public 
and private financing of sport, as a means to support sport structures at grassroots 
level; 

•  Protection  of  the  physical  and  moral  integrity  of  sportspeople,  in  particular  the 

fight against doping and the protection of minors in sport; 

•  Promotion  of  fairness  and  openness  in  sporting  competitions  as  well  as  of  the 
ethical  and  social  values  of  sport,  including  the  fight  against  discrimination, 
racism, xenophobia and violence in sport and the fight against financial crime in 
sport. 

Horizontal priorities that were identified included: 

•  Support for knowledge-based decision-making in the field of sport; 

•  Promotion of networking and exchange of best practices; 

•  Support  for  strengthened  dialogue  with  sport  organisations  and  for  EU  guidance  on  the 

application of EU law to sport. 

2.2  Member States 

Consultation with the Member States took place mainly at the following meetings:  

•  Informal meeting of EU Sport Directors (Barcelona, 25-26 February 2010); 

•  Informal meeting of Ministers responsible for sport (Madrid, 20-21 April 2010); 

•  First  formal  meeting  of  Ministers  responsible  for  sport  in  the  Council  (Brussels,  10  May 
2010), preceded and prepared by the first meeting of the Council Working Party on Sport 
(Brussels, 6 April 2010); 

•  Meetings of the informal EU Working Groups in the field of sport: 

–  Member State Working Group on the White Paper on Sport (3 February 2010) 

–  EU Working Group on Sport and Health (30 June 2010) 

–  EU Working Group on Anti-Doping (14 January and 27 May 2010) 

–  EU Working Group on Sport and Economics (10-11 June 2010) 

–  EU Working Group on Non-Profit Sport Organisations (17 February 2010) 

–  EU Working Group on Education and Training in Sport (19-10 May 2010) 

–  EU Working Group on Social Integration and Gender Equality in Sport (8 July) 

Generally,  Member  States  have  expressed  support  for  developing  the  EU  dimension  in  the 
field of sport and no Member State has opposed new EU action in the field of sport to support 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
policies  at  national  levels.  There  was  broad  consensus  on  the  need  to  address  the  issue  of 
health-enhancing physical activity as well as topics in the area of education and training (dual 
careers, sport in schools etc.). 

The  fight  against  doping  was  emphasized  at  most  of  the  meetings,  usually  linked  with  a 
demand for exchange of best practices. 

A number of Member States stressed the importance of sport for social inclusion and social 
cohesion  while  highlighting  the  need  to  help  people  with  disabilities  and  the  importance  of 
working together towards gender equality. Several Member States referred to the integration 
of minorities. 

Regarding possible incentive measures, Member States identified several priority areas where 
incentive measure at EU level would be desirable. The following areas were singled out both 
at the informal meeting of Ministers in Madrid and at the first formal meeting of Ministers in 
Brussels: 

•  Health,  including  reference  to  previous  work  of  the  Commission  on  Physical  Activity 

Guidelines; 

•  Education and training, including the issue of dual careers; 

•  The fight against doping; 

•  The financing of grassroots sport; 

•  Good governance and structured dialogue. 

2.3 

Group of Independent Sport Experts 

In  addition  to  consultations  with  institutional  stakeholders  and  the  general  public,  the 
Commission  decided  to  seek  the  views  of  a  number  of  independent  experts  with  proven 
experience  in  the  area  of  sport  and  EU  integration.  A  Group  of  Independent  Sport  Experts 
(hereinafter:  "the  Group")  was  set  up  in  order  to  provide  independent  added  value  to  the 
overall  consultation  process.  The  Group  included  the  following  participants:  Mr  Manolis 
Mavrommatis, Ms Raija Mattila, Ms Lydia la Rivière-Zijdel, Mr Thierry Zintz, Mr Richard 
Parrish,  Mr  Stefan  Szymanski,  Ms  Claudia  Bokel,  Ms  Theresa  Zabell,  Mr  Jean-Michel 
Oppert, Mr Pietro Paolo Mennea. 

The  Group  met  in  April  and  June  2010.  The  experts  agreed  that  Mr  Manolis  Mavrommatis 
would  be  the  Group's  rapporteur.  The  Group's  final  report  is  available  on  the  Sport  Unit's 
website. 

The  Group  highlighted  the  great  potential  of  sport  and  physical  activity  to  enhance  public 
health. The Group also raised the importance of strengthening the role of education, training 
and  qualifications  in  sport  and  taking  advantage  of  the  opportunities  created  by  EQF  and 
ECVET. 

The  Group  observed  that  the  definition  of  “migrants”  should  include  both  migrants  from 
outside  the  EU,  where  the  focus  should  be  on  social  inclusion,  and  migrants  coming  from 
other  Member  States,  who  may  face  problems  in  participating  in  amateur  sport  due  to 
restrictions based on nationality. 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
The  Group  recommended  that  promotion  of  volunteering  should  be  a  priority  at  EU  level, 
with  a  focus  on  (de)regulatory  measures  and  research.  Good  practices,  such  as  employers 
allowing their employees time for voluntary activities, should be disseminated and promoted. 

Research  and  better  knowledge  should  be,  according  to  the  Group,  a  priority  for  the 
Commission in order to better understand the phenomenon of doping and how to combat it. 

The Group put forward a proposal for establishing the European Capitals of Sport as an EU 
initiative in the future, which would be managed in a similar way as the European Capitals of 
Culture.  The  initiative  should  promote  sport-minded  cities  that  have  a  sustainable,  citizen-
friendly and effective way of promoting and offering sports and that can be communicated as 
role  models.  The  Group  noted  that  the  exchange  of  good  practices  in  the  abovementioned 
areas is essential and should be supported among the Member States. 

