Skip to main content

Introduction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
  • 1484 Accesses

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

Abstract

Chapter 1 offers guidance on the definitions and terminology used, while highlighting the differences in the way that the legislation of individual countries and international organisations view the primary functions that sport ought to perform. Sport’s internal self-regulation and the sources of the autonomy of that self-regulation from the point of view of the statutes of the governing bodies are then looked at. It will be shown that claims for self-regulation have been replaced by the aspirations towards a more expansive interpretation of the concept of sporting exception developed in the Court’s jurisprudence. Self-regulation is also looked at from the point of view of the European institutions as expressed in their policy instruments. Respect for the principles of good governance is seen as instrumental for the conditional autonomy offered to sports governing bodies. The chapter further discusses what it later identifies as two amalgamated types of sports law: first, sources of lex sportiva including CAS decisions, and different documents spelling out regulatory and organisational rules, and second, European sports law and policy. The latter is considered in more detail, including theories on the historical development and acceptance of sports law as an independent area of law, EU institutional actors and their relevant functions and activities, and applicable EU policy and legislative instruments (in particular Article 165 TFEU, the so-called the sports article, added by the Lisbon Treaty amendments).

In this year 1894 and in this city of Paris, whose joys and anxieties the world shares so closely that it has been linked to the world’s nerve centre, we were able to bring together the representatives of international athletics, who voted unanimously (so little controversial is the principle concerned) for the restoration of a two-thousand-year-old idea which today as in the past still quickens the human heart for it satisfies one of the most vital, and whatever may have been said on the subject, one of its most noble instincts. In the temple of science these delegates heard echo in their ears a melody also 2000 years old, reconstituted by an eminent archaeologist through the successive labours of several generations. And in the evening electricity transmitted everywhere the news that Hellenic Olympism has re-entered the world after an eclipse of several centuries.

Speech by Pierre de Frédy, Baron de Coubertin at Paris Congress held at the Sorbonne on 16–23 June 1894, when International Olympic Committee was established.

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

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   199.99
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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Halgreen 2004, pp. 19–23. The decision of the International Olympic Committee to award the 2008 Olympic Games to China was not well-received in the world and some saw it as an opportunity for China to cover up its poor human rights record and maintain a totalitarian regime. Throughout history, there have been boycotts of the Olympics because of the country in which it was held, and also exclusion from participation by national teams from countries that were under international sanctions. Some authors note that using sport as a political tool was vital in the fight against apartheid in South Africa. Gardiner and Felix 1995, pp. 189–220.

  2. 2.

    Independent European Sport Review (2006) hereinafter referred to as ‘Arnaut Report’.

  3. 3.

    Pluim et al. 2007, pp. 703–704.

  4. 4.

    See Advantage by Tennis Europe at http://www.tenniseurope.org/file_download.aspx?id=28613.

  5. 5.

    ‘26 Billion People Watching the World Cup. True?’ by Pamela Falk, CBS News, June 14 2010.

  6. 6.

    Collins 1994, p. 146.

  7. 7.

    For more about broadcasting see Sect. 5.5.4.

  8. 8.

    Massey 2007, p. 88.

  9. 9.

    ‘Premiership in New £625 m TV Deal’ BBC News, 18 January 2008.

  10. 10.

    See ‘£5.5bn: The Staggering Sum TV Companies Around the World Will Pay to Screen Premier League’ by Nick Harris, Daily Mail, 24 November 2012.

  11. 11.

    Hoehn and Lancefield 2003, p. 555.

  12. 12.

    Cygan 2007, p. 75.

  13. 13.

    Ibid.

  14. 14.

    European Commission White Paper on Sport, COM (2007) 391 final, Chap. 3.

  15. 15.

    Mario Monti, European Commissioner for Competition. ‘Sport and Competition’ Speech/00/152 at a conference organised by the European Commission, Brussels 17 April 2000.

  16. 16.

    Source: ‘Report: Tiger Richest Athlete in History’, ESPN, 2 October 2009.

  17. 17.

    Contrast this with a narration in a film based on true events about football in 1930s: ‘Football was still young. Back then, it was not the rich people running on the pitch while the poor people were watching—it was the other way around’. Montevideo at 07:13.

  18. 18.

    For more detailed explanation of the concept see Gardiner et al. 2007, pp. 84–88.

  19. 19.

    Foster 1993, p. 108.

  20. 20.

    See Teubner and Bremen 1987, pp. 3–6.

  21. 21.

    Case T-313/02 David Meca-Medina and Igor Majcen v Commission [2004] ECR II-3291 and Case C-519/04 David Meca-Medina and Igor Majcen v Commission [2006] ECR I-6991.

  22. 22.

    Hart 1961.

  23. 23.

    Soek 2006, p. 28.

  24. 24.

    Article 2(1) of the Recommendation No. R (92) 13 Rev. of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers to Member States on the Revised European Sports Law Charter (the European Sports Law Charter).

  25. 25.

    Malloy 2003, p. 59. Available at http://www.cces.ca/files/pdfs/CCES-PAPER-Malloy-E.pdf.

  26. 26.

    Spordiseadus (Sports Act) passed on 15.6.1998 (RT I 1998, 61, 982), Chap. 1, General Provisions, § 2.

  27. 27.

    Spordiseadus (Sports Act) passed on 6.4.2005 (RT I, 2005, 22, 148), as last amended on 29.12.2011.

  28. 28.

    Ibid. § 1(1).

  29. 29.

    James 2010, p. 3.

  30. 30.

    Liikuntalaki (Sports Law) 18.12.1998/1054, as amended.

  31. 31.

    Soek 2006, p. 31.

  32. 32.

    Physical Activity and Sport Act, passed on 19.3.2003, S.C. 2003, c.2, as last amended on 17.10.2011.

  33. 33.

    Soek 2006, p. 33.

  34. 34.

    Article 1 of the European Sports Charter.

  35. 35.

    According to nuances made by Foster, ‘international sports law’ is a different concept and deals with relations between nation states. Foster 2003, pp. 1–3.

  36. 36.

    As termed and defined in James 2010 , p. 6.

  37. 37.

    Foster 2003, p. 2.

  38. 38.

    For more information on the Court of Arbitration for Sport see, e.g., Blackshaw 2009, pp. 45–99.

  39. 39.

    In as far as the dispute concerns a matter within the scope of the EU law, a party that loses a case before the CAS may turn to the EU Commission to examine the sporting rule in question (and not to contest the CAS decision), and appeal the Commission decision to the Court of Justice of the European Union. In fact, there is no requirement in EU law to exhaust remedies available in the sporting justice system in order to be able to turn to the Commission.

  40. 40.

    Casini explains that creation of CAS was attributable to this necessity. See Casini 2010, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1621335.

  41. 41.

    Elias and Dunning 1986.

  42. 42.

    Pijetlovic 2013.

  43. 43.

    Paragraph 3.7 of the Arnaut Report.

  44. 44.

    Gardiner and Felix 1995, p. 189.

  45. 45.

    Resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly [on the report of Sixth Committee (A/64/458)], 22 October 2009.

  46. 46.

    Brems and Lavrysen 2012, p. 227.

  47. 47.

    Case 36/74Walrave and Koch v. Union Cycliste Internationale and others [1974] ECR 1405.

  48. 48.

    See Parrish 2003.

  49. 49.

    Moore 1973, p. 719.

  50. 50.

    Such as disputes between UEFA and associations, leagues, clubs, players or officials; or disputes of a European dimension between associations, leagues, clubs, players or officials. See Article 61 of the UEFA Statutes (2012 edition), available at http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/EuroExperience/uefaorg/WhatUEFAis/01/80/54/03/1805403_DOWNLOAD.pdf.

  51. 51.

    Article 61 of the UEFA Statutes (2012 edition).

  52. 52.

    Paragraph 3.6 of the Arnaut Report.

  53. 53.

    White Paper on Sport, para 4 [emphasis added].

  54. 54.

    Declaration on the specific characteristics of sport and its social function in Europe, of which account should be taken in implementing common policies 13948/00, Annex to the Presidency Conclusions, Nice (‘Nice Declaration’).

  55. 55.

    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, 18. 1. 2011.

  56. 56.

    Ibid. para 4.1.

  57. 57.

    ‘National sports law’ is the law created by national parliaments, courts and enforcement agencies. It may directly affect the regulation, organisation, and governance of sport within a national territory. See James 2010, p. 3.

  58. 58.

    For example, the Treaty of Amsterdam declaration on sport (declaration nr. 29) has been cited in Joined Cases C-51/96 and C-191/97 Christelle Deliège v. Ligue francophone de judo et disciplines associées ASBL, Ligue belge de judo ASBL, Union européenne de judo and François Pacquée [2000] ECR I-2549, para 42.

  59. 59.

    See Gardiner et al. 2007, p. 91. The emergence of any new field of law is normally preceded by similar debates and its acceptance as a distinct area of law has undergone a similar process (e.g. labour law). Cyber-law is an example of an area that has only recently in history achieved such recognition.

  60. 60.

    Opie 1996, pp. 74–94.

  61. 61.

    Beloff et al. 1999, p. 3.

  62. 62.

    Lewis and Taylor 2003, preface.

  63. 63.

    Parrish 2003, p. 17.

  64. 64.

    Ibid. p. 2.

  65. 65.

    Ibid. pp. 68–71.

  66. 66.

    Ibid. pp. 65–68.

  67. 67.

    However, see also Weatherill 2007, pp. 48–73. Therein, Weatherill considered that the legal order established by the Treaty and the legal order that governs sports (a set of legal rules established by sports federations) overlap to a large extent. This is because of the economic dimension of sport. The area of overlap is nourished by the appreciation that in some respects sport is special. See p. 49.

  68. 68.

    Parrish 2003, p. 79.

  69. 69.

    Halgreen 2004, p. 26.

  70. 70.

    Ibid. p. 27 (emphasis added).

  71. 71.

    See Chap. 6 on convergence and sporting exceptions.

  72. 72.

    Parrish 2012, p. 732. However, there is no need to take Article 165 TFEU into consideration in any of the EU legislative procedures, as it is not a horizontal provision.

  73. 73.

    Joint Statement of UEFA and the EU Commission of 21 March 2012 is available at http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/uefaorg/EuropeanUnion/01/77/21/58/1772158_DOWNLOAD.pdf.

  74. 74.

    For e.g., meeting of EU Sports Directors in Genval 16–17 September 2010.

  75. 75.

    The following Working Groups were established: in 2005—Working Group ‘Sport & Health’, in 2006—Working Group ‘Sport & Economics’, in 2007—Working Group ‘Non-Profit Sport Organisations’; in 2008—Working Group ‘Anti-Doping’; in 2009—Working Group ‘Education and Training in Sport’; in 2010—Working Group ‘Social Inclusion and Equal Opportunities in Sport’.

  76. 76.

    As argued in Pijetlovic 2013.

  77. 77.

    Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive), OJ L 95, 15/4/2010, pp. 1–24.

  78. 78.

    Directive 96/9/EC of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases OJ L 077, 27/3/1996.

  79. 79.

    Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 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 States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, OJ L 158, 30/4/2004, pp. 77–128.

  80. 80.

    Council Directive of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment 85/337/EEC OJ L 175, 05/07/1985, pp. 40–48, as amended.

  81. 81.

    Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty OJ L 1, 04.01.2003, pp. 1–25.

  82. 82.

    For cases interpreting this rule see Sect. 4.9

  83. 83.

    Such as: Declaration on the specific characteristics of sport and its social function in Europe, of which account should be taken in implementing common policies 13948/00, Annex to the Presidency Conclusions, Nice (Nice Declaration); Declaration No. 29 in Amsterdam Treaty (Amsterdam Declaration); Report from the Commission to the European Council with a view to safeguarding current sports structures and maintaining the social function of sport within the Community framework (‘The Helsinki Report on Sport’) Brussels, 10 December 1999 COM(1999) 644 final; and most notably, Commission White Paper on Sport, Brussels 11 July 2007 COM(2007) 391 final.

  84. 84.

    Ibid. See also Commission Staff Working Document, The EU and Sport: Background and Context, Accompanying Document to the White Paper on Sport, COM (2007) 391 final.

  85. 85.

    See Velázquez Hernández 2008, pp. 78–79.

  86. 86.

    COM (2011) 12 final, 18. 1. 2011.

  87. 87.

    European Parliament resolution of 8 May 2008 on the White Paper on Sport (2007/2261 (INI)).

  88. 88.

    See http://ec.europa.eu/sport/preparatory_actions/studies-surveys-conferences-and-seminars_en.htm.

  89. 89.

    Ibid. para 4, (emphasis added).

  90. 90.

    See the European Parliament, Directorate-General for Internal Policies, study on the Lisbon Treaty and EU Sports Policy 2010, p. 12.

  91. 91.

    Commission Staff Working Document, para 4.1.

  92. 92.

    See the Commission Press Release IP/11/43 ‘Commission Strengthens European Dimension of Sport’ 18 January 2011. Details of the budget are in the Final Report on evaluation of preparatory actions and special events in the field of sport that has become publicly available on 29 July 2011.

  93. 93.

    The Lisbon Treaty and EU Sports Policy 2010, p. 10.

  94. 94.

    Ibid.

  95. 95.

    Ibid. p. 11.

  96. 96.

    See also Pijetlovic 2010, pp. 858–869.

  97. 97.

    Such as in the fields of social policy, education, vocational training, culture, and public health.

  98. 98.

    See The Lisbon Treaty and EU Sports Policy Study 2010, p. 11.

  99. 99.

    Paragraph 4.1.

  100. 100.

    Gardiner et al. 2007, p. 92.

  101. 101.

    Weatherill 2009, p. 79.

  102. 102.

    See Sects. 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 for cases establishing the rules. See also Chap. 6 for detailed discussion on different categorises of sporting exceptions.

  103. 103.

    The concept is discussed below in Sect. 2.1.

  104. 104.

    See, for e.g., Weatherill 2006, pp. 645–657.

References

  • Beloff MJ, Kerr T, Demetriou M (1999) Sports law. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Brems E, Lavrysen L (2012) Human rights and international legal discourse. Human rights and sport—special issue, pp 226–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackshaw I (2009) Sport, mediation and arbitration. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Casini L (2010) The Making of a Lex Sportiva (draft paper for the Max Planck Institute International Conference ‘Beyond Dispute: International Judicial Institutions as Law-makers’) Heidelberg, 14–15 June. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1621335

  • Collins R (1994) Broadcasting and audiovisual policy in the European single market. John Libby, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Cygan A (2007) Competition and free movement issues in the regulation of formula one races. In: Bogusz B, Cygan A, Szyszczak E (eds) The regulation of sport in the European Union. Edward Elgar, UK, pp 74–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Elias N, Dunning E (1986) Quest for excitement: sport and leisure in the civilising process. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster K (1993) Developments in sporting law. In: Allison L (ed) The changing politics of sport. Manchester University Press, Manchester, pp 105–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster K (2003) Is there a global sports law. Entertain Law 2:1–18. http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/eslj/issues/volume2/number1/foster.pdf

  • Gardiner S, Felix A (1995) Juridification of the football field: strategies for giving law the elbow. Marquette Sports Law Rev 5:189–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardiner et al (2007) Sports law, 3rd edn. Routlege, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Halgreen L (2004) European sports law: a comparative analysis of the European and American models of sport. Forlaget Thomson, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart HLA (1961) The concept of law. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoehn T, Lancefield D (2003) Broadcasting and sport. Oxford Rev Econ Policy 19:552–568

    Google Scholar 

  • James M (2010) Sports law. Palgrave Macmillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis A, Taylor J (eds) (2003) Sport: law and practice. Butterworths, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Malloy DC (2003) Understanding the nature of ethics, and purposes of business health care and law. The sport we want: essays on current issues in community sport in Canada, Canadian centre for ethics in sport, pp 59–79. http://www.cces.ca/files/pdfs/CCES-PAPER-Malloy-E.pdf

  • Massey P (2007) Are sports cartels different? An analysis of EU commission decisions concerning collective selling arrangements for football broadcasting rights. World Compet 30:87–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore SF (1973) Law and social change: the semi-autonomous filed as an appropriate field of study. Law Soc Rev 7:719–746

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opie H (1996) Sports associations and their legal environment. In: McGregor-Lowndes M, Fletcher K, Sievers S (eds) Legal issues for non-profit associations. LBC, Sydney, pp 74–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Parrish R (2003) Sports law and policy in the European Union. Manchester Unuiversity Press, Manchester

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Parrish R (2012) Lex Sportiva and the European Union sports law. Eur Law Rev 37:716–733

    Google Scholar 

  • Pijetlovic K (2010) Another classic of EU sports jurisprudence: legal implications of Olympique Lyonnais SASP v. Olivier Bernard and Newcastle UFC (C-325/08). Eur Law Rev 35:858–869

    Google Scholar 

  • Pijetlovic K (2013) Fundamental rights of athletes in the EU post-Lisbon. In: Kerikmäe T (ed) Protecting human rights in the EU: controversies and challenges of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Springer

    Google Scholar 

  • Pluim B et al (2007) Sports science and medicine in tennis. Br J Sports Med 41:703–704

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soek J (2006) Sport in national sports acts and constitutions: definition, ratio legis and objectives. Int Sports Law J 3–4:28–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Teubner G, Bremen F (1987) Juridification—concepts, aspects, limits, solutions. In: Teubner G (ed) Juridification of social spheres: a comparative analysis in the areas of labor, corporate, antitrust, and social welfare law. European University Institute/de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 3–6

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Velázquez Hernández P (2008) The European Commission’s White Paper on Sport. In: Blanpain R, Hendrickx F, Colucci M (eds) Future of sports law in the European Union: beyond the EU Reform Treaty and White Paper. Kluwer Law International, The Netherlands, pp 77–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill S (2006) Anti-doping revisited—the demise of the rule of ‘purely sporting’ interest? Eur Compet Law Rev 27:645–657

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill S (2007) Overlapping legal orders: what is the ‘purely sporting’ rule. In: Bogusz B, Cygan A, Szyszczak E (eds) The regulation of sport in the European Union. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, pp 48–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill S (2009) The influence of EU law on sports governance. In: Gardiner S, Parrish R, and Siekmann RCR (eds), EU, sport, law and policy: regulation, re-regulation and representation, T.M.C Asser Press, The Hague, pp 79–100

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katarina Pijetlovic .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 T.M.C. Asser Press and the author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Pijetlovic, K. (2015). Introduction. In: EU Sports Law and Breakaway Leagues in Football. ASSER International Sports Law Series. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-048-0_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships