Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

EU Control of State Aid to Professional Sport: Why Now?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Legacy of Bosman

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

Abstract

In the aftermath of the Bosman judgment, the application of the free movement and antitrust rules to the sports sector rapidly intensified and deepened. Until very recently, however, the application of the EU State aid rules remained an anomaly in the story of ‘European sports law’. This chapter aims to explain why the public financing of sports infrastructure and professional sports clubs only in recent years started to attract State aid scrutiny. Considering the general policy dynamics of European State aid control, it is argued that the late appearance of enforcement efforts is not as remarkable as it may appear. The extension of the reach of State aid control to new sectors or new forms of aid has typically been the result of external constraints on the European Commission’s independent agenda-setting abilities. In the case of sport, it was primarily the case law of the EU courts that triggered the sudden surge in formal investigations and decisional practice.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
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.

    Case 36/74 Walrave and Koch v. Union Cycliste Internationale, ECLI:EU:C:1974:140, para 8.

  2. 2.

    Case C-415/93 Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football Association and others v. Bosman and others, ECLI:EU:C:1995:463.

  3. 3.

    Despite the guidance on the application of the competition rules from the Advocate Generals in their Opinions. See e.g. Opinion of Advocate General Lenz in Case C-415/93 Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football Association and others v. Bosman and others, ECLI:EU:C:1995:293; Opinion of Advocate General Cosmas in Joined Cases C-51/96 and C-191/97 Christelle Deliège v. Ligue Francophone de Judo et Disciplines Associées ASBL and others, ECLI:EU:C:1999:147; Opinion of Advocate General Alber in Case C-176/96 Jyri Lehtonen and Castors Canada Dry Namur-Braine ASBL v. Fédération royale belge des sociétés de basket-ball ASBL (FRBSB), ECLI:EU:C:1999:321.

  4. 4.

    Case C-519/04 P David Meca-Medina and Igor Majcen v. Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2006:492. The Court clarified that the EU antitrust rules apply to a wider range of sporting rules than the General Court and the Commission had assumed, but at the same time it demonstrated great willingness to accommodate the specific characteristics of sport in the application of those rules. See e.g. Van Rompuy 2015, pp. 179–208.

  5. 5.

    See e.g. Weatherill 2010, pp. 480–487; Van den Bogaert 2010, pp. 488–498.

  6. 6.

    Since they engage in economic activities, professional sports clubs are considered to be undertakings under the competition rules. See e.g. references in Commission Decision 2003/778/EC of 23 July 2003, COMP/C.2-37.398—Joint selling of the commercial rights of the UEFA Champions League [2003] OJ L 291/24, para 106; Case T-193/02, Laurent Piau v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2005:22, paras 69–72.

  7. 7.

    See e.g. Case 173/73, Italy v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:1974:71, para 13.

  8. 8.

    See e.g. European Parliament, Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission to written Question E-1860/2003, 10 July 2003; European Parliament, Answer given by Mr Monti to written question E-2261/2003, 13 August 2003; Commission Staff Working Document of 11 July 2007—The EU and Sport: Background and Context—Accompanying document to the White Paper on Sport, COM (2007) 391 final, Sect. 3.2.2; European Commission, Report from the 3rd meeting of the Expert Group on Sustainable Financing of Sport (XG FIN), January 2013. http://ec.europa.eu/sport/news/2013/20130111-eu-expert-group-fin_en.htm. Accessed 1 December 2015; European Ombudsman, ‘State Aid and European football clubs? Summary of recommendation by the European Ombudsman following a complaint against the EU Commission’, 17 December 2013.

  9. 9.

    For a detailed historical account, see Piernas López 2015.

  10. 10.

    Quigley 2015, pp. 193–194.

  11. 11.

    According to settled case law, national courts do not have the power to declare a State aid measure compatible with the internal market. See e.g. C-354/90, Fédération Nationale du Commerce Extérieur des Produits Alimentaires and Syndicat National des Négociants et Transformateurs de Saumon v French Republic, ECLI:EU:C:1991:440, para 14.

  12. 12.

    An exception to this rule applies when certain aid has been exempted from prior notification and approval. See Sect. 2.2.

  13. 13.

    Either on its own initiative or on the basis of a complaint. Since unlawfulness refers to procedural issues only (non-notification), it is still possible that the measure may be assessed as compatible and the aid therefore be approved. The qualification as unlawful aid may, however, have important consequences under national law. National courts are in principle required to suspend the payment of unlawful aid, or even order its recovery. See Commission notice of 4 April 2009 on the enforcement of State aid law by national courts [2009] OJ C 85/1.

  14. 14.

    The Commission may also attach to a positive decision conditions subject to which aid may be considered compatible (conditional decision). Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [2015] OJ L 248/9, Article 9.

  15. 15.

    Smith 1998, pp. 58–60.

  16. 16.

    Piernas López 2015. For example, in a 1980 Notice, the Commission voiced concern that, in the wake of recurrent economic crises, ‘the extent of the tendency towards non-notification or late notification would appear in some cases to indicate the possible existence of a general decision not to respect the provisions in question’. European Commission, ‘The notification of State aids to the Commission pursuant to Article 93(3) of the EEC Treaty: the failure of the Member States to respect their obligations [1980] OJ C 252/2.

  17. 17.

    See e.g. Aydin 2014; Piernas López 2015.

  18. 18.

    In its Kohlengesetz judgment, the CJEU established that the Commission was competent under Article 108(2) TFEU to require recovery of unlawful aid. Case 70/72, Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Kohlengesetz) ECLI:EU:C:1973:87. Based on this judgement, the Commission announced in a 1983 Communication that it had ‘decided to use all measures at its disposal to ensure the Member States’ obligations under Article [108 TFEU] are respected’. Commission, Communication [1983] OJ C 318/3.

  19. 19.

    Smith 1998, pp. 64–65.

  20. 20.

    Cini 2001.

  21. 21.

    Stefan 2012; Blauberger 2009, pp. 719–737.

  22. 22.

    Blauberger 2009, pp. 729–732.

  23. 23.

    For example, when all Member States except Germany accepted the revised guidelines on national regional aid, the Commission opened a formal investigation into all German regional aid schemes. European Commission, ‘State aid: 24 Member States accept new regional aid guidelines (2007–2013); Commission Press Release of 27 June 2006, IP/06/851 State aid, Commission opens formal investigation against Germany. Once Germany finally approved the revised rules, the Commission closed the investigation. Blauberger 2009, pp. 729–730.

  24. 24.

    Smith 1998; Cini 2001.

  25. 25.

    Rawlinson 1993, pp. 57–58.

  26. 26.

    Smith 1998, p. 62.

  27. 27.

    Rawlinson 1993, pp. 56–58.

  28. 28.

    Cini 2001, p. 200.

  29. 29.

    Blauberger 2009, pp. 732–733; Smith 1998, pp. 73–75.

  30. 30.

    Council Regulation (EC) No 994/98 of 7 May 1998 on the application of Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty establishing the European Community to certain categories of horizontal State aid [1998] OJ L 142/1.

  31. 31.

    Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty [1999] OJ L 83/1.

  32. 32.

    Blauberger 2009.

  33. 33.

    Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General block exemption Regulation) [2008] OJ L 214/3.

  34. 34.

    European Commission, Communication on State Aid Modernisation (SAM) (COM/2012/0209 final), 8 May 2012.

  35. 35.

    Commission Press Release of 21 May 2014, IP/587/2014 State aid: Commission exempts more aid measures from prior notification.

  36. 36.

    Nicolaides 2002, p. 260. Yet the Commission has consistently upheld the principle that, in view of the mandatory nature of its review of State aid, neither the lack of any precedent involving the application of the State aid rules in similar cases nor the alleged lack of clarity in its policy can results in a legitimate expectation that the aid is lawful. See e.g. Commission Decision of 13 Mei 2013 on the aid scheme implemented by France for headquarters and logistics centres [2013] OJ L23/1, para 78.

  37. 37.

    Smith 2001, p. 231.

  38. 38.

    On cinematographic and other audiovisual works, see e.g. Council Resolution of 12 February 2001 national aid to the film and audiovisual industries [2001] OJ C73/3; Council Resolution of 21 January 2002 on the development of the audiovisual sector [2002] OJ C 32/4; Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2005 on film heritage and the competitiveness of related industrial activities [2005] OJ L323/57 On sport, see e.g. Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities and certain related acts—Declarations adopted by the Conference—Declaration on sport [1997] OJ C 340/136; European Council in Nice—December 7,8 and 9 2000—Annex IV to the conclusions of the Presidency: ‘Declaration on the specific characteristics of sport and its social function in Europe, of which account should be taken in implementing common policies’.

  39. 39.

    The CJEU has already recognized this with regard to the application of the EU free movement and competition rules. See e.g. Case C-325/08, Olympique Lyonnais v Olivier Bernard and Newcastle United FC, ECLI:EU:C:2010:143, para 40; Joined Cases C-403/08 and C-429/08) Football Association Premier League Ltd and others v QC Leisure and others and Karen Murphy v Media Protection Services Ltd, ECLI:EU:C:2011:631, para 101.

  40. 40.

    Commission Decision of 24 June 1998 on State Aid N3/98 (France) Soutien à la production cinématographique.

  41. 41.

    Pauwels et al. 2007. See e.g. Commission Decision 89/441/CEE of 21 December 1988 on aid granted by the Greek Government to the film industry for the production of Greek films [1989] OJ L208/38; European Commission, Sixteenth Report on Competition Policy (1987) p. 159; European Commission, Nineteenth Report on Competition Policy (1990) pp. 167–169; European Commission, XXIIth Report on Competition Policy (1993) pp. 248–249.

  42. 42.

    Commission Decision of 24 June 1998 on State Aid N3/98 (France) Soutien à la production cinématographique.

  43. 43.

    For this purpose, the Commission launched an inquiry requesting information from all Member States about their aid schemes for the audiovisual sector, the vast majority of which were not notified.

  44. 44.

    Commission Decision of 25 December 1998, N 486/97—the Netherlands—Support for film production [1999] OJ C 120/2; Commission Decision of 20 July 1999, NN 49/97 and N357/99—Ireland—Tax-based incentive scheme for investment in film production for the period 1999–2000 ‘Sect. 35/481’ [1999] OJ C 375/4; Commission Decision of 21 April 1999, N4/98—Germany—Promotion of the film industry [1999] OJ C272/4; Commission Decision of 2 February 2000, N 748/99—Sweden—State aid N 748/99—Sweden—Scheme of aid to film production and film related activities (The Swedish Film Institute Agreement) [2000] OJ C 134/3.

  45. 45.

    See e.g. Council resolution of 12 February 2001 national aid to the film and audiovisual industries [2001] OJ C73/3; Vivianne Reding, A New Approach to the Development of the Audiovisual Sector, Speech delivered at the Informal meeting of Audiovisual Ministers, Mons, 5 October 2001.

  46. 46.

    I.e. the Commission verifies that the scheme does not contain clauses that would be contrary to provisions of the EC Treaty (now TFEU) in fields other than State aid, including the free movement provisions and the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality.

  47. 47.

    Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on certain legal aspects relating to cinematographic and other audiovisual works, COM/2001/0534 final [2002] OJ C43/6.

  48. 48.

    For example, the limitation of the aid intensity to 50 percent of the film budget, one of the most contested provisions, was modified to allow for more flexibility. Exceptions for ‘difficult and low budget films’ could from now on, under the subsidiarity principle, be defined by each Member State according to national parameters.

  49. 49.

    Communication from the Commission on State aid for films and other audiovisual works (2013/C 332/01) [2013] OJ C332/1.

  50. 50.

    Aid that is aimed at promoting the development of the film industry, rather than promote cultural activities, can only be approved under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.

  51. 51.

    Pauwels et al. 2007; Schaefer et al. 2002.

  52. 52.

    Communication from the Commission on State aid for films and other audiovisual works (2013/C 332/01) [2013] OJ C332/1, para 25.

  53. 53.

    Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty (GBER) OJ L 187/1, Articles 4 and 54.

  54. 54.

    This category was added in the revised draft version of the GBER that the Commission presented in December 2013.

  55. 55.

    The GBER does not provide a precise definition for ‘multifunctional recreational infrastructure’, but clarifies that it has a multifunctional character offering, ‘in particular, cultural and recreational services with the exception of leisure parks and hotel facilities’. GBER, Supra n 53, Article 55(3).

  56. 56.

    Ibid, Articles 5–9 (aid must be transparent, must have an incentive effect, must respect the rules on cumulation, and aid measures and awards must be published).

  57. 57.

    Ibid., Article 4.1.

  58. 58.

    See e.g. European Commission, Application of Articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty and Article 61 of the EEA Agreement to State aids in the aviation sector [1994] OJ C 350/5, para 12 (‘The construction or enlargement of infrastructure projects (such as airports, motorways, bridges, etc.) represents a general measure of economic policy which cannot be controlled by the Commission under the Treaty rules on State aids’); European Commission, XXVth Report on Competition Policy (1995) p. 80 (‘Governments have always used financial intervention as an essential tool in their policy of infrastructure development. In principle, as long as access and usage remain public and general, such intervention will not constitute aid within the meaning of Article [107(1) TFEU] but will be normally regarded as being in the public interest … Such a public good provided by government benefits society in a collective manner and is not conferred upon any specific enterprise or industry (principle of non excludability). Consequently, public support for infrastructure will not normally constitute aid, but rather a general measure derived from the State’s sovereignty in respect of economic policy, land planning and development’).

  59. 59.

    Commission Staff Working Document—The EU and Sport: Background and Context—Accompanying document to the White Paper on Sport, COM (2007) 391 final, Sect. 3.2.2.

  60. 60.

    Siebold and Klingmüller 2004, p. 88.

  61. 61.

    Gerlinger 2003, p. 9.

  62. 62.

    The Commission reiterated these principles in administrative letters to the UK and Dutch authorities. The content of the letters are discussed in Santamato and Westerhof 2003, pp. 645–648; Koenig and Kühling 2003, pp. 289–298; Koenig and Haratasch 2004, pp. 393–398.

  63. 63.

    Santamato and Westerhof 2003, pp. 646–648.

  64. 64.

    Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities and certain related acts—Declarations adopted by the Conference—Declaration on sport [1997] OJ C 340/136.

  65. 65.

    Joined Cases T-443/08 and T-455/08, Mitteldeutsche Flughafen and Flughafen Leipzig/Halle v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2011:117. The CJEU largely upheld the judgment in Case C-288/11, Mitteldeutsche Flughafen AG and Flughafen Leipzig-Halle GmbH v European Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2012:821.

  66. 66.

    It was already clear from earlier case law that the management of airport infrastructure is an economic activity. See e.g. Case C-82/01 P, Aéroports de Paris v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2002:617; Case T-196/04, Ryanair v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2008:585.

  67. 67.

    In the case at hand, the Court upheld the Commission’s reasoning that the publicly financed construction of a new runway at the Leipzig-Halle airport could not be dissociated from its subsequent operation for commercial purposes. The runway would not be made available free of charge in the public interest: its users would be charged for its use. Since the construction of the runway would permit the airport manager to increase its capacity and extend its business of operating the airport, it constitutes an economic advantage that must be classified as State aid. Joined Cases T-443/08 and T-455/08, Mitteldeutsche Flughafen and Flughafen Leipzig/Halle v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2011:117, paras 94–100. The CJEU stressed, however, that the distinction between public remit and economic activities has to be made on a case-by-case basis. Case C-288/11, Mitteldeutsche Flughafen AG and Flughafen Leipzig-Halle GmbH v European Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2012:821, para 47.

  68. 68.

    Joined Cases T-443/08 and T-455/08, Mitteldeutsche Flughafen and Flughafen Leipzig/Halle v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2011:117, paras 114–115; Case C-288/11, Mitteldeutsche Flughafen AG and Flughafen Leipzig-Halle GmbH v European Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2012:821, paras 49–50.

  69. 69.

    Joined Cases T-443/08 and T-455/08, Mitteldeutsche Flughafen and Flughafen Leipzig/Halle v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2011:117, paras 225–226.

  70. 70.

    European Commission, Note to DG REGIO on the Application of State aid Rules to infrastructure investment projects, COMP/03/2011. In the case at hand, only the contributions relating to security, safety, police, and customs measures and to activities regarding the control and supervision of airspace were considered to fall within the public remit and thus not to constitute economic activities.

  71. 71.

    Commission Decision of 9 November 2011, SA.31722—Hungary—Supporting the Hungarian sport sector via tax benefit scheme [2011] OJ C364/1.

  72. 72.

    In order to receive funding under the scheme, professional sports clubs have to design a strategy that includes initiatives for the public, such as the organisation of mass sports events, training of the young generation or reserving schedules for local citizens to use sports infrastructures.

  73. 73.

    Commission Decision of 2 May 2013, SA.33618 Uppsala arena [2013] OJ L243/19; Commission Decision of 15 May 2013, SA.33728 Multiarena in Copenhagen [2014] OJ L152/32; Commission Decision of 20 March 2013, SA.35135 Multifunktionsarena der Stadt Erfurt [2013] OJ C140/1; Commission Decision of 20 March 2013, SA.35440 Multifunktionsarena der Stadt Jena [2013] OJ C140/1; Commission Decision of 18 December 2013, SA.35501 Financement de la construction et de la renovation des stades pour l’EURO 2016; Commission Decision of 2 October 2013, SA.36105 Fuβballstadion Chemnitz [2014] OJ C50/1; Commission Decision of 20 November 2013, SA.37109 Football stadiums in Flanders [2014] OJ C69/1; Commission Decision of 9 April 2014, SA.37342 Regional Stadia Development in Northern Ireland [2014] OJ C418/1; and Commission Decision of 13 December 2013, SA.37373 Contribution to the renovation of ice arena Thialf in Heerenveen [2014] OJ C50/1.

  74. 74.

    Commission Decision of 20 March 2013, SA.35135 Multifunktionsarena der Stadt Erfurt [2013] OJ C140/1, para 14.

  75. 75.

    See e.g. Commission Decision of 9 April 2014, SA.37342 Regional Stadia Development in Northern Ireland [2014] OJ C418/1, para 94. (‘The aid is necessary and well targeted as it addresses the specific problem of underinvestment in sports infrastructure. The UK authorities have demonstrated that such infrastructure cannot be provided by market forces alone. The three stadia have not attracted sufficient private funding to deliver the reconstruction without significant public intervention’); Commission Decision of 9 November 2011, SA.31722—Hungary—Supporting the Hungarian sport sector via tax benefit scheme [2011] OJ C364/1, para 93 (‘Taking into account the underinvestment in sport infrastructure facilities in Hungary in the last twenty years, the effects of the economic and financial crisis, the objectives of the measures cannot be achieved by any other means available for the government’).

  76. 76.

    See e.g. Case 730/79 Philip Morris v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:1980:209, para 17. The incentive effect criterion is also found in the 2014 GBER as a condition for its application. GBER, Supra n 53, Article 6.

  77. 77.

    Commission Decision of 20 November, SA.37109 2013 Football stadiums in Flanders [2014] OJ C69/1, para 35.

  78. 78.

    Commission Decision of 9 November 2011, SA.31722—Hungary—Supporting the Hungarian sport sector via tax benefit scheme, [2011] OJ C364/1, para 94.

  79. 79.

    See for example Commission Decision of 9 April 2014, SA.37342 Regional Stadia Development in Northern Ireland [2014] OJ C418/1, para 96.

  80. 80.

    Commission Decision of 13 December 2013, SA.37373 Contribution to the renovation of ice arena Thialf in Heerenveen [2014] OJ C50/1, para 59.

  81. 81.

    Commission Decision of 20 November 2013, SA.37109 Football stadiums in Flanders [2014] OJ C69/1, para 11.

  82. 82.

    Ibid., para 41.

  83. 83.

    Commission decision of 6 March 2013, SA.33584, The Netherlands—Alleged municipal aid to certain professional Dutch football clubs in 2008–2011 [2013] OJ C 116/19; Commission decision of 18 December 2013, SA.29769 Spain—State aid to certain Spanish professional football clubs [2014] OJ C69/115; Commission decision of 18 December 2013, SA.36387 Spain—Alleged aid in favour of three Valencia football clubs [2014] OJ C69/99; Commission decision of 18 December 2013 SA.33754, Spain—Real Madrid CF [2014] OJ C69/108.

  84. 84.

    A previous version of the subsidy scheme was tacitly approved in 1995 because the Commission had raised no objections.

  85. 85.

    Commission decision of 25 April 2001 on State aid N118/00—France, Subventions publiques aux clubs sportifs professionels.

  86. 86.

    In parallel, the Commission opened an infringement procedure against Italy because the law also appeared to breach requirements laid down in the Fourth (78/660/EEC) and Seventh (83/349/EEC) Council Directives on companies’ annual and consolidated accounts. Commission Press Release of 11 November 2003, IP/03/1529 Commission probes measures for professional sports clubs in Italy (‘Salvio Calcio’).

  87. 87.

    Commission decision of 22 June 2005 on the measure implemented by Italy for professional sports clubs (Decreto Salva Calcio). In view of the amendments, the Commission also closed the infringement procedure against Italy. Commission Press Release of 13 October 2005, IP/05/1271 Commission closes case against Italy on accounting rules for professional sports clubs (‘Salva-Calcio’).

  88. 88.

    Commission decision of 6 April 2005 on State aid N555/2004—Netherlands, Maatregelen ten behoeve van sportclubs: Basketbal Omniworld Almere en Volleybal Omniworld Almere.

  89. 89.

    European Commission, Report from the 3rd meeting of the Expert Group on Sustainable Financing of Sport (XG FIN), January 2013. http://ec.europa.eu/sport/news/2013/20130111-eu-expert-group-fin_en.htm. Accessed 1 December 2015.

  90. 90.

    See e.g. Commission Staff Working Document—The EU and Sport: Background and Context—Accompanying document to the White Paper on Sport, COM (2007) 391 final, Sect. 3.2.2; Commission Regulation (EU) N°651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty [2014] OJ L187/1, consideration 74. See also Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1588 of 13 July 2015 on the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to certain categories of horizontal State aid (codification) [2015] OJ L 248/1, consideration 14.

  91. 91.

    Commission Regulation (EU) No 1407/2013 of 18 December 2013 on the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [2013] OJ L 352/1.

  92. 92.

    See e.g. references in Commission Decision 2003/778/EC of 23 July 2003 (COMP/C.2-37.398—Joint selling of the commercial rights of the UEFA Champions League) [2003] OJ L 291/24, para 106; Case T-193/02, Laurent Piau v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2005:22, paras 69–72.

  93. 93.

    The risk of non-notification is higher for aid granted by regional or local authorities; they only occasionally grant aid and therefore have limited knowledge of the State aid rules. The notification obligation is incumbent on Member State governments, not on decentralised granting authorities. When Member States are caught granting unnotified aid, they often argue that internal national procedures did not allow them to check the compatibility of the aid granted by regional or local authorities. Nicolaides 2002, pp. 260–261.

  94. 94.

    Ibid.

  95. 95.

    See e.g. European Parliament, Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission to written Question E-1860/2003, 10 July 2003; European Parliament, Answer given by Mr Monti to written question E-2261/2003, 13 August 2003; Commission Staff Working Document—The EU and Sport: Background and Context—Accompanying document to the White Paper on Sport, COM (2007) 391 final, Sect. 3.2.2; European Commission, Report from the 3rd meeting of the Expert Group on Sustainable Financing of Sport (XG FIN), January 2013. http://ec.europa.eu/sport/news/2013/20130111-eu-expert-group-fin_en.htm. Accessed 1 December 2015; European Ombudsman, ‘State Aid and European football clubs? Summary of recommendation by the European Ombudsman following a complaint against the EU Commission’, 17 December 2013.

  96. 96.

    The number of ex officio cases (e.g. 35 in 2009 and 18 in 2010) dwindles in comparison to the numbers of complaints (e.g. around 400 in 2009). European Court of Auditors, ‘Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?’ (2011) Special Report No. 15, para 26.

  97. 97.

    Commission Decision of 25 January 2006 on the State Aid implemented by the Netherlands for AZ and AZ Vastgoed BV [2006] OJ L 307/194.

  98. 98.

    See e.g. Craven 2014, pp. 205–2017; Daley 2014, pp. 2–6.

  99. 99.

    It remains unclear to what extent the various letters sent by citizens formally qualify as complaints. For the sake of convenience, however, we will refer to them as complaints.

  100. 100.

    See e.g. Van Maren 2015, pp. 83–108.

  101. 101.

    European Commission, ‘State aid to professional football clubs’, COMP/C4/WP/AH/ZZ/md–D*2012/98568, 1 October 2012.

  102. 102.

    European Commission, Report from the 3rd meeting of the Expert Group on Sustainable Financing of Sport (XG FIN), January 2013. http://ec.europa.eu/sport/news/2013/20130111-eu-expert-group-fin_en.htm. Accessed 1 December 2015.

  103. 103.

    Commission decision of 18 December 2013, SA.36387, Spain—Alleged aid in favour of three Valencia football clubs [2014] OJ C69/99.

  104. 104.

    European Parliament, Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission to written Question E-004261/13, 12 June 2013.

  105. 105.

    European Commission, ‘Preliminary guidelines on the application of the competition rules on sport’, Internal Information Memo from Commissioner Karel van Miert to the Commission, 15 February 1999.

  106. 106.

    European Commission, ‘State aid to professional football clubs’, COMP/C4/WP/AH/ZZ/md–D*2012/98568, 1 October 2012.

  107. 107.

    See e.g. Smith 2001.

  108. 108.

    This restrictive approach reflected the case law preceding the adoption of the Procedural Regulation. Merola and Armati 2013, pp. 5–10.

  109. 109.

    Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty [1999] OJ L 83/1.

  110. 110.

    Ibid., Article 13(1).

  111. 111.

    Pastor Merchante 2014, pp. 130–134.

  112. 112.

    Case C-367/95, Commission v Chambre syndicale nationale des entreprises de transport de fonds et valeurs (Sytraval) and Brink’s France SARL, ECLI:EU:C:1998:154, para 45.

  113. 113.

    In addition to the considerable procedural costs, demanding procedural and substantive requirements (i.e. potential applicants must have standing and satisfy the applicable legal test) make the use of this remedy difficult.

  114. 114.

    European Parliament, Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission to written question P-2491/2002, 26 September 2002.

  115. 115.

    European Parliament, Answer given by Mrs Kroes on behalf of the Commission to written question P-5129/2006, 20 December 2006; European Commission, Commission decision of 18 December 2013, SA.36387, Spain—Alleged aid in favour of three Valencia football clubs, [2014] OJ C69/99, note 1.

  116. 116.

    European Parliament, Answer by Mrs Kroes on behalf of the Commission to written question E-0315/2005, 16 March 2005.

  117. 117.

    Case C-521/06 P, Athinaïki Techniki AE v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2008:422, para 38. This brought the complainants’ procedural rights closer to the field of antitrust where complainants are closely associated to the proceedings. See 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 [2003] OJ L 1/1, Article 27(1).

  118. 118.

    Case C-521/06 P, Athinaïki Techniki AE v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2008:42239, para 39.

  119. 119.

    Ibid., para 40. That is to say, a decision stating that aid does not exist, a decision not raise objections or a decision initiating the formal investigation procedure.

  120. 120.

    Ibid.

  121. 121.

    Case C-322/09, NDSHT Nya Destination Stockholm Hotell & Teaterpaket AB v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2010:701, paras 50–54; Case T-182/10, Associazione italiana delle società concessionarie per la costruzione e l’esercizio di autostrade e trafori stradali (Aiscat) v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2013:9, paras 30–32.

  122. 122.

    Case T-442/07, Ryanair Ltd v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2011:547, para 46.

  123. 123.

    Council Regulation (EU) No 734/2013 of 22 July 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty [2013] OJ L204/14. Now replaced by Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [2015] OJ L 248/9.

  124. 124.

    Pastor Merchante 2014, pp. 140–144. To this end, Article 10(1) of the original Procedural Regulation was amended. Article 12(1) of the current Procedural Regulation provides that ‘the Commission may on its own initiative examine information regarding alleged unlawful aid from whatever source’ (emphasis added) and that the Commission is only under an obligation to examine ‘any complaint submitted by any interested party in accordance with Article 20(2)’ (emphasis added). Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [2015] OJ L 248/9, Article 12(1).

  125. 125.

    Commission Regulation (EU) No 372/2014 of 9 April 2014 amending Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 as regards the calculation of certain time limits, the handling of complaints, and the identification and protection of confidential information [2014] OJ L 109/14.

  126. 126.

    Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [2015] OJ L 248/9, Article 24(2).

  127. 127.

    Ibid, Article 1(h) defines ‘interested party’ as ‘any Member State and any person, undertaking or association of undertakings whose interests might be affected by the granting of aid, in particular the beneficiary of the aid, competing undertakings and trade associations’.

  128. 128.

    On the use of this higher standard for complainants to qualify as interested party, see European Commission, State Aid Manual of Procedures: Internal DG Competition working documents on procedures for the application of Articles 107 and 108 TFEU, July 2013, Sect. 7.4.

  129. 129.

    See e.g. Case T-188/95, Waterleiding Maatschappij “Noord-West Brabant” NV v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:1998:217, para 68 (rejecting the claim that individual taxpayers objecting to the manner in which tax revenue is spent on alleged unlawful aid qualify as interested party).

  130. 130.

    Unless the Commission deems the case to be significant from a competition point of view and opens an investigation on its own initiative.

  131. 131.

    G. Braiden, EC rules: Celtic FC didn’t get ‘state aid’ in land deal with Glasgow City Council. The Herald, 13 November 2014. http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13189309.EC_rules__Celtic_FC_didn_t_get__state_aid__in_land_deal_with_Glasgow_City_Council/. Accessed 1 December 2015.

  132. 132.

    See e.g. Case T-475/04, Bouygues SA and Bouygues Télécom SA v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2007:196, para 158.

  133. 133.

    There is only an indicative time frame of 12 months, within which the Commission should decide on whether infringement action is warranted. European Commission, State Aid Manual of Procedures: Internal DG Competition working documents on procedures for the application of Articles 107 and 108 TFEU, July 2013, Sect. 7.4.

  134. 134.

    See e.g. Case T-17/96, Télévision française 1 SA (TF1) v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:1999:119; Case T-95/96, Gestevision Telecinco SA v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:1998:206.

  135. 135.

    European Ombudsman, Draft recommendation of the European Ombudsman in the inquiry into complaint 2521/2011/JF against the European Commission, 16 December 2013.

  136. 136.

    European Ombudsman, State Aid and European football clubs? Summary of recommendation by the European Ombudsman following a complaint against the EU Commission, 17 December 2013.

  137. 137.

    Commission decision of 18 December 2013, SA.29769, Spain—State aid to certain Spanish professional football clubs, [2014] OJ C69/115; Commission decision of 18 December 2013, SA.36387, Spain—Alleged aid in favour of three Valencia football clubs [2014] OJ C69/99; Commission decision of 18 December 2013, SA.33754, Spain—Real Madrid CF [2014] OJ C69/108.

  138. 138.

    European Ombudsman, Letter from the Vice-President of the European Commission, Joaquin Almunia, to the European Ombudsman following the press release no. 23/2013, 20 December 2013.

  139. 139.

    Martínez Navarro 2014, pp. 99–101.

  140. 140.

    Commission Press Release of 17 December 2014, IP/14/2742 State aid: Commission extends information enquiry on tax rulings practice to all Member States.

References

  • Aydin U (2014) Issue framing in the European Commission: State aid policy and the single market. 12 Comp Eur Politics 2:141–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blauberger M (2009) Of ‘Good’ and ‘Bad’ subsidies: European State aid control through soft and hard law. West Eur Polit 32(4):719–737

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cini M (2001) The soft law approach: Commission rule-making in the EU’s State aid regime. J Eur Public Policy 8(2):192–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craven R (2014) Football and State aid: too important to fail? Int Sports Law J 2014(3–4):205–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daley K (2014) Sport and State aid—reining in the populist gesture. Competition Policy Int Antirust Chronicle 1:2–6

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerlinger M (2003) Stadiums for FIFA World Cup Germany 2006 and European law on State aid: a case of infrastructure measures? Int Sports Law J 2003(1):9–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Koenig C, Haratasch A (2004) The logic of infrastructure funding under EC State aid control. 3 Eur State Aid Law Q 3:393–398

    Google Scholar 

  • Koenig C, Kühling J (2003) Infrastrukturförderung im Ausschreibungsverfahren—EG-beihilfenrechtlicher Königsweg der Kompensation von gemeinwirtschaftlichen Pflichten. Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt 5:289–298

    Google Scholar 

  • Martínez Navarro M (2014) The Ombudsman decision on the State-aid complaint concerning spanish football clubs: the Ombudsman as an alternative route for State-aid and anti-trust complainants? 6 J Eur Competition Law Pract 2:99–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Merola M, Armati L (2013) Complainants’ rights in State aid matters: lost in modernisation? Global Competition Law Centre Working Paper 01/13:5–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicolaides P (2002) Control of State aid in the European Union compliance, sanctions and rational behaviour. 25 World Competition, Issue 3:249–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pastor Merchante F (2014) The role of competitors in the enforcement of State aid law. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, European University Institute, Florence

    Google Scholar 

  • Pauwels C, De Vinck S, Van Rompuy B (2007) Lost in liberalisation? Can State aid in the film sector stand the proof of EU and WTO liberalisation efforts? In: Sarikakis K (ed) Media and cultural policy in the European Union. Rodopi, Amsterdam, pp 23–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Piernas López JJ (2015) The concept of State aid under EU law: from internal market to competition and beyond. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Quigley C (2015) European State aid law and policy. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawlinson F (1993) The role of policy frameworks, codes and guidelines in the control of State aid. In: Harden I (ed) State aid: community law and policy. Cologne, Bundesanzeiger, pp 57–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Santamato S, Westerhof JG (2003) Is funding of infrastructure State aid? 21 Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 645–648

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaefer K, Kreile J, Gerlach S (2002) Nationale Filmförderung: Einfluss und Grenzen des europäischen Rechts. 46 Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht 3:182–194

    Google Scholar 

  • Siebold M, Klingmüller A (2004) Sports facility financing and development trends in Europe and Germany 2003. 15 Marquette Sports Law Rev 2004:88

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith MP (1998) Autonomy by the rules: the European Commission and the development of State aid policy. 36 J Common Market Stud 1:58–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith MP (2001) How adaptable is the European Commission? The case of State aid regulation. J Public Policy 21(03):219–238

    Google Scholar 

  • Stefan OA (2012) Hybridity before the court: a hard look at soft law in the EU competition and State aid case law. 37 Eur Law Rev 1:49–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bogaert S (2010) Bosman: the genesis of European sports law. In: Maduro M, Azoulai L (eds) The past and future of EU law: the classics of EU law revisited on the 50th anniversary of the Rome Treaty. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 488–498

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Maren O (2015) The Real Madrid case: a State aid case (un)like any other? 11 Competition Law Rev 1:83–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Rompuy B (2015) The role of EU competition law in tackling abuse of regulatory power by sports associations. 22 Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 2:179–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill S (2010) Bosman changed everything: the rise of EC sports law. In: Maduro M, Azoulai L (eds) The past and future of EU law: the classics of EU law revisited on the 50th anniversary of the Rome Treaty. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 480–487

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. T.M.C. Asser Instituut, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Ben Van Rompuy

  2. Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Ixelles, Belgium

    Ben Van Rompuy

  3. T.M.C. Asser Instituut, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Oskar van Maren

Authors
  1. Ben Van Rompuy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Oskar van Maren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ben Van Rompuy .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. ASSER International Sports Law Centre, T.M.C. Asser Instituut, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Antoine Duval

  2. ASSER International Sports Law Centre, T.M.C. Asser Instituut, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Ben Van Rompuy

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Van Rompuy, B., van Maren, O. (2016). EU Control of State Aid to Professional Sport: Why Now?. In: Duval, A., Van Rompuy, B. (eds) The Legacy of Bosman. ASSER International Sports Law Series. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-120-3_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-120-3_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-119-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-120-3

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation