COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT SPORT AND FREE MOVEMENT  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) 67 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) 66 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

SPORT AND FREE MOVEMENT 

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) 67 final 
SEC(2011) 68 final 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
In  recent  years  the  impact  on  sport,  and  in  particular  on  football,  of  the  EU  rules  on  free 
movement  has  been  a  highly  topical  issue,  particularly  as  sport  is  increasingly  taking  on  a 
European dimension. With the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, sport has now become a 
field  in  which  the  EU  can  contribute  to  the  promotion  of  European  sporting  issues  and 
encourage cooperation between the Member States (Article 165 TFEU). 

Article  165  TFEU  provides  the  EU  with  a  ‘soft-law’  competence  (encouraging  cooperation 
between  the  Member  States  and  supporting  and  supplementing  their  action)  in  the  areas  of 
sport, education and youth. As far as sport is concerned, Article 165 calls on the Union to: 

–  promote  European  sporting  issues,  taking  account  of  the  specific  nature  of  sport,  its 

structures based on voluntary activity and its social and educational function; 

–  develop the European dimension in sport by promoting fairness and openness in sporting 
competitions and cooperation between bodies responsible for sports, and by protecting the 
physical and moral integrity of sportspeople and sportswomen; 

–  foster cooperation with third countries and international organisations. 

At the same time, the Treaty forbids any discrimination on grounds of nationality (Article 18 
TFEU) and grants every citizen of the Union the  right  to  move  and  reside  freely  within  the 
territory of the Member States, subject to those limitations and conditions that are laid down 
in the Treaties themselves and in the measures adopted to give them effect (Article 21 TFEU). 
As regards workers, the Treaty states that freedom of movement of workers should be secured 
within the Union, and that such freedom entails the abolition of any discrimination based on 
nationality  as  regards  employment,  remuneration  and  other  conditions  of  work  and 
employment (Article 45 TFEU). 

A  combined  reading  of  fundamental  provisions  in  the  Treaty  on  non-discrimination  on  the 
grounds of nationality and on free movement and of Article 165 TFEU – with its obligation 
for  the  EU  to  develop  the  European  dimension  in  sport  and  to  promote  the  openness  of 
competitions – entails that the general rule of non-discrimination applies to both professional 
and amateur sport: in the first case, players are protected principally as workers; in the second 
as European citizens who have the right to move freely around Europe. 

The objective of this Staff Working Document is to provide an overview of the impact of EU 
law  on  the  free  movement  of  professional  sportspeople1  and  to  outline  the  Commission's 
position on the impact of the new Treaty provisions in the field of sport on the free movement 
of amateur sportspeople. 

1. 

IMPACT OF EU LAW ON FREE MOVEMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SPORTSPEOPLE 

Sport is subject to the Treaty provisions and the secondary law on free movement of workers 
in so far as it constitutes an economic activity within the meaning of the Treaty. The Court of 
Justice of the European Union (ECJ) has confirmed on several occasions that professional and 
semi-professional  sportsmen  are  workers  by  virtue  of  the  fact  that  their  activities  involve 

1 

This overview remains of a general nature since sufficient details on this topic are provided in Annex II 
of  the  Staff  Working  Document  accompanying  the  White  Paper  on  Sport  -  SEC(2007)  935.  Issues 
which were not (or only marginally) addressed in the White Paper and its accompanying Staff Working 
Document, such as UEFA's home-grown players rules and the ECJ ruling on the Olympique Lyonnais 
case, are discussed in more detail. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

                                                 
gainful  employment2.  The  Communication  from  the  Commission  on  "Reaffirming  the  free 
movement of workers: rights and major developments", adopted on 13 July 20103, offers an 
overall  picture  of  the  rights  of  EU  migrant  workers  and  updates  the  previous  2002 
Communication4 taking into account legislative and case law developments. 

Rules  governing  sport  are  often  issued  by  sports  associations,  which  are  not  governed  by 
public law. This circumstance cannot provide a justification for not applying the rules on free 
movement. The ECJ has clearly stated that Article 45 TFEU not only applies to the action of 
public  authorities,  but  also  to  rules  of  any  other  nature  aimed  at  regulating  gainful 
employment in a collective manner5. Rules laid down by sports associations which determine 
the terms on which professional sportsmen can engage in gainful employment fall within this 
category. 

The fact that professional sportspeople fall within the scope of Article 45 TFEU implies that 
any  direct  discrimination  on  grounds  of  nationality  is  prohibited,  and  that  any  indirect 
discrimination and obstacles impeding the exercise of the right to free movement which are 
not justified, necessary and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued must be abolished. 

Although there had been previous judgements of the Court regarding the application of rules 
on  the  free  movement  of  workers  to  professional  and  semi-professional  sportspeople,  the 
effects and implications of EU law on sporting activities were fully revealed in the judgment 
of 15 December 1995 in the Bosman case6. This judgement provided indications not only as 
regards  the  scope  of  free  movement  provisions,  but  also  as  regards  direct  discrimination 
(nationality quotas) and obstacles to free movement (transfer rules) in the field of sport.  

The Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the White Paper on sport7 already 
presented a comprehensive picture of the case law concerning the limited and proportionate 
restrictions to the principle of free movement that can be accepted. The following guidance 
can be derived from that case-law. 

Direct discrimination 

Rules leading to direct discrimination on grounds of nationality are not compatible with EU 
law.  Direct  discrimination  may,  for  instance,  take  the  form  of  a  complete  ban  on  the 
participation in sporting competitions of EU citizens from other Member States8. It may also 
stem from the introduction of quotas based on nationality. The ECJ has held that the fact that 
such  rules  or  quotas  may  not  concern  the  employment  as  such  of  EU  players  but  rather  the 
extent to which their club may field them for an official match is of no relevance in order to 
determine the discriminatory nature of the rules. In so far as participation in official matches 
constitutes  the  essential  activity  of  professional  players,  any  rule  limiting  such  participation 
also restricts the employment opportunities of the players concerned9. The only grounds for 

2 

3 
4 
5 

6 
7 
8 

9 

Cases 36/74 Walrave, 13/76 Donà, C-415/93 Bosman, C-176/96 Lehtonen, C-519/04 Meca-Medina and 
C-325/08 Olympique Lyonnais. 
COM(2010) 373. 
COM(2002) 694. 
Cases 36/74 Walrave and C-415/93 Bosman, joined cases C-51/96 and C-191/97 Deliège and case C-
325/08 Olympique Lyonnais. 
C-415/93, Bosman. 
SEC(2007) 935, 11.7.2007. 
Case 13/76 Donà. In this case, only football players affiliated to the Italian federation could take part in 
matches, whilst affiliation was only open to players having Italian nationality. 
Cases C-415/93 Bosman and C-176/96 Lehtonen. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

                                                 
exceptions in cases of direct discrimination are those listed in Article 45 TFEU (public policy, 
public security or public health). 

Nonetheless, the ECJ established an exception to the general principle of non-discrimination 
as regards rules or practices excluding foreign players from certain matches for reasons which 
are not of an economic nature and relate to the particular nature and context of such matches, 
and which are therefore of sporting interest only, such as, for example, matches between the 
national teams of different countries. However, this exception must remain limited to its own 
subject  matter  and  it  cannot  be  invoked  to  claim  the  exclusion  of  the  whole  of  a  sporting 
activity from the scope of the Treaty10. 

Indirect discrimination 

Indirect  discrimination  occurs  when  rules  apply  criteria  of  differentiation  other  than 
nationality but lead, in fact, to the same results as direct discrimination. 

In  this  case,  only  rules  that  are  necessary,  proportionate  to  the  achievement  of  legitimate 
objectives,  and  do  not  discriminate  directly  on  the  basis  of  nationality,  may  be  compatible 
with Article 45 TFEU. For instance, rules such as UEFA's ‘home-grown players’ which aim 
to  encourage  the  recruitment  and  training  of  young  players  and  ensure  the  balance  of 
competitions, can be compatible with EU free movement provisions (i) in so far as they are 
able  to  achieve  efficiently  those  legitimate  objectives,  (ii)  if  there  are  no  other  measures 
available which can be less discriminating and (iii) if the rules in question do not go beyond 
what  is  necessary  to  the  attainment  of  their  objectives.  The  Commission  will  nevertheless 
monitor the application of these rules closely on a case by case basis in order to verify that the 
criteria are met. 

Home-grown players rules and quotas of players in club competitions 

On 28 May 2008 the Commission published an independent study carried out on its behalf to 
examine the effects of UEFA's rules setting a minimum number of "home-grown players" for 
clubs  participating  in  its  football  competitions.  On  the  basis  of  the  results  of  the  study,  the 
Commissioners  responsible  for  free  movement  of  workers  and  for  sport  considered  that  the 
approach followed by UEFA in adopting these rules complied prima facie with the principle 
of free movement of workers while promoting the training of young European athletes.  

‘Home-grown players’ are defined by UEFA as players who, regardless of their nationality or 
age, have been trained by their club or by another club in the same national association for at 
least  three  years  between  the  age  of  15  and  21.  The  UEFA  rule  does  not  contain  any 
conditions  based  on  nationality.  It  applies  in  the  same  way  to  all  players  and  all  clubs 
participating  in  competitions  organised  by  UEFA.  Its  aim  is  to  encourage  clubs  to  establish 
efficient training centres with a view to ensuring the creation and maintenance of high-level 
talent pools of future professional players. 

The  objectives  underlying  UEFA’s  home-grown  players  rules,  namely  promoting  the 
recruitment  and  training  of  young  players  and  ensuring  the  balance  of  competitions,  can  be 
considered legitimate objectives of general interest. The provisions of the rules appear to be 
inherent in and proportionate to the achievement of such objectives. However, since the rules 

10 

Cases 13/76 Donà, C-415/93 Bosman and C-176/96 Lehthonen. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
risk  having  indirect  discriminatory  effects  and  since  their  implementation  has  been  gradual 
over several years, the Commission will carry out further analysis on the rules in 2012. 

It should be noted that UEFA's home-grown players rules have not been examined from the 
angle of EU competition law. Similar schemes aimed at establishing quotas of locally trained 
players for clubs participating in team sports competitions have been brought to the attention 
of the Commission since the adoption of UEFA's rules. Each scheme needs to be examined 
taking into account the specific provisions of the scheme itself, the characteristic of the sport 
discipline concerned and the general context in which the scheme is proposed. 

Rules leading to direct discrimination on grounds of nationality are not compatible with EU 
law. The same is true for rules based on criteria directly linked to nationality. For example, 
rules establishing quotas of players in clubs based on eligibility to play for the national team 
of  the  country  where  the  club  is  located,  when  the  main  criterion  for  such  eligibility  is 
nationality, are not compatible with EU law. 

Obstacles to free movement – transfer rules 

Provisions such as transfer rules which, even if applied without regard to nationality, restrict 
the  freedom  of  movement  of  sportspeople  who  wish  to  pursue  their  activity  in  another 
Member State constitute obstacles to free movement11. Restrictive transfer rules may also run 
the risk of infringing EU competition law. They can be deemed compatible with EU law only 
in  so  far  as  they  pursue  a  legitimate  aim  compatible  with  the  Treaty  and  are  justified  by 
reasons of public interest. Such measures must also be inherent and proportionate to the aim 
pursued12.  By  way  of  example,  the  ECJ  in  the  Lehtonen  case  implied  that  limited  and 
proportionate  restrictions  on  labour  mobility  may  be  justified  in  order  to  ensure  certain 
important  characteristics  of  sporting  competition  such  as  transfer  windows.  It  should  be 
reminded that EU free movement rules apply to workers regardless of their age, also including 
sportspeople  who  are  engaged  in  professional  activities  before  the  age  of  18,  in  conformity 
with relevant EU labour law provisions, in particular the Directive on the Protection of Young 
People at Work13. 

The ECJ's Olympique Lyonnais ruling 

The judgement of the Court in the case Olympique Lyonnais (case C-325/08), delivered on 16 
March  2010,  is  of  particular  interest  as  it  is  the  first  ruling  covering  a  sport-related  case 
adopted  after  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union 
(TFEU). The ruling provides further insight into the Court's interpretation of the issue of free 
movement  of  professional  sportspeople.  The  focus  of  the  ruling  concerns  limitations  to  the 
rules  on  free  movement  of  workers  laid  down  in  Article  45  TFEU,  arising  from  training 
compensation  schemes.  The  Olympique  Lyonnais  ruling  confirms  most  of  the  elements  and 
the legal reasoning developed by the Court in the Bosman ruling, at a distance of 15 years. 

According to the Court, Article 45 TFEU does not rule out schemes which, in order to attain 
the  objective  of  encouraging  the  recruitment  and  training  of  young  players,  guarantees 

11 
12 
13 

Cases C-415/93 Bosman and C-176/96 Lehtonen. 
Case C-415/93 Bosman. 
Council Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 on the Protection of Young People at Work. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
compensation to the club which provided the training if, at the end of the training period, a 
young player signs a professional contract with a club in another Member State, on condition 
that the scheme is suitable to ensure the attainment of that objective and does not go beyond 
what is necessary to attain it. 

In  the  Olympique  Lyonnais  ruling,  the  Court  confirmed  an  important  point  raised  in  the 
Bosman ruling, namely that the recruitment and training of young players is to be considered 
a  legitimate  objective  of  general  interest.  The  Court  also  provided  additional  guidance  for 
assessing whether training compensation schemes can be considered as suitable to attain this 
objective: according to the Court, such schemes must be related to the actual cost of training. 
This  was  not  the  case  of  the  scheme  discussed  in  the  main  proceedings,  since  it  linked  the 
payment  to  potential  damages  suffered  by  the  clubs  and  was  thus  unrelated  to  the  actual 
training costs. 

The Court offered another important element in order to assess whether training compensation 
schemes  are  inherent  and  proportionate  to  their  legitimate  objective:  when  carrying  out  this 
assessment,  account  should  be  taken  of  the  costs  borne  by  the  clubs  in  training  both  future 
professional players and those who will never play professionally. The Court affirmed hereby 
the principle that training costs may be calculated on the basis of the so-called "player factor", 
i.e. the number of players that need to be trained in order to produce a professional player. 

In  the  Olympique  Lyonnais  ruling,  the  Court  also  made  reference  for  the  first  time  to  the 
provisions  on  sport  laid  down  in  Article  165  TFEU.  In  particular,  the  Court  mentioned  two 
elements included in the Treaty as being constitutive of the EU's action in the field of sport: 
the social and educational function of sport as well as its specific nature. These two aspects 
are  interlinked,  the  social  and  educational  values  of  sport  being  among  the  characteristics 
which make sport special and set it apart from other sectors of the economy. 

Equal treatment clauses in agreements with third countries 

The  ECJ  has  also  ruled  on  the  application  to  sporting  activities  of  the  non-discrimination 
principle set out in certain Agreements between the European Union and third countries. The 
case-law of the ECJ14 shows that, as long as such Agreements include equal treatment clauses 
prohibiting  discrimination  on  grounds  of  nationality  with  regard  to  the  working  conditions 
and the remuneration of workers who are legally employed in a Member State, professional 
sportsmen from those third countries cannot be subjected to discrimination on grounds of their 
nationality  when  they  play  in  a  Member  State.  Rules  that  limit  the  opportunities  of 
professional  sportsmen  from  such  third  countries  to  take  part  in  certain  matches  (as  part  of 
their  professional  activity),  in  comparison  with  sportsmen  who  are  EU  citizens,  involve 
discrimination and run counter to the equal treatment clauses in the Agreements. This means 
that players who are nationals of a country which has concluded such an Agreement with the 
EU cannot be excluded on the basis of their nationality from a team sent out on the field. Such 
clauses do not, however, amount to the conferral of a right of free movement within the EU. 

EU  Internal  Market  rules  concerning  freedom  to  provide  services  and  freedom  of 
establishment 

14 

Cases C-438/00 Kolpak, C-265/03 Simutenkov and C-152/08 Real Sociedad de Fútbol SAD and Nihat 
Kahveci. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Besides the provisions concerning free movement of workers, the EU Internal Market acquis 
includes  rules  on  the  free  provision  of  services  and  on  freedom  of  establishment  which  are 
equally  of  relevance  for  the  sport  sector.  Articles  49  to  62  TFEU  cover  the  right  of 
establishment and provision of services. The two relevant pieces of EU legislation applicable 
in  these  fields  are  Directive  2005/36/EC  of  7  September  2005  on  the  Recognition  of 
Professional Qualifications15 and Directive 2006/123/EC of 12 December 2006 on Services in 
the Internal Market16. 

EU rules on establishment and provision of services apply to sport-related professions such as 
coaches,  trainers  and  instructors.  These  professions  are  characterised  by  a  high  level  of 
international  mobility  and  by  the  fact  that  their  regulation  varies  greatly  across  Member 
States: professions in sport are sometimes regulated in some Member States and not in others. 
Besides  the  issue  of  public  regulation,  international  sport  federations  often  have  their  own 
system  of  qualifications  and  diplomas.  This  complex  situation  can  be  confusing  for  sport 
professionals.  In  order  to  increase  legal  clarity  and  improve  the  framework  facilitating  the 
mobility of sport professionals, it could be envisaged to improve the transparency of some of 
the  professions  included  in  the  list  of  sport-related  regulated  professions  established  by 
Directive 2005/36/EC. More transparency in this field could also be achieved on the basis of 
developing  a  professional  card  or  a  passport  for  professionals  in  the  context  of  temporary 
mobility  and  faster  recognition  of  qualifications  and  work  experience,  as  proposed  in  the 
Single Market Act. 

Another  sport-related  profession  which  is  subject  to  EU  rules  on  free  provision  of  services 
and freedom of establishment is that of sport agent. According to the result of an independent 
study carried out on behalf of the Commission in 200917, no major obstacles exist for the free 
provision of sport agents' services across the Internal Market. However, the complexity of the 
legal framework may require that additional guidance be provided to the relevant stakeholders 
(agents, players and clubs). 

Specificity of sport and free movement of professional sportspeople 

Free movement of workers is a fundamental principle of EU law and a provision with direct 
effect. Any exception from a fundamental principle can only be justified within the limits set 
by the Treaty itself. In the realm of sport, this entails taking into account the specific nature of 
sport,  which  is  now  recognised  by  Article  165  TFEU.  However,  the  specificity  of  sport18 
cannot  be  used  as  an  excuse  for  making  a  general  exception  to  the  application  of  free 
movement rules to sports activities. Exceptions from the EU's fundamental principles must be 
limited and based on specific circumstances. 

15 
16 
17 

18 

OJ L 255, 30.9.2005, p. 22. 
OJ L 376, 27.12.2006, p. 36. 
The study is available on the Commission's website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/sport/library/doc/f_studies/study_on_sports_agents_in_the_eu.pdf  
The concept of specificity of sport is defined by the Commission in section 4.1 of the White Paper on 
Sport - COM(2007) 391 - and in section 4.2 of the Communication which is accompanied by this Staff 
Working Document. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
2. 

THE  PROVISIONS  OF  THE  LISBON  TREATY  ON  SPORT  AND  THEIR  IMPACT  ON  FREE 
MOVEMENT OF AMATEUR SPORTSPEOPLE 

The right to free movement and non-discrimination on grounds of nationality 

The principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality is enshrined in Article 18(1) of 
the  Treaty  and  applies  in  all  situations  which  fall  within  the  scope  ratione  materiae  of  EU 
law.  This  includes  the  exercise  of  the  right  to  move  and  reside  freely  in  another  Member 
State, as conferred by Article 21(1) of the Treaty19. 

This  principle  has  been  further  specified  in  Article  24(1)  of  Directive  2004/38/EC  of  the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union 
and  their  family  members  to  move  and  reside  freely  within  the  territory  of  the  Member 
States20. All Union citizens residing on the basis of this Directive in the territory of the host 
Member State must enjoy equal treatment with the nationals of that Member State within the 
scope of application of the Treaty. 

Free movement and amateur sport 

A  combined  reading  of  Articles  18  and  21  TFEU  with  Article  165  TFEU  leads  to  the 
conclusion that  the  general EU principle of prohibition of any discrimination  on grounds of 
nationality  can  be  applied  to  sport  for  all  EU  citizens  who  have  used  their  right  to  free 
movement.  This  means  that  this  principle  is  applicable  to  amateur  as  well  as  professional 
sport. National legislation must not establish additional obstacles and place certain nationals 
of  a  Member  State  at  a  disadvantage  simply  because  they  have  exercised  their  freedom  to 
move  and  reside  in  another  Member  State,  thereby  restricting  the  freedom  conferred  by 
Article 21 TFEU on every citizen of the Union21. 

Discrimination in amateur sport 

While membership in sport clubs is generally open to all irrespective of their nationality, there 
is  evidence  that  in  many  Member  States  participation  in  competitions  can  be  restricted  on 
grounds  of  nationality.  Instances  of  direct  discrimination  can  be  found  at  all  levels  in  both 
individual  and  team  sports,  when  for  example  "quota  systems"  are  imposed  on  the 
participation of "foreigners", irrespective of their eventual status of EU citizens, or when only 
nationals  are  allowed  to  participate  in  an  event,  or  more  often,  a  series  of  sporting  events. 
Requiring  a  certain  number  of  years  of  residence  in  the  host  country  as  a  condition  for 
participating in sporting events on the same footing as nationals is also a restriction that EU 
citizens are often confronted with when practising sport in another Member State. 

Obstacles  to  the  free  movement  of  citizens  can  also  stem  from  practices  in  the  country  of 
origin.  It  is  often  the  case  that  amateur  athletes,  when  they  move  to  another  Member  State, 
need the express agreement of the club or federation in their Member State of origin in order 
to be able to continue their practice in the host country. The refusal by a national federation to 
agree  on  the  transfer  of  athletes  or  to  do  so  within  a  reasonable  period  of  time  –  or  the 
imposition of fees to grant the agreement – will usually not be in accordance with the right to 
free movement. 

19 
20 
21 

Case 184/99 Grzelczyk, paragraphs 31 to 33. 
OJ L 158, 30.4.2004, p. 77. 
Cf. case Grunkin Paul, C-353/06 (paragraph 21). 

EN 

8 

   EN 

                                                 
Equal treatment of all citizens 

The exercise of the right to move and reside freely in another Member State is safeguarded if 
the citizens of the Union are able to practice sport as amateurs irrespective of their nationality. 
This means that, in exercising that right in another Member State, EU citizens are in principle 
entitled, pursuant to Articles 18 and 21 of the Treaty, to treatment no less favourable than that 
accorded to nationals of the host State. Any hindrance to the mobility of amateur sportspeople 
constitutes therefore, in principle, an obstacle to the free movement of EU citizens which may 
violate Union law. In accordance with Article 24(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC, subject to such 
provisions as are expressly provided for in the Treaty and secondary law, all Union citizens 
residing  on  the  basis  of  the  Directive  in  the  territory  of  the  host  Member  State  shall  enjoy 
equal  treatment  with  the  nationals  of  that  Member  State  within  the  scope  of  the  Treaty. 
Family members who are not nationals of a Member State and who have the right of residence 
or permanent residence also benefit from this right.  

In  addition,  amateur  sportspeople  may  be  protected  from  discrimination  on  the  grounds  of 
nationality also under Regulation 1612/68/EEC on freedom of movement for workers, since 
access  to  the  practice  of  sport  constitutes  a  social  advantage  in  the  sense  of  Article  7(2)  of 
Reg.  1612/68  as  interpreted  by  the  ECJ  in  a  series  of  rulings22:  the  Court  has  looked  in 
particular into whether the granting of an advantage to a worker and his/her family members 
would facilitate their integration into the host state and has concluded that the notion of social 
advantage  covers  all  advantages,  financial  as  well  as  non-financial23.  Migrant  workers  and 
members  of  their  families  are  therefore  covered  by  the  provisions  of  this  Regulation  when 
practising sport at amateur level. 

Specificity of sport and free movement 

Free movement is a fundamental principle of EU law. Any derogation from this fundamental 
principle can only be justified within the limits set by the Treaty itself. In the realm of sport, 
this  entails  taking  into  account  the  specific  nature  of  sport  –  which  is  now  recognised  by 
Article  165  TFEU.  Exceptions  from  the  EU's  fundamental  principles  must  be  limited  and 
based on specific circumstances. The specific nature of sport cannot be assessed in an abstract 
manner and should be addressed through a theme-by-theme approach. 

The criteria already identified in the field of professional sport apply to amateur sport as well. 
Those sports rules that can constitute discrimination on grounds of nationality or hindrance to 
free movement must take the following criteria into account in order to comply with EU law 
on free movement: 

–  the legitimate objectives pursued by the rules; 
–  the need for such rules to achieve those objectives; 
–  their proportionality. 

The White Paper on sport already presented a comprehensive picture of the case law on the 
limited and proportionate restrictions to the principle of free movement that can be accepted 
on the basis of the above-mentioned criteria.  

22 

23 

(C-  249/83  Hoeckx,  C-85-96  Martinez  Sala  on  the  income  of  the  migrant  worker,  as  well  as  non 
financial advantages (C-59/85 Reed, C-137/84 Mutsch). 
The Commission has considered that the practice of amateur sport constitutes a social advantage in the 
sense of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 in its reply to written question from the European 
Parliament no. E2254/08. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

                                                 
As  concerns  more  directly  amateur  sport,  and  in  analogy  with  what  has  been  already 
established  in  the  realm  of  professional  sport,  it  can  be  concluded  that  quota  systems 
constitute direct discrimination on grounds of  nationality and are  generally in breach of EU 
law.  The  refusal  to  agree  to  the  transfer  of  an  amateur  athlete  to  the  federation  of  another 
Member State is also to be considered a violation of EU law. 

Some exceptions can, however, be envisaged regarding the composition of national teams for 
international competitions and the designation of national champions in individual sports. As 
stated above, on the basis of the ECJ's case law, rules that exclude non-national sportspeople 
from  national  teams  can  be  considered  as  rules  that  do  not  infringe  the  Treaty's  free 
movement provisions. 

However,  these  exceptions  must,  as  always,  be  interpreted  restrictively:  any  provision  that 
prevents  an  EU  citizen  from  enjoying  to  the  full  his/her  right  to  move  and  reside  freely  in 
another  Member  State  must  not  exceed  what  is  strictly  necessary  to  the  achievement  of  its 
specific aim, even when that aim is a legitimate one. 

The  same  legal  reasoning  applies  to  the  organisation  of  individual  national  championships 
aimed at selecting national champions and at granting titles, medals and records exclusively to 
sportspeople who are nationals of the Member State where such championships are organised. 
The objective of awarding the title of national champion in each individual discipline could be 
considered  as  legitimate  and  proper  to  the  organisation  of  sport  on  a  national  basis;  the 
granting  of  medals  and  national  records  could  be  considered  as  being  of  a  purely  sporting 
nature.  On  the  other  hand,  the  participation  in  such  competitions  of  EU  citizens  who  have 
exercised  their  freedom  of  movement  to  another  Member  State  should  in  principle  be 
guaranteed. 

In practice, due account should be taken of the specific characteristics of each discipline. In 
fact, there are competitions in individual sports meant to designate a national champion and 
which are organised in knock-out tournaments with multiple and successive rounds of single-
elimination  matches.  In  this  case  the  competition  could  be  distorted  by  the  premature 
elimination of national athletes at the hands of EU citizens who might not qualify for the title 
of  national  champion.  In  such  cases,  limited  restrictions  to  the  general  principle  of 
guaranteeing the general openness of competitions can be justified, but only in so far as they 
are  necessary  and  proportionate  to  the  legitimate  objective  of  designating  a  national 
champion. 

It is up to national federations to design rules that take account both of the fundamental rights 
of  EU  citizens  and  of  the  legitimate  objectives  of  specific  sport  competitions.  The  guiding 
principle must always be that of ensuring wide access of all EU citizens to competitions. By 
way of example, in a recent case concerning a combat sport and following a dialogue with the 
Commission, the competent authorities decided to allow unrestricted access of EU citizens to 
all  the  competitions  they  organised.  Other  ways  to  achieve  the  same  objective  that  were 
discussed included the adoption of second-chance formats or 'repechage' rounds, or a shift to a 
round-robin or a ranking system. 

In  a  case  concerning  another  individual  sport,  a  national  federation  argued  that  it  organised 
each  year  a  large  number  of  individual  tournaments  as  well  as  individual  and  team 
championships.  Access  to  individual  tournaments  and  team  championships  was  opened  to 
foreigners  without  any  restriction  in  the  vast  majority  of  competitions  organised  each  year. 
Only  individual  championships  aimed  at  determining  the  national  champion  and  select  the 

EN 

10 

   EN 

players  who  would  join  the  national  team  for  the  world  championships  were  restricted  to 
national  citizens.  Taking  into  account  the  specific  characteristics  of  the  organisation  of  the 
relevant discipline in the country in question, and given the large possibilities to have access 
to  the  relevant  activities  and  competitions,  the  Commission  deemed  that  the  restrictions  to 
participate  in  individual  competitions  pursued  a  legitimate  aim  and  that  the  concerned 
measures were necessary and proportionate to achieve it.  

In  2010,  the  Commission  launched  a  study  to  analyse  all  aspects  of  access  to  individual 
competitions.  The  final  results  of  the  study  were  made  available  in  January  2011.24  On  the 
basis  of  the  results  of  the  study,  the  Commission  intends  to  provide  further  guidance  to 
Member States and sport stakeholders in order to help them maintain the specific features of 
the  organisation  of  sporting  competitions  while  fully  respecting  the  EU's  fundamental 
freedoms.  

3. 

DIALOGUE AND MONITORING 

As guardian of the Treaties, the Commission will continue to monitor closely the activities of 
the  national  and  international  governing  bodies  for  sport  and  is  already  engaged  in  a 
constructive  dialogue  with  them  with  a  view  to  striking  the  right  balance  between  the 
specificity of sport and full compliance with EU law as interpreted by the ECJ in the area of 
free  movement.  The  Commission  will  also  provide  guidance  and  better  explain  the  existing 
rules  to  Member  States  and  sport  stakeholders  so  as  to  help  them  address  possible  legal 
difficulties stemming from actions or rules in the field of sport25. 

As  regards  the  application  of  EU  law,  the  Commission  works  in  close  partnership  with  the 
Member States who have primary responsibility for its application. In a spirit of cooperation, 
a series of tools operating at the point closest to the citizen have been developed together with 
the  Member  States.  The  SOLVIT  problem-solving  network  allows  Member  States  to  work 
together to find solutions to cross-border problems in the functioning of the Internal Market 
that arise for citizens or organisations due to bad application of EU law. 

In  cases  where  there  is  incompatibility  between  national  law  and  EU  law,  the  EU  Pilot 
project26 allows more rapid answers to citizens' complaints by starting a dialogue between the 
Commission  and  the  concerned  Member  State.  The  citizen  at  the  origin  of  the  complaint  is 
kept  duly  informed  of  the  stages  of  the  procedure  as  well  as  of  its  outcome,  which  can  be, 
depending on the specifics of the case and the subject matter, a solution to the problem, the 
correction  of  an  infringement,  if  appropriate  through  the  opening  of  an  infringement 
procedure  for  non-compliance  with  EU  law,  or  the  advice  to  have  recourse  to  the  national 
tribunals, which can in many cases offer a more direct route to the solution of the problems 
encountered by citizens. 

24 
25 

26 

http://ec.europa.eu/sport/news/news982_en.htm 
In particular, following the modernisation of EU competition law, the Commission does not issue any 
individual  exemptions  or  provide  further  guidance  on  competition  law  issues  except  for  specific 
circumstances provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. 
The EU Pilot project has been operating since April 2008 with the aim of providing quicker and fuller 
answers  to  questions,  and  solutions  to  problems  arising  in  the  application  of  EU  laws  –  particularly 
those  raised  by  citizens  or  businesses  –  requiring  confirmation  of  the  factual  or  legal  position  in  a 
Member  State.  It  is  designed  with  a  view  to  improved  communication  and  cooperation  between 
Commission services and Member State authorities on issues concerning the application of EU law. EU 
Pilot has meanwhile been extended to cover 23 Member States. 

EN 

11 

   EN