This paper seeks to combine our empirical analysis concerning the impact of EU- and European-level developments on socio-economic patterns in the field of German football with the growing Europeanisation research agenda in EU Studies. Most commonly, Europeanisation denotes domestic political changes caused by European integration. Most studies have taken such a top-down perspective in their conceptualisation of Europeanisation, