Unveiling the Integration of Sports into EU Law

Introduction

Since the forming of the European Union, the segment of sports was absent and the treaty of functioning of the European Union (herein referred as TFEU) did not recognise the existence of a sports section under article 3 of their treaty in whatsoever form. The economic contribution of sports was ignored and discarded in the early 1960’s era and even though the practical presence of the sports and the reality of the sports contribution in the economy, TFEU failed in subjecting sports under the article 2 jurisdictions herein. Seeking an economics dissertation help in place to explore these overlooked aspects offers the most valuable insights into the economic dynamics of sports within the European Union.

The intersection between the EU law and contemporary sports law has an historical evaluation which started in the decade of 1970. For the purpose of being adjudicated and regarded under the ambit of the EU law, the subject matter of sports needed to have an impact on the economy of Europe, to which the ECJ was turning a blind eye. However, the important judgment regarding nationality in Cycling World Championship in the case of Walrave v. Union Cycliste Intenationale, was the first instance where EU law accepted the contribution of sports in the economy of Europe. The relation between TFEU and Sports law still was a subject of doubtful discussion which was again explored in the Mantero case herein.

However, in the year of 1995, the picture started to shift towards a different dimension with the ruling held in the case of ASBL v. Bosman. The fragmented and polarized take in the subject of UK contemporary sports law by the treaty of EU changed and EU started taking recognition of sports under article 2 of TFEU and the instead of framing narrow regulatory policies, the intersection of EU law and the contemporary sports was made stringent and TFEU started interfering into the matter of sports, considering the subject matter as a economical activity.

In this essay, we shall briefly discuss and critically analyse how intersection between EU law and the sports law of UK has been framed, how that has affected several other aspects of sports and how BREXIT has affected or altered that situation to any extent or not.

---

1. Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) [2012] OJ C326/50
2. Case 36/74 Walrave and Koch [1974] ECR 1405
3. Case 13/76 Dona v Mantero [1976] ECR 1333
4. Case C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4292

Interrelation between EU Law and UK Contemporary Sports Law – The Inception

Although during the incorporation of the TFEU, it was decided and stated that article 2 of the treaty shall not adjudicate the contemporary sports of UK as it was not considered as not being economically effective enough. Contemporary Sports Law of UK is not configured under any particular statues but it has been controlled by several organizational bodies such as the UK Sport, British Olympic Association etc. However, after being evaluated through several case laws and the incorporations of the several articles of the treaty of EU herein, we shall present a critical analysis of the intersection between the EU law and UK Contemporary Sports Law.

The provision of TFEU and the Sports law of the Member States

However, before discussing the interrelation and the intersection between the EU law and the Contemporary UK Sports law, we shall herein discuss the special segments of the EU law that shall affect the contemporary sports law of the member states herein.

Article 6 of TFEU herein states that the Union shall have the competence to carry out actions regarding several subject matter as listed under this article, under which sports has been considered one of the most important one.

Article 18 and article 21 of the TFEU respectively carries out the terms relating to the discriminations against nationality and free movement between the member states and how EU has strict provisions against such activity.

Article 45, 49 and 56 of TFEU is concerned of article 39 and article 21 of TFEU which enables and enacts various adjudication measures to be followed under this article and how any challenges of free movements shall be challenged under the EU law herein.

Article 101, 102 and 107 of TFEU strictly defines and considers the free market competition and how one party or member state shall not use their dominant position in the market to control any other member state in whatsoever manner.

---

1. Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) [2016] OJ C326

Article 165 of TFEU exclusively provided the EU with the express consent and encouraged the EU to adjudicate and promotes anything related to sports or sporting culture between member states herein.

EU Law and Member State’s Contemporary Sports Law – A historic evaluation

As it has been discussed herein already, as UK does not have any specific statue or codified law governing the sports law of the country whatsoever, the evaluation and the intersection between these two bodies can solely be done through the several case laws which have developed a clear path and the economical effect UK sports in European Union was thoroughly inspected as well.

The evaluation under the body of EU law dates back to 1974 when the first case was filed challenging a crucial article of TFEU. As per article 18 of the Treaty herein, any discrimination on nationality shall be strictly prohibited. The case of Walrave and Koch, raised an important question regarding the players in the same team with two different nationality and the same was challenged under article 18 of TFEU. However, in this case, the ECJ held an important decision and commented specifically on the subject whether EU shall have jurisdiction to meditate sports issues herein. Article 2, 3 and 18 of TFEU was discussed in length in per with the Contemporary Sports law and to what extent, EU can interfere in the sports body’s regulation regarding resolving a subject matter concerning an important issues regarding discrimination based on nationality. This case has been marked as the inception of the history of contemporary sports law and EU law as this case is the first case which helped in opening the minds of polarized EU authority.

The question of nationality did not take off with the abovementioned case. The case of Dona v. Mantero, was again filed regarding the discrimination based on nationality and how it violates the grounds of the treaty of EU herein. Just two years after the Walrave case, this instant case in the year of 1976, gave a strong push to the ideals followed and nurtured by the ECJ herein and compelled them to consider better. As per article 6 of the TFEU, if a matter is of a member state’s concern and if to the satisfaction of the Commission of the European Committee, such subject matter falls under the list as has been mentioned under art. 6 of TFEU herein, it Union shall be competent enough to carry out actions in relevance to that. Under TFEU, art 6(e), sports have been listed as the subject matter herein.

---

1. Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) [2016] OJ C326
2. [1974] ECR 1405
3. Case 13/76 Dona v Mantero [1976] ECR 1333

Although in the abovementioned two cases, the discrimination based on nationality has been challenged but the courts did not take recognition of such violation and more than once, it was held that as sports have no proven economical effect, the EU law shall not interfere in the matter of Contemporary Sports law of and the individual member states shall adjudicate any matters related to sports despite the inclusion of sports as subject matter under clause ‘e’ of article 6 of TFEU herein. In the case of Unectet v Heylen, the same decision was upheld by ECJ and any further exploration regarding the intersection between EU law and Sports law was rejected and it was held that sports law is to be considered as member state’s personal territory which shall not be adjudicated through the treaty of the European Commission herein.

As per art 165(1) of TFEU, it has been declared that the European Union shall deal with sporting issues of any nature of the individual member states and the social and educational structure of the same. Based on this article of TFEU herein, the famous ruling of ASBL v. Bosmen was heard and considered where sports policy of a member state was considered to be of enough important economical in nature to be considered as a subject matter under the Treaty of the European Union.

Also, all these cases as have been mentioned herein have considerably gave importance to the subject matter of free movement as has been enshrined under article 45, 49 and 56 which collectively states how any subject matter can be challenged under the treaty of EU herein and how ECJ shall give decisions regarding the same herein as well. With Bosman’s case specifically challenging the free movements of player under article 39 of the TFEU, where ECJ seriously considered whether the subject of Contemporary UK Sports law shall be regarded as a subject matter under article 234 of TFEU or not and thus the intersection between EU law and the UK Contemporary UK law began.

The Impact of EU Law and UK Contemporary Sports Law

---

1. Case C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4292

The impact of EU law on the UK Contemporary Sports law can be seen in different sectors of sports which can be categorized under several headings herein. The intersection between these two sectors severely affects the transfer of the players from one European Club to another and the position of the home grown players herein as well.

The Impact on the Home Grown Players

The intersection between Contemporary Law and EU Law has the biggest effect on the home grown players since the case of Boseman herein. The instant case inherently challenged the free movement of home grown players around the member states of EU. Thus, the challenge under this instant case and the connection between free movement of the Home Grown players and free movement as has been enshrined under article 39, 45, 49 & 56 of TFEU herein. The judgment and the decisions of the Bosman was supported and impacted through the case of Deliège , where the concept of free movement of the home grown players were supported and considered to be regarded under the articles of free movement as has been enshrined under TFEU herein as well.

The Impact on the transfer of players

The transfer of players from one member state’s club to another club was to be considered and affected under the law of EU as well after the implementation of the Bosman case as well. Before the interference of the EU law herein regarding the free movement, the transfer from one club to another member state’s club shall needed to be endured with a registration fee or transfer fee as had been enshrined under the law of 1893. However, with better intersection between the EU law the Sports Law, it was held that the it breaches and violates the article 101 and 102 of the TFEU which clearly states that any abuse of the dominant position in the market by one party shall be considered incompatible with the internal market and thus, the transfer of players from one club to another in exchange of transfer fee and other discriminatory legal rules were considered incompatible post Bosman case herein. Also, the judgment under Meca-Medina and Majcen, it was held that any restriction regarding transfer of players from one club to another only has imbalanced the competition of the internal market and provided inequality in terms of fair treatment and movement as well. Thus, it was held that such lobbying and restrictions under the Contemporary Sports law shall not be entertained and it shall be considered to be in violation of the article 107 of the TFEU herein along with article 101 and 102.

---

1. Stewart, The development of sports law in the EU, its globalization and the competition law aspects of broadcasting rights (2009) 16 SLJl 183
2. Cases C-51/96 and 191/97 Deliège [2000] ECR I-2681
3. Case C-519/04P Meca-Medina and Majcen [2006] ECR I-6991

The Impact on the intersection of EU Law and UK Contemporary Sports Law

The impact of the above mentioned several case law, especially the Bosman ruling and the recent development regarding TopFit and Biffi v DLV, it can be considered that there has been severe impact of the EU law in the contemporary UK sports law in the recent years. Before such impact or intersection of any kind, UK adjudicated all of their sports related matter on their own and through their several organizations as it has been already mentioned that UK does not have any particular codified law on the matter herein.

However, after several rulings of the ECJ and the CJEU on the EU law and the violations of such, UK Contemporary law has been severely affected by it and “White Paper on Sport” was published by the European Communities Committee which provided several sports related guide to be followed by the member states of the EU herein and under the “European Dimension on Sports” published by EU in the year of 2011 has affected and strictly directed the UK Contemporary Sports law to be inclusive of the free movement notion as has been enshrined under TFEU herein. The intersection has largely affected the quota system of the UK and the team manager’s choice to select players from the national team herein. The UK Contemporary Sports Law governed provisions regarding providing work permit for the non-English players and under the EU Law, UK will have to alter her law altogether. Also, it has impacted regarding the transfer of the players from one club to another. While, it has given exemplary provisions of free movement of players from UK to other member states without any transfer fee, such provisions have impacted the home grown players of UK as well. The intersection has also affected the anti-doping law of the sports which can be spotted from the case of Mecca-Medina where it was held that while sports to be considered as an economic activity under article 2 of TFEU, it shall be construed under the EU law and thus, an equal and constituted anti-doping law shall be instituted throughout the Europe and every member state shall abide by it.

---

1. Craven, State aid and sports stadiums: EU sports policy or deference to professional football? (2014) 35(9) ECLR 453
2. Case C-22/18 TopFit and Biffi v DLV ECLI:EU:C:2019:497
3. Miettinen, Policing the boundaries between regulation and commercial exploitation lessons from the MOTOE case (2008) 3/4 ISLJ 13
4. Papaloukas, The sporting exemption principle in the ECJ’s case law (2009) 3-4 ISLJ 7
5. Van de Bogaert/Vermearsch, Sport and the EC Treaty: a tale of uneasy bedfellows? (2006) ELRev 8

A Critical analysis of the importance of intersection between EU law and UK Contemporary Sports Law

Considering the abovementioned case laws herein and the discussions regarding several provisions of the treaties, it is to be critically analysed that the cross between UK Contemporary Sports law and EU Law has only brightened the spirits of the European players across world and they have been given free movement which shall be proven to be of advantage towards their career advancement.

However, if we critically evaluate the EU Law in respect to UK contemporary law, it shall provide us with a picture which shall not be considered good for the home grown players without any quota system in the national team and the imposition of EU law might consider talent as just a mere product of the economy which is harmful. The players of higher level shall enjoy lots of benefits in regard to their free movement and transfer from one club to another but it will prove to be quite harmful, considering the talents under the age of 18 and the budding talents. The nation’s sports talent shall be hindered and it might hit a obstacle if we consider the growth of the budding talent as well.

The Future of the Intersection between EU Law and Contemporary Sports Law UK

Thus, with the intersection of the EU law and the Contemporary Sports Law herein, it has given great advantage of equality to all the players of the Europe with great effect but it has also affected the UK’s years of practice as well. Several quota systems regarding the sports regime needed to be amended and many changes were done regarding the anti doping system as well.

---

1. Weatherill, Anti-doping revisited: the demise of the rule of ‘purely sporting interest’ (2006) ECLR 645
2. Case T-313/02 Meca-Medina and Majcen [2004] ECR II-3291

However, with the recent development of BREXIT in the year of 2016, the future of intersection between EU Law and Contemporary Sports Law of UK is under a spell of pause. As UK has exited from the membership of EU, it has severely affected its sports sections regarding the free movement sector. However, under an agreement between UK the EU herein, it has been decided that any players who was residing in UK before 31st December of 2020, shall and will reside in UK with their UK citizenship as under the provisions of TFEU, and the free movement sector was also upheld under article 39 and 45 of the TFEU herein as well.

However, changes were made regarding home grown players. UK decided not to comply with the article 19 of the FIFA regulations exemtions and thus it gave smaller clubs to access to talents ‘under 18’ herein which provided a great scope in the sphere of home grown talent in UK.

Although several regulations under EU Law was accepted and kept intact, two quotas were reinforced in Rugby and Cricket post Brexit. Also, several immigrations implications were imposed on the non-EEA athletes as well.

Conclusion

As with the UK’s BREXIT from the membership from EU, UK have the option to go back to the previous state in regard to govern their sports matter and it shall provide them with an opportunity to grow their home grown players and prevail the quote system as well which has been discussed above in length. Thus, if we critically analyse the EU law’s imposition in the sector of sports, the players might seem to be more of a product than of a talent. It might give a huge pool of opportunities but again, the respective member states shall fail in maintaining their player’s own interest as well.

1. Boyes, One size fits all? The myth of a homogeneous European sports law (2006) 1 /2 ISLJ 16

BIBLIOGRAPHY

JOURNALS

Weatherill, Anti-doping revisited: the demise of the rule of ‘purely sporting interest’ (2006) ECLR 645

Stewart, The development of sports law in the EU, its globalization and the competition law aspects of broadcasting rights (2009) 16 SLJl 183

Szyszczak, Competition and sport (2007) 32(1) ELRev 95

Papaloukas, The sporting exemption principle in the ECJ’s case law (2009) 3-4 ISLJ 7

Van de Bogaert/Vermearsch, Sport and the EC Treaty: a tale of uneasy bedfellows? (2006) ELRev 821

Boyes, One size fits all? The myth of a homogeneous European sports law (2006) 1 /2 ISLJ 16

Case Laws

Case 36/74 Walrave and Koch [1974] ECR 1405

Case 13/76 Dona v Mantero [1976] ECR 1333

Case C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4292

Cases C-51/96 and 191/97 Deliège [2000] ECR I-2681 Competition:

Case T-313/02 Meca-Medina and Majcen [2004] ECR II-3291

Case C-22/18 TopFit and Biffi v DLV ECLI:EU:C:2019:497

Treaty

Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) [2016] OJ C326

Take a deeper dive into Program Design and Coaching Considerations for Wheelchair Athletes with our additional resources.