Regarding possible incentive measures, the Group recommended that the Commission should 
focus on the following areas: 

•  Health-enhancing physical activity: support for the assessment and dissemination of good 
practice  and  examples  of  physical  activity  promotion  for  health  throughout  the  life  span, 
and to help develop a multi-sectoral approach of physical activity promotion. 

•  Social  inclusion  through  sport,  including  disabled  people,  gender  equality,  migrants, 

discrimination and violence. 

•  Education  and  training:  support  for  exchange  of  best  practices  in  the  areas  of  sport  and 
physical activity at school, dual careers and qualifications for the labour market in the area 
of sport (vocational education and training). 

•  Research,  particularly  as  regards  health-enhancing  physical  activity,  anti-doping,  good 

governance and volunteering. 

•  Promotion of the physical and moral integrity of sportspeople, including the fight against 
doping and preventive measures to protect the health of athletes, in particular the youngest 
ones. 

The  Group  noted  that  in  all  areas,  EU  grants  should  be  awarded  on  the  basis  of  objective 
criteria following transparent and competitive calls for proposals. 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
3. 

RESULTS OF THE ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE 

ASSESSMENT POINTS CONVERSION TABLE 

Field value 

Corresponding relative value 

Strongly agree 

Agree 

Tend to agree 

Don't know 

Tend to disagree 

Disagree 

Strongly disagree 

3 

2 

1 

0 

-1 

-2 

-3 

Item/Question 

Weighted Average Relative Value 

Individuals 

Organisations 

PART I. 

ADDRESSING KEY CHALLENGES FOR SPORT IN EUROPE 

Social and educational function of sport 

Q1 

Q2 

Q3 

Q4 

Q5 

Q6 

Q7 

Q8 

The  practice  of  sport  and  physical  activity  is  not  sufficiently 
supported by public authorities. 

The  practice  of  sport  and  physical  activity  is  not  sufficiently 
supported by sport organisations. 

Sport organisations concentrate too much on competitive sports at 
the  expense  of  non-competitive  activities  and  health-enhancing 
physical activity. 

There  is  not  enough  sport  and  physical  activity  in  primary  and 
secondary education. 

There  is  not  enough  sport  and  physical  activity  in  higher 
education. 

Too  many  obstacles  (e.g.  physical  obstacles,  availability, 
expenses) exist to accessing sporting activities and facilities. 

There  are  unequal  possibilities  to  access  sporting  activities  and 
facilities between different socio-economic groups. 

The  potential  of  sport  in  relation  to  social  inclusion  is  not 
sufficiently exploited. 

1,58 

0,30 

0,97 

2,12 

2,06 

1,30 

1,42 

1,64 

1,36 

- 0,18 

0,77 

2,16 

1,97 

1,40 

1,55 

1,82 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
 
 
Q9 

Access  to  sporting  activities  and  facilities  is  more  difficult  for 
women than for men. 

- 0,55 

- 0,40 

Q10  Women  are  underrepresented  in  sports,  notably  in  management 

and leadership positions. 

Q11  With  the  exception  of  some  professional  sports,  cross-border 

mobility of people involved in sports is weak. 

Q12  The  quality  of  training  for  coaches,  trainers  and  other  sport 
is 

professionals  dealing  with  children  and  young  people 
insufficient. 

Q13  There are important obstacles to practising a sports profession in 
another Member State than the one where the qualification for this 
profession was acquired. 

Q14 

It  is  difficult  for  an  athlete  to  combine  a  sporting  career  with 
studies or with an alternative professional career. 

Q15  There is not enough comparable data on the economic and social 

impact of sport in EU Member States. 

Volunteering in sport 

Q16  Voluntary  activity  in  sport  is  not  sufficiently  recognised  as  a 

valuable contribution to society and to personal development. 

Q17  Voluntary activity in sport is hindered by legal obstacles such as 
disadvantageous fiscal practices, employment laws and inadequate 
insurance schemes. 

Q18  There are not enough incentives for voluntary activities in sport. 

Q19  Opportunities  to  take  part  in  voluntary  activities  in  sport  are 
unequal for people from different socio-economic groups. 

0,97 

1,19 

0,65 

0,67 

1,21 

1,47 

1,86 

1,36 

1,69 

0,75 

Physical and moral integrity of sportspeople 

Q20 

Q21 

Sportsmen  and  sportswomen,  especially  the  youngest  ones,  are 
not sufficiently protected from doping. 

Sportsmen  and  sportswomen,  especially  the  youngest  ones,  are 
not  sufficiently  protected  from  overtraining  and  other  harmful 
practices (e.g. unhealthy diets). 

Q22  Under-age  sportsmen  and  sportswomen  are  not  sufficiently 

protected from exploitation. 

Q23  There  are  not  enough  preventive  measures  against  injuries  and 

accidents in sport. 

Q24 

Fairness  in  sporting  competitions  is  endangered  by  the  use  of 
doping substances. 

Q25  Doping substances and methods are extensively used among high-

level athletes. 

0,84 

1,18 

0,60 

0,72 

2,17 

0,85 

0,97 

1,14 

0,73 

0,72 

1,07 

1,61 

2,01 

1,48 

1,75 

0,73 

0,58 

0,88 

0,34 

0,63 

1,88 

0,45 

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
 
Q26  The use of doping substances and methods is wide-spread among 
recreational  users  (e.g.  in  gyms,  fitness  centres,  amateur  sport 
clubs). 

Q27 

It is easy to obtain doping substances. 

Governance of sport 

Q28  There is not enough communication among different EU Member 
States regarding different approaches they have in relation to sport 
and sport policy. 

Q29  There is not enough communication and cooperation among sport 

organisations that work on the same topics. 

Public  authorities  do  not  respect 
organisations to regulate their own sports. 

the  autonomy  of  sport 

Sport organisations often consider themselves above the law. 

Sport organisations are not sufficiently transparent and democratic 
in their functioning. 

Sport  organisations  do  not  involve  relevant  actors  in  decision-
making processes to a sufficient degree. 

0,47 

0,95 

1,44 

1,39 

0,30 

0,42 

0,99 

1,06 

0,16 

0,75 

1,61 

1,45 

0,17 

- 0,20 

0,31 

0,56 

Sport  events  and  activities  often  have  a  negative  impact  on  the 
environment.  

- 0,64 

- 0,96 

Q30 

Q31 

Q32 

Q33 

Q34 

Q35 

Q36 

Professional sport does not provide enough funding for grassroots 
sport. 

Public funding for grassroots sports is not sufficiently stable. 

Q37  Too much public funding is allocated to high-level sport. 

Specificity of sport 

Q38  There  are  not  enough  opportunities  to  engage  in  dialogue  with 

European authorities on the specific nature of sport. 

Q39  The societal values of sport are not sufficiently taken into account 

compared to its commercial aspects. 

Q40  The  rights  of  athletes  are  not  sufficiently  respected  by  sport 

organisations. 

1,53 

1,64 

0,53 

1,25 

1,91 

0,50 

Fairness and openness of sporting competitions 

Q41 

Strong  commercial  pressure  and  requirements  of  the  media 
endanger the original spirit of sport based on fair play. 

Q42  Media  and  sponsors  influence  the  decision-making  of  sport 

organisations too much. 

Q43  The  increasing  commercialisation  and  mediatisation  of  sport  has 
benefited  only  professional  sports,  not  the  grassroots  level  of 

1,89 

1,90 

1,54 

1,48 

1,81 

0,45 

1,50 

1,96 

0,05 

1,42 

1,37 

1,28 

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
 
sport. 

Q44 

Sport exacerbates nationalist attitudes. 

Q45  There  are  not  enough  preventive  measures  to  tackle  the  problem 

of violence at sporting events. 

Q46  Not  enough  preventive  measures  are  in  place  in  order  to  tackle 
problems  related  to  discrimination,  racism,  homophobia  and 
xenophobia in sport. 

Q47 

Financial crime in sports is spreading. 

0,33 

0,83 

0,79 

1,16 

PART II. 

IDENTIFIYING POLICY PRIORITIES FOR EU ACTION 

Social and educational function of sport 

A1 

A2 

A3 

A4 

A5 

A6 

A7 

A8 

A9 

A10 

A11 

A12 

A13 

Support  the  role  of  sport  in  enhancing  public  health  through 
physical activity. 

Promote  sport  and  physical  activity  as  a  tool  to  achieve  a  more 
active lifestyle and to fight against obesity. 

Encourage  EU  Member  States  and  sport  organisations  to  take 
action  in  order  to  increase  participation  levels  in  sport  and 
physical activity. 

Eliminate  obstacles  to  the  practice  of  sport  for  EU  citizens 
residing in other Member States than their own. 

Support and promote the social and educational function of sport. 

Encourage EU Member States and sport organisations to improve 
the  quality  of  training  for  sport  professionals  who  deal  with 
children and young people. 

Promote  better  integration  of  sports  issues  in  education  and 
training policies. 

Encourage  EU  Member  States  and  other  actors  to  improve  equal 
access to sport activities and facilities. 

Promote "sport for all". 

Support  the  role  of  sport  in  relation  to  social  integration  and 
inclusion  (regardless  of  age,  gender,  ethnic  origin,  sexual 
orientation, disability etc.). 

Promote gender equality in sport. 

Promote  the  mobility  of  people  active  in  sports,  notably  young 
people. 

Promote knowledge-based decision-making in the field of sport. 

A14  Collect  and  analyse  comparable  statistical  data  on  the  impact  of 

2,52 

2,49 

2,49 

1,99 

2,44 

2,23 

2,33 

2,19 

2,41 

2,31 

2,01 

1,89 

2,12 

2,07 

0,07 

0,75 

0,74 

0,76 

2,57 

2,57 

2,54 

1,90 

2,52 

2,27 

2,34 

2,20 

2,47 

2,41 

2,17 

1,96 

2,22 

2,20 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
 
sport in economic and social terms. 

Volunteering in sport 

A15 

Promote  the  recognition  of  volunteering  in  sport  as  a  valuable 
contribution to society and to personal development. 

A16  Encourage Member States and other actors to remove obstacles to 

volunteering. 

Physical and moral integrity of sportspeople 

A17  Contribute to the fight against doping. 

A18  Take action against trade in illegal doping substances. 

A19 

Support  co-operation  among  Member  States,  sport  organisations 
and other actors in order to prevent injuries and accidents in sport. 

A20  Contribute 

exploitation. 

to 

the  protection  of  minors 

in  sport  against 

2,30 

2,25 

2,47 

2,57 

2,17 

2,35 

Governance of sport 

A21 

Foster coordination and cooperation among Member States, sport 
organisations and other actors in the field of sport. 

A22  Refrain from taking initiatives in the field of sport. 

A23 

A24 

A25 

A26 

A27 

A28 

A29 

Promote good governance in the field of sport. 

Promote  dialogue  among  different  actors  on 
characteristics of sport. 

the  specific 

Promote  and  support  environmentally  sustainable  planning  and 
execution of sporting activities. 

Promote  sustainable  public  and  private  financing  of  grassroots 
sports. 

Support networking and exchange of best practice in sport. 

Specificity of sport 

Strengthen  its  dialogue  with  sport  organisations  to  provide 
guidance on the application of EU law in the sport sector. 

Pursue  a  better  balance  between  the  societal  and  commercial 
dimensions of sport. 

A30 

 Pursue  a  better  balance  between 
organisations and the rights of athletes. 

the  objectives  of  sport 

2,11 

- 0,91 

1,97 

1,98 

1,94 

2,23 

2,21 

2,01 

2,07 

1,87 

2,47 

2,38 

2,34 

2,49 

2,16 

2,35 

2,25 

- 0,96 

1,96 

2,02 

1,97 

2,31 

2,41 

2,14 

2,06 

1,81 

Fairness and openness of sporting competitions 

A31 

Promote EU values, notably human dignity, freedom, democracy, 
equality, the rule of law and the respect for human rights, in sport. 

2,33 

2,32 

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
A32 

A33 

A34 

Promote and support fairness in European sporting competitions. 

Promote the ethical and social values of sport. 

Support  the  prevention  of  and  the  fight  against  discrimination, 
racism, xenophobia, homophobia and violence in sport. 

A35  Actively contribute to the fight against financial crime in sport. 

A36  Encourage  co-operation  among  national  sport  organisations, 
national governing bodies and other actors in order to fight against 
corruption in sport. 

2,42 

2,46 

2,41 

2,37 

2,41 

2,33 

2,48 

2,42 

2,29 

2,38 

4. 

POSITION PAPERS RECEIVED IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE 
CONSULTATION 

Date  

Organisation 

05/01/2010 and 27/05/2010  CCPR 

14/01/2010 

20/01/2010 

29/01/2010 

ENGSO 

Sports Rights Owners Coalition (SROC) 

IOC 

18/02/2010 and 29/06/2010  EPFL 

04/03/2010 

Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sports (NIF) 

05/03/2010 and 31/05/2010  EU Athletes 

12/03/2010 

23/03/2010 

19/04/2010 

22/04/2010 

23/04/2010 

26/04/2010 

26/04/2010 

29/04/2010 

03/05/2010 

05/05/2010 

05/05/2010 

10/05/2010 

12/05/2010 

12/05/2010 

12/05/2010 

17/05/2010 

17/05/2010 

26/05/2010 

27/05/2010 

27/05/2010 

27/05/2010 

EOSE 

FIFPro 

EGBA 

Austrian Road Safety Board 

RGA 

New Media Coalition 

EASE 

SportElite Marketing Ltd 

Snowpolis Oy 

PADI Europe 

Federación andaluza de deportes de discapacitados fisicos  

Swim Ireland 

Irish Waterski and Wakeboard Federation 

Técnico de Apoyo a Programas del Consorcio 

Consejo  General  de  los  Ilustres  Colegios  Oficiales  de  Licenciados  en  Educación  Física  y  en 
Ciencias de la Actividad Física y del Deporte de España 

Unione Italiana dei Ciechi e degli Ipovedenti 

British Gliding Association  

European Volunteer Center 

FESI 

NOC and Sports Confederation of Denmark 

ENSSEE 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
27/05/2010 

28/05/2010 

28/05/2010 

31/05/2010 

01/06/2010 

01/06/2010 

01/06/2010 

17/06/2010 

18/06/2010 

01/07/2010 

07/07/2010 

10/07/2010 

03/08/2010 

08/09/2010 

23/03/2010 

29/03/2010 

13/04/2010 

26/04/2010 

26/05/2010 

01/06/2010 

European Coaching Council 

Dutch Olympic Committee and National Sports Federation (NOC*NSF) 

PGA 

EHFA 

ISCA 

CNOSF 

European Fashion Council 

Supporters Direct 

EEA / EFTA 

European Professional Football Leagues (EPFL) 

Deutscher Olympischer Sport Bund (DOSB) 

English Football Premier League (FAPL) 

Football Association of Ireland 

UEFA 

Public Authorities 

The Netherlands (Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport) 

Finland (Ministry of Culture and Sport) 

Belgium (Sportdienst, Stad Herentals) 

Spain (Ministry for Youth and Sports of Extremadura) 

Germany (Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart, Sportamt) 

Spain (Diputación de Barcelona) 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
 
Annex II: White Paper Implementation table 

September 2010 

White Paper on Sport 

ACTION PLAN "PIERRE DE COUBERTIN" 

Overview of progress made (core areas) 

Action 

Progress 

A. The societal role of sport 

A.1. Public health and physical activity 

•  Together with the Member States, develop 

new physical activity guidelines. 

•  Support an EU Health-Enhancing Physical 
Activity network and, if appropriate, smaller 
and more focused networks dealing with 
specific aspects of the topic. 

EU  Sport  Ministers  endorsed  the  EU  Physical  Activity 
Guidelines  at  their  informal  meeting  in  Biarritz  on  27-
28/11/08 and asked for their transmission to the Council. 

Follow-up  to  the  Guidelines  is,  for  the  time  being,  taking 
place  in  the  EU  Working  Group  "Sport  &  Health",  which 
supervised the preparation of the Guidelines. 

Health-enhancing physical activity (HEPA) is covered by the 
Preparatory  Action  for  Sport  2009,  where  half  of  the  co-
financed  projects (i.e. 9 projects  with  grants totalling €  2m) 
are HEPA projects. 

Further  concrete  steps  will  depend  on  follow-up  in  the 
Council  and  on  the  availability  of  funding  for  European 
networks. 

Recommendations regarding the network are part of the EU 
Physical  Activity  Guidelines.  Good  cooperation  has  been 
established  with  the  WHO's  Rome  Office  and  the  HEPA 
Europe  Network  (European  network  on  health-enhancing 
physical activity). At the annual HEPA Europe conference in 
Olomouc (CZ) in November 2010, the first meeting of an EU 
Contact Group will take place. 

•  Mobilise the 7th Framework Programme for 
Research and Technological Development 
(RTD), the EU Public Health Programme, the 
Youth and Citizenship programmes and the 
Life-Long Learning (LLL) Programme. 

A  number  of  sport  organisations  have  obtained  grants,  in 
particular  from  the  Public  Health,  Youth  and  Citizenship 
programmes. Their work is regularly presented at meetings 
of  the  EU  Platform  for  Action  on  Nutrition,  Health  and 
Physical Activity. 

A.2. Fight against doping 

•  Support partnerships through training courses 
and networking between training centres for 
law enforcement officers. 

•  Facilitate a coordinated EU approach in the 
fight against doping, e.g. by supporting a 
network of national anti-doping organisations. 

The  issue  has  been  discussed  at  several  meetings  of  the 
EU  Working  Group  on  Anti-Doping  in  2009/2010.  Further 
concrete  steps  will  depend,  however,  on  the  availability  of 
funding. 

The EU Working Group  on Anti-Doping is  working on such 
issues  as  data  protection,  transportation  of  samples  by  air, 
criminalisation  of  trade  in  doping  substances,  cooperation 
with  the  pharmaceutical  industry,  co-operation  between 
accredited  anti-doping  laboratories  in  the  EU,  and  EU-
WADA  relations.  The  WG  mechanism  has  been  useful  in 
coordinating  efforts  with  the  Council  of  Europe.  Further 
concrete  steps  will  depend,  however,  on  the  availability  of 
funding. 

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
A.3. Education and training 

•  Promote participation in educational 

opportunities through sport under the Lifelong 
Learning Programme (Comenius, Erasmus, 
Leonardo da Vinci, Grundtvig). 

• 

Identify projects for the implementation of the 
European Qualification Framework (EQF) and 
the European Credit System for Vocational 
Education and Training (ECVET) in the sport 
sector. 

• 

Introduce the award of a European label to 
schools actively supporting physical activities. 

•  Complete the analysis of rules requiring that 

teams include a certain quota of locally trained 
players. 

A.4.  Volunteering  in  sport,  active  citizenship 
and non-profit sport organisations 

•  Together with Member States, identify key 

challenges for non-profit sport organisations 
and the main characteristics of services 
provided by these organisations. 

•  Support grassroots sport through the Europe 

for Citizens Programme. 

Included  in  LLP  priorities  for  2008-2010  and  part  of  the 
agenda of the EU Working Group on Education Training in 
Sport. 

Education and training projects with a focus on dual careers 
are covered by the Preparatory Action for sport 2009. 

Good  progress  is  being  made.  Information  on  the  first  3 
projects  (EQF  for  outdoor  animators,  EQF  sports,  ECVET 
for the fitness industry) was presented at a final conference 
in  Dec.  2008.  2  projects  (EQF  for  outdoor  animators  – 
phase  2,  European  accreditation  system  for  the  fitness 
industry)  were  supported  in  2008-2009.  Topics  relating  to 
qualifications  are  being  discussed  in  the  Working  Group 
"Education and Training in Sport". 

The  Member  States  represented  in  the  informal  Working 
Group  "Education  and  Training  in  Sport"  advised  the 
Commission  to  take  this  action  point  in  reconsideration 
since  there  is  no  great  interest  in  such  a  label  in  most 
Member States. 

A  detailed  analysis  completed  in  spring  2008  resulted  in 
May  2008 in a joint press release  by  Commissioners Figel' 
and  Špidla  endorsing  UEFA's  rules  on  "home-grown 
players".  The  press  release  included  a  rendez-vous  clause 
to re-assess the rule in 2012.  

The  EU  Working  Group  on  Non-Profit  Sport  Organisations 
has focused its  work on financing and volunteering. Topics 
discussed  at  recent  meetings  included  the  impact  of  the 
economic crisis on sport, developments in the field of sports 
betting and a proposal on sport and competition law. 

Operational grants were provided to two sport organisations 
in  2008  and  to  three  stakeholders  in  2010.  Three  sport 
projects  have  been  supported  by  Citizens  Panels.  One  of 
these  projects  was  coordinated  by  ENGSO  and  aimed  at 
collecting  views  on 
future  competence  on 
sport (http://www.eusportfuture.eu). 

the  EU's 

•  Encourage young people's volunteering in 

sport through the Youth in Action Programme. 

On-going.  A  considerable  number  of  Youth  in  Action 
projects have a sport component. 

•  Develop the exchange of information and best 

practice on volunteering in sport. 

•  Launch a study on volunteering in sport. 

Volunteering  was  one  of  the  Czech  Presidency's  priorities 
and resulted in a Memorandum. Financial support has been 
provided  to  the  organisation  of  the  10th  European  Youth 
Olympic  Festival  in  Tampere  and  the  XVI  Mediterranean 
Games in Pescara in June/July 2009, with special focus on 
volunteering.  

The 2010 Preparatory Action in the field of sport includes a 
Call  for  proposals  on  management  support  for  voluntary 
activity. 29 applications have been received. 

This study was combined with a wider Commission study on 
volunteering,  which  includes  a  sector  study  on  sport.  The 
study  was  published  in  early  2010.  It  illustrates  the 
importance  of  voluntary  activity  in  the  sport  sector  and 
identifies trends and challenges in the EU-27. 

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
A.5. Social inclusion in and through sport 

•  Mobilise the Progress, Lifelong Learning, 
Youth in Action and Europe for Citizens 
programmes as well as the European Social 
Fund, the European Regional Development 
Fund and the European Integration Fund to 
support actions promoting social inclusion and 
integration through sport and combating 
discrimination in sport. 

•  The Action Plan on the European Union 
Disability Strategy, take into account the 
importance of sport for disabled people and 
support Member State actions in this field. 

• 

In the framework of the Roadmap for Equality 
between Women and Men 2006-2010, 
encourage the mainstreaming of gender issues 
into sports-related activities, with a specific 
focus on access to sport for immigrant women 
and women from ethnic minorities, women's 
access to decision-making positions in sport 
and media coverage of women in sport. 

A.6. Fight against racism and violence in sport 

•  As regards racism and xenophobia, promote 

dialogue and exchange of best practices in the 
existing cooperation framework. 

•  Promote, in accordance with national and EU 
rules applicable, the exchange of operational 
information and practical know-how and 
experience on the prevention of violent and 
racist incidents between law enforcement 
services and with sport organisations. 

•  Analyse possibilities for new legal instruments 

or EU-wide standards to prevent public 
disorder at sport events. 

Some  sport-related  projects  are  being  supported  through 
these  programmes.  In  particular,  projects  financed  through 
the  ERDF  and  the  ESF  are  underway  in  several  Member 
States. 

As  proposed  by  the  Spanish  Presidency,  an  informal 
Working  Group  with  Member  States  has  been  created  on 
Social  Integration  and  Equal  Opportunities  in  and  through 
sport. 

The  Commission  intends  to  include  port  in  the  next  EU 
Disability  Strategy  running  from  2010  to  2020.  The  2009 
Preparatory  Action  for  sport  covers  disability  sport.  Events 
organised  by  Special  Olympics  are  being  supported  in 
2010/2011 (Warsaw/Athens). 

The  2009  Preparatory  Action  covers  gender  equality  in 
sport  management.  The  intention  is  to  include  sport  in  the 
next EU Strategy (2010-2015) on gender equality. 

As  a  first  step,  this  issue  was  covered  by  a  DG  JLS 
conference  in  November  2007.  A  study  on  racism  in  sport 
has  been  launched  by  the  EU's  Fundamental  Rights 
Agency.  The  results  of  the  study  will  be  available  in  2010. 
The possible inclusion of anti-discrimination and anti-racism 
clauses  in  players'  contracts  has  been  discussed  at  the 
European  Social  Dialogue  Committee  for  Professional 
Football. 

On the basis of Council Decision 2002/348/JHA on security 
at  international  football  matches,  data  exchange  between 
National Football Information Points is being developed and 
should  be  further  reinforced  with  UEFA.  The  Commission 
promotes  a  wide  use  of 
for  Police 
Cooperation,  adopted  in  2006  to  prevent  and  control 
violence  more  efficiently.  Pan-European  training  for  police 
officers  and  safety  personnel,  financially  supported  by  the 
Commission, was launched in 2009. 

the  Handbook 

The  Council  adopted  in  November  2008  a  Framework 
Decision  on  combating  certain  forms  and  expressions  of 
racism  and  xenophobia  by  means  of  criminal 
law 
(2008/913/JHA). It contributes to tackling these phenomena 
also in sport. 

integrated 

in-stadia  safety  and  security 
To  develop 
arrangements,  an  expert  group  was  set  up  in  2008.  UEFA 
and  the  European  Committee  on  Standardisation  (CEN) 
have  been  associated.  National  and  local  governmental 
authorities  should  ensure  efficient  safety  certification  of 
stadia and their enforcement. 

•  Promote a multidisciplinary approach to 

preventing anti-social behaviour, with a special 
focus given to socio-educational actions such 
as fan-coaching (long-term work with 
supporters to develop a positive and non-

The  Commission  promotes  a  multi-disciplinary  and  multi-
agency  approach  reflected  in  the  conclusions  of  the  high-
level conference "Towards an EU strategy against violence 
in sport" (2007). 

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
violent attitude). 

•  Strengthen regular and structured cooperation 

among law enforcement services, sport 
organisations and other stakeholders. 

•  Encourage the use of the following 

programmes, to contribute to the prevention of 
and fight against violence and racism in sport: 
Youth in Action, Europe for Citizens, DAPHNE 
III, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship and 
Prevention and Fight against Crime. 

•  Organise a high level conference to discuss 
measures contributing to prevent and fight 
violence and racism in sport events with 
stakeholders. 

B. The economic dimension of sport 

B.1. Economic impact of sport 

•  Together with Member States, develop a 

European statistical method for measuring the 
economic impact of sport. 

•  Conduct specific sport-related surveys to 

provide non-economic information on sport. 

•  Launch a study to assess the sport sector’s 

contribution to the Lisbon Agenda. 

•  Organise the exchange of best practices 
concerning the organisation of large sport 
events. 

B.2. Public support for sport 

•  Carry out a study on the financing of 

grassroots sport and sport for all in the 
Member States from both public and private 
sources, and on the impact of on-going 
changes in this area. 

The  Work  Programme  on  minimising  safety  and  security 
risks, adopted by the Council in 2007, has served as a basis 
for  cooperation  and  coordination  initiatives  between  public 
authorities  and  sport  organisations.  The  implementation  of 
the  related  Action  Plan  is  annually  updated  by  the  Police 
Cooperation Working Group in the Council. 

Among  financially  supported  initiatives  can  be  mentioned 
the project ARIES aiming at the promotion of youth sport to 
achieve  zero  tolerance  of  discrimination  and  the  KROSSS 
project  focused  on  Kicking  Racism  out  of  Sports,  Schools 
and Society. 

The  conference  was  organised  on  28-29  November  2007 
under  the  auspices  of  the  EU  Presidency,  Commission, 
European  Parliament  and  UEFA. 
law 
enforcement  cooperation,  fan  culture,  and  cooperation  with 
local authorities and judicial cooperation. 

focused  on 

It 

The  method  of  a  Sport  Satellite  Account  (SSA)  has  been 
agreed and developed  by the Commission-led EU Working 
Group “Sport & Economics” since 2006. At the 4th meeting 
of  the  WG  in  Oct.  '07  consensus  was  reached  on  a 
European  statistical  definition  of  sport  ("Vilnius  definition"). 
Following its 7th meeting in Oct. '09, the WG had prepared 
an  SSA  policy  paper,  methodology  paper  and  a  short 
publication  with  first  data  results  (Austria,  Cyprus,  UK), 
which  was  presented 
to  EU  Sport  Ministers  and 
stakeholders in 2010. Four other Member States will finalise 
their national SSAs in 2011. 

in 

A Eurobarometer survey on sport and physical activity  was 
launched 
the  second  half  of  2009.  Commissioner 
Vassiliou  presented  the  results  at  a  press  conference  in 
March  2010  and  at  the  Sport  Forum  in  April  2010.  There 
was wide coverage in the media in all Member States. 

A  Call  for  Tender  for  a  study  on  sport’s  contribution  to 
economic  growth  and  employment  in  the  EU-27  was 
launched  in  summer  2010.  Results  can  be  expected  in  the 
first half of 2012. 

The  French  Presidency  presented  a  study  on  the  Rugby 
World Championship in 2008. 

A  Commission  study  got  under  way  in  October  2009.  The 
study will inter alia look into cross-border obstacles to sport 
funding.  A  stakeholder  conference  took  place  on  16 
February  2010  in  Brussels.  Study  results  are  expected  at 
the end of 2010. 

•  Defend the possibilities of reduced VAT rates 

for sport. 

EU legislation on Value-Added Tax (reduced rates) has not 
changed with regard to the sport sector. 

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
C. The organisation of sport 

C.1. Free movement and nationality 

•  Combat discrimination based on nationality in 

all sports through political dialogue, 
recommendations, structured dialogue with 
stakeholders and infringement procedures 
when appropriate. 

•  Launch a study on access to individual sport 

competitions for non-nationals. 

C.2. Players' agents 

•  Carry out an impact assessment to provide a 
clear overview of the activities of players’ 
agents in the EU and an evaluation of whether 
action at EU level is necessary, which will also 
analyse the different possible options. 

C.4.  Corruption,  money-laundering  and  other 
financial crime 

•  Support public-private partnerships 

representative of sports interests and 
anticorruption authorities, which would identify 
vulnerabilities to corruption in the sport sector 
and assist in the development of effective 
preventive and repressive strategies to counter 
such corruption. 

•  Continue to monitor the implementation of EU 

anti-money laundering legislation in the 
Member States with regard to the sport sector. 

C.5. Licensing systems 

•  Starting with football, organise a conference 

with UEFA, EPFL, Fifpro, national associations 
and national leagues on existing licensing 
systems and best practices in this field. 

This  is  a  permanent  priority  and  part  of  the  ongoing 
structured  dialogue  with  sport  stakeholders.  Repeated 
contacts  with  FIFA  and  other  football  organisations  have 
taken place about "6+5". 

The  kick-off  meeting  for  the  study  took  place  in  January 
2010.  The  results  of  the  study  are  expected  at  the  end  of 
2010. 

As a first step, an independent study was published on the 
Sport Unit's website in December 2009. 

The  Commission is  preparing  an  updated  Report  on  the 
implementation  of  Framework  Decision  2003/568/JHA  on 
corruption in the private sector. The report will be part of the 
anti-corruption package on a comprehensive anti-corruption 
policy  in  the  EU.  Initiatives  could  also  be  undertaken 
through the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) as a follow 
up to its 2009 study on money laundering in sport. 

The  FATF  has  carried  out  a  study  on  money  laundering 
through sport clubs (football in particular). Published in July 
2009, the study has relied on the experience and support of 
the  Member  States  of  the  FATF,  the  Commission  and  the 
is  accompanied  by  policy 
private  sector.  The  report 
recommendations, 
raise 
awareness of the risk of money laundering in sport. 

including  on 

the  need 

to 

The Conference took place in Brussels on 17-18 September 
2009.  It  gathered  representatives  of  football  (federations, 
leagues,  clubs  and  players)  as  well  as  representatives  of 
other  team  sports  with  an  interest  in  the  issue  of  licensing 
systems,  in  order  to  facilitate  exchange  of  views  and 
sharing of good practices on this topic. All the documents of 
the conference (presentations, speeches, list of participants, 
etc.) have been posted on the Sport Unit's website. 

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
 
Annex  III:  The  added  value  of  EU  action  in  relation  to  Health-Enhancing 
Physical Activity 

Individual and public health depend to a considerable extent on whether citizens have access 
to regular physical activity (including, but going beyond, sport). Such access in turn depends 
heavily on policy choices made at national, regional and local levels. 

To  facilitate  regular  physical  activity  among  the  population,  guidelines  are  needed  which 
define the kind of policy coordination that is needed, both between sectors (public, voluntary, 
private),  policy  areas  (e.g.  health,  education,  transport,  urban  planning,  sport),  and  levels  of 
organisation  (national,  regional,  local).  The  EU  Physical  Activity  Guidelines53,  initially 
requested by Member State Sport Ministers, were developed with the aim to provide a general 
framework and to state the most obvious needs in the form of 41 concrete guidelines. They 
are intended to be elaborated at national level through national physical activity guidelines. 

At present, national guidelines do not exist in most Member States, nor does the kind of inter-
sectoral  cooperation  recommended  by  the  EU  Guidelines.  The  question  is  whether  a 
correlation can be demonstrated between physical activity levels in individual Member States 
and the existence and implementation of physical activity guidelines. 

A  considerable  number  of  studies  indicate  that  such  correlation  does  indeed  exist.  Most 
recently,  dissimilar  patterns  in  citizens'  regular  participation  in  sport  and  physical  activity 
have  been  evidenced  at  EU-27  level  by  Special  Eurobarometer  72.3  on  Sport  and  Physical 
Activity (February 2010).54 

The  Eurobarometer  survey  looked  at  the  regularity,  venues  and  personal  motivation  of 
exercising and also the attitude of local sport stakeholders. Disparities among Member States 
in the field of sport and physical activity appear to be very significant and larger than in other 
socioeconomic areas. 

The  Eurobarometer  survey  generated  replies  regarding  five  categories  of  regularity  of 
physical  activity  ("Regularly",  "With  some  regularity",  "Seldom",  "Never",  "Don't  Know"). 
Combined  scores  in  the  two  highest  categories  ("Regularly"  +  "With  some  regularity") 
provide a picture in terms of people's self-perceived realistic opportunities for daily physical 
activity.  This  provides  the  following  ranking  among  the  Member  States  (all  figures  reflect 
percentages of respondents): 

Sweden: 22 + 50 = 72 

Finland: 17 + 55 = 72 

Denmark: 15 + 49 = 64 

Ireland: 23 + 35 = 58 

53 

54 

Brussels, 10 October 2008. EU Physical Activity Guidelines: Recommended Policy Actions in Support 
of Health-Enhancing Physical Activity. 
http://ec.europa.eu/sport/library/doc/c1/pa_guidelines_4th_consolidated_draft_en.pdf  
Eurobarometer 72.3- Sport and Physical Activity. 
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_334_en.pdf  

EN 

59 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
Netherlands: 5 + 51 = 56 

Slovenia: 13 + 39 = 52 

Luxembourg: 12 + 39 = 51 

Belgium: 16 + 34 = 50 

Germany: 9 + 40 = 49 

Malta: 17 + 31 = 48 

France: 13 + 35 = 48 

United Kingdom: 14 + 32 = 46 

Cyprus: 16 + 25 = 41 

EU 27 average: 9 + 31 = 40 

Spain: 12 + 27 = 39 

Austria: 5 + 33 = 38 

Lithuania: 14 + 22 = 36 

Estonia: 7 + 27 = 34 

Portugal: 9 + 24 = 33 

Slovakia: 5 + 25 = 30 

Italy: 3 + 26 = 29 

Czech Republic: 5 + 23 = 28 

Latvia: 8 + 19 = 27 

Poland: 6 + 19 = 25 

Hungary: 5 + 18 = 23 

Romania: 8 + 13 = 21 

Greece: 3 + 15 = 18 

Bulgaria: 3 + 10 = 13 

While cultural, climatic and financial differences may be expected to influence these scores, it 
will  be  noticed  that  the  picture  is  not  one  of  a  clear-cut  north/south  or  east/west  split.  For 
example, Finland/Estonia, Cyprus/Greece and Spain/Portugal are pairs of countries displaying 
larger disparities than might have been expected. 

EN 

60 

   EN 

 
Against  the  backdrop  of  such  stark  intra-EU  differences,  work  related  to  the  EU  Physical 
Guidelines and national guidelines takes on a whole new dimension. The following Member 
States  are  currently  members  of  the  Working  Group  on  Sport  and  Health,  under  whose 
supervision  the  EU  Guidelines  were  developed:  Austria,  Belgium,  Czech  Republic,  Cyprus, 
Finland,  France,  Germany,  Greece,  Luxemburg,  Netherlands,  Poland,  Portugal,  Slovenia, 
Spain and the United Kingdom. 

The EU Physical Activity Guidelines stress the need for national guidelines to be developed 
as  more  comprehensive  tools,  adding  more  detail  than  can  be  found  in  a  set  of  standards 
covering  the  entire  EU.  According  to  information  available  to  the  Commission,  at  least  the 
following Member States have had national guidelines in place for a certain number of years 
before  the  EU  Physical  Activity  Guidelines  were  endorsed  at  an  informal  meeting  of  EU 
Sport  Ministers  in  200855:  United  Kingdom,  France,  Luxembourg,  Germany,  Slovenia  and 
Finland. 

The following table compares the outcome of the Eurobarometer survey with participation of 
Member States in the informal Working Group on Sport and Health and with the availability 
and implementation of national physical activity guidelines: 

Member State 

Eurobarometer score 

Working 
EU 
Group  Sport  and 
Health 
membership 

National 
activity 
preceding 
Guidelines 

physical 
guidelines 
EU 

Sweden 

Finland 

Denmark 

Ireland 

Netherlands 

Slovenia 

Luxembourg 

Belgium 

Germany 

Malta 

France 

United Kingdom 

Cyprus 

72 

72 

64 

58 

56 

52 

51 

50 

49 

48 

48 

46 

41 

(cid:122) 

(cid:122) 

(cid:122) 

(cid:122) 

(cid:122) 

(cid:122) 

(cid:122) 

(cid:122) 

(cid:122) 

(cid:122) 

(cid:122) 

(cid:122) 

(cid:122) 

(cid:122) 

(cid:122) 

(cid:122) 

55 

EU Physical Activity Guidelines (op. cit.), p. 4., footnote 1. 

EN 

61 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
EU 27 

Spain: 

Austria 

Lithuania 

Estonia 

Portugal 

Slovakia 

Italy 

Czech Republic 

Latvia 

Poland 

Hungary 

Romania 

Greece 

Bulgaria 

40 

39 

38 

36 

34 

33 

30 

29 

28 

27 

25 

23 

21 

18 

13 

(cid:122) 

(cid:122) 

(cid:122) 

(cid:122) 

(cid:122) 

(cid:122) 

The table shows that most EU Working Group members are concentrated in the higher end of 
the  table.  More  than  half  of  Working  Group  members  (9),  and  all  countries  with  national 
guidelines predating the EU Guidelines are countries with physical activity scores above the 
EU average. 

There  is  thus  clearly  a  correlation  between  physical  activity  levels  in  individual  Member 
States  and  the  existence  and  implementation  of  physical  activity  guidelines.  Exchange  of 
information  and  good  practice  already  takes  place  between  Member  States  with  higher  and 
lower physical activity scores and several Member States are taking steps to design and adopt 
national physical activity guidelines (e.g. Spain has recently adopted an ambitious strategy in 
this field ("Plan A+D")). 

By  facilitating  such  exchange  among  all  Member  States  (in  particular  those  that  are  not 
involved  in  the  existing  informal  structure),  for  example  on  the  basis  of  a  Council 
Recommendation  and  a  limited  monitoring  mechanism,  EU  action  in  relation  to  Health-
Enhancing Physical Activity can therefore be expected to have a high added value in terms of 
individual and public health in the EU overall. 

EN 

62 

   EN