Skip to main content

Resisting the Pressures of ‘Americanization’: The Influence of European Community Law on the ‘European Sport Model’

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
European Sports Law

Part of the book series: ASSER International Sports Law Series ((ASSER))

  • 1596 Accesses

Abstract

Legal systems all over the world are increasingly confronted by the need to grapple with their impact on sport. Its accelerating commercialization has generated incentives to litigate. This in turn prompts questions about the extent to which the business of sport is properly treated as special and deserving of full or partial immunity from the application of normal legal rules. The European Community (EC) legal order is no different from others in its need to address these complex questions. But the purpose of this chapter is to enquire into the distinctive elements of the EC system of regulation. EC trade law is built around the pursuit of market integration and this conditions the application of the law of free movement and competition law to sport. Moreover, the institutional and constitutional characteristics of the EC system, relating in particular to the watchdog role allocated to the European Commission and the capacity of the individual to pursue violations before national courts, contribute to shaping a distinctive system. The European Court’s Bosman ruling provides a high-profile illustration of the vigorous potential of EC law in driving change in the practices of sporting organizations, and the decision has brought to the fore many more intriguing issues, which will be discussed here. The chapter proceeds from the assumption that it is realistic to suppose that European sport, particularly football, will become ever more lucrative in the next few years in the wake of the media revolution, perhaps eventually to the extent that it compares financially with the dominant sports in North America, but that there are aspects of the American model that will prove unpalatable in Europe. It is significant in this context that the Commission has recently tentatively put forward a ‘European Sport Model’ and, in the light of the Commission’s Helsinki Report on Sport of December 1999, this chapter assesses the viability of maintaining key aspects of the European tradition. Although the Bosman ruling has frequently been criticized as damaging to the fabric of European football, it is argued that the European Court in Bosman was, in fact, generous to sport’s appeals for special treatment under the law. A series of legal issues, including the sale of broadcasting rights and transfers, is discussed. The chapter concludes with observations on how special sport should be taken to be as an industry, arguing that the mutual interdependence of clubs in a league demands a much deeper commitment to wealth distribution between clubs than has been visible in recent years, but that pleas to be allowed a form of renovated transfer system should be rejected as irrelevant to the true needs of restructured organized sport. The conclusion is that ‘Americanization’ of the European game is by no means inevitable, and that EC law, too often misleadingly portrayed as a motor for change in circumstances where it is, in fact, the financial interest of clubs which is driving departures from traditional European preferences, in truth allows sport considerable autonomy to make the relevant key decisions about the shape of the game.

First published in S. Greenfield and G. Osborn, eds., Law and Sport in Contemporary Society, London: Frank Cass Publishing 2000, pp. 155–181.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Financial Times, 24 March 1998, 24.

  2. 2.

    Ibid., 23 January 1998, 2.

  3. 3.

    Guardian, 23 December 1997, 21.

  4. 4.

    Independent on Sunday, 7 June 1998, Sports Section, 17.

  5. 5.

    Since the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty on 1 May 1999, these provisions are renumbered as Arts. 39, 81 and 82 EC, respectively.

  6. 6.

    Case C-415/93 URBSFA v. Bosman, [1995] ECR I-4921. The decision has generated a substantial literature; see, for instance, at the time Weatherill 1996, 991; O'Keeffe and Osborne 1996, III; Séché 1996, 355; Hilf 1996, 1169; Blanpain 1996.

  7. 7.

    Independent, 23 December 1998, 20; he received £ 312,000 in an out-of-court settlement by the Belgian football authorities.

  8. 8.

    s.31 Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschraenkungen, as amended with effect from 1 January 1999.

  9. 9.

    Re the Supply of Services Facilitating the Broadcasting on Television of Premier League Football Matches judgment of 28 July 1999; currently available via www.courtservice.gov.uk/highhome.htm.

  10. 10.

    Weatherill 1995, Chs. 2, 7.

  11. 11.

    This confirmed the approach taken by the Court in the 1970s in its well-known pair of ‘sports law’ rulings, Walrave and Koch v. UCI (Case 36/74 [1974] ECR 1405) and Donà v. Mantero (Case 13/76 [1976] ECR 1333).

  12. 12.

    Cases C-89/85 et al., Ahlstrom v. Commission, [1988] ECR 5193.

  13. 13.

    On another level, it is not inconceivable that public authorities may choose to intervene to require income to be used in order to support the ‘grassroots’ of the game as part of a broader policy for tackling social exclusion.

  14. 14.

    Cf. Weatherill 1996, 1028–1031; Thill 1996, 89, 108–110.

  15. 15.

    It may even be argued that individual mobility would be unlawfully restricted by collective arrangements in the game even where local rules governing discharge of the employment relationship are not satisfied (that is, where the player is in breach of contract, in English law terms) and that the consequences of such action should be governed by national private law alone, not least because different jurisdictions in the EU adopt different approaches to such employee freedom.

  16. 16.

    Note also that, although Bosman concerned the transfer of an EU national between two member states, it is possible to argue, especially with reference to competition law (i) that non-EU nationals may be able to challenge the system; and (ii) that a player involved in a transfer which is purely internal to a single member state (which would include one between England and Scotland) may also be able to present a challenge. The Bosman ruling clearly exerts an impact beyond its formal limits. See Weatherill 1999, 339, 375–9; Spink 1999, 73; Beloff, Kerr and Demetriou 1999, Ch. 4. Cf. also Case C-264/98 Tibor Balogh v. Royal Charleroi Sporting Club pending before the ECJ.

  17. 17.

    IP/99/133.

  18. 18.

    See now Dec. 2000/12 1998 Football World Cup, OJ 2000 L 5/55 (fine of € 1000 imposed).

  19. 19.

    The conclusions are available via the Commission website http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg10/sport.

  20. 20.

    This provides an intriguing link with the treatment under British domestic law of the BSkyB/Manchester United merger; see Greenfield and Osborn 2000, Ch. 12.

  21. 21.

    See Bose 1999, Ch. 2. It might be noted that these financial motivations run parallel to those driving the establishment of the Premier League in England in 1992 as an organization separate from the Football League, although promotion/relegation between the two Leagues was not abandoned.

  22. 22.

    In 1998/1999 the winner of the competition had to play a minimum of 11 matches; in 1999/2000, 17. The expansion was achieved partly by allowing more entrants; the tournament was conceived originally as open only to national champions, yet, entirely inconsistent with its renaming, some countries now contribute four entrants. The final in 1998/1999 was between Bayern Munich and Manchester United, neither of which had qualified as national champion.

  23. 23.

    For instance, in 1999/2000 the dates of the English FA Cup were changed from those used for many decades and brought forward earlier in the season in order to make time for ‘Champions League’ matches which filled six of eight midweeks between early March and mid April 2000. In the event, one of the prime movers, Manchester United, did not participate in the 1999/2000 FA Cup, preferring instead to participate in a lucrative new tournament, the World Club Championship, staged in Brazil in January 2000.

  24. 24.

    For instance, The Times, 4 February 2000.

  25. 25.

    COM (1999)644 and Weatherill 2000, 282.

  26. 26.

    Cf. 1998 Football World Cup, note 18 supra.

  27. 27.

    This is plain from Bosman; see especially the Opinion of A-G Lenz.

  28. 28.

    Case 36/74, [1974] ECR 1405. See Weatherill 1999, 354–57.

  29. 29.

    See recent proposals for release of exclusivity in favour of a greater degree of national level application by courts and competition authorities discussed in the White Paper on Modernization, OJ 1997 C 132/l.

  30. 30.

    Case C-36/74 Walrave and Koch, note 11 supra and Case C-415/93 Bosman, note 6 supra, were both preliminary rulings; see also Case C-51/96 Deliège and Case C-176/96 Lehtonen, pending before the Court.

  31. 31.

    For instance, Cairns, Jennett and Sloane 1986, 3. A-G Lenz's Opinion in Bosman also considers the matter. For economic analysis from a US perspective, see Quirk and Fort 1997.

  32. 32.

    See COM (1997) 623.

  33. 33.

    E.g., in the UK, BSkyB/Manchester United, note 20 supra. The thresholds in Art. 1 of the EC Merger Regulation, Reg 4064/89 amended by Reg 1310/97, are set at a level which makes it improbable that the Commission will ever be able to claim jurisdiction over such mergers, leaving them to national authorities to examine.

  34. 34.

    See Fleming 1999, 143 and, more generally, Brinckman and Vollebregt 1998, 281; Beloff, Kerr and Demetriou 1999, Ch. 6.

  35. 35.

    The perceived impracticality of alternatives in meeting the requirement of effective distribution of revenues was central to the UK's Restrictive Practices Court's finding that the system of collective selling in England be allowed to continue; see note 9 supra.

  36. 36.

    In England the beneficial effects of distribution of revenues outside the Premier League was one element in the RPC's finding in favour of collective selling: see above, especially Para. 348 of the judgment.

  37. 37.

    CAS 98/200 AEK Athens and Slavia Prague v. UEFA, 20 August 1999.

  38. 38.

    OJ 1999 C 363/2.

  39. 39.

    Consider the (probably disproportionately restrictive) ban on all English football clubs from European competition in the 1980s: Evans 1986, 510. In Bosman itself UEFA, apparently believing until very late that litigation would not be pursued to the bitter end, failed even to submit within the time limit evidence about the economic impact of the system; see Paras. 52–4 of the ruling.

  40. 40.

    See generally Weiler and Roberts 1998, especially Ch. 3.

  41. 41.

    Cf. Para. 275 of A-G Lenz's Opinion in Bosman.

  42. 42.

    This has not escaped the Commission's notice. In the Helsinki Report, note 437 above, it is commented that ‘sporting federations […] have not set up a new alternative system to the one condemned by the Court’ in Bosman.

References

  • Beloff M, Kerr T and Demetriou M (1999) Sports law. Oxford, Hart Publishing, Ch. 4, Ch. 6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanpain R (1996) Droit et sport, L’Affaire Bosman. Leuven: Peeters

    Google Scholar 

  • Bose M (1999) Manchester unlimited, London, Ch. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brinckman D and Vollebregt E (1998) The marketing of sport and its relation to EC competition law. ECLR 281–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cairns J, Jennett N and Sloane PJ (1986) The economics of professional team sports: A survey of theory and evidence. Journal of Economic Studies 13:3–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans A (1986) Freedom of trade under the Common Law and EC Law: the case of the football bans. LQR 102:510 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming H (1999) Exclusive rights to broadcast sporting events in Europe. ECLR 20(3):143–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenfield S and Osborn G, eds (2000) Law and Sport in Contemporary Society, London: Frank Cass Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilf M (1996) Das Bosman-Urteil des EuGH. NJW 18:1169–1232

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Keeffe D and Osborne P (1996) The European Court scores a goal. International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations 12:111–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Quirk J and Fort RD (1997) Pay dirt: the business of professional team sports. Princeton University Press, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Séché JC (1996) Quand les juges tirent au but: l’arrêt Bosman du 15 décembre 1995. CDE 32:355–378

    Google Scholar 

  • Spink PM (1999) Blowing the whistle on football’s domestic transfer fee. Juridical Review 1999:73–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Thill M (1996) L’arrêt Bosman et ses implications pour la libre circulation des sportifs à l’intérieur de l’UE dans des contextes factuels différents de ceux de l’affaire Bosman. Revue du Marché Unique Européen 1996:89–117, 108–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill S (1995) Law and integration in the European Union. Oxford University Press, Chs. 2, 7

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill S (1996) Annotation. CML Rev 33:991–1033, 1028–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill S (1999) European football law. In: Collected Courses of the 7th Session of the Academy of European Law, 339–382, 354–57, 375–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill S (2000) The Helsinki Report on Sport. EL Rev 25:282 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiler PC and Roberts GR (1998) Sports and the Law, 2nd edn, St. Paul, Westlaw, Ch. 3

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen Weatherill .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the authors

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Weatherill, S. (2014). Resisting the Pressures of ‘Americanization’: The Influence of European Community Law on the ‘European Sport Model’. In: European Sports Law. ASSER International Sports Law Series. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-939-9_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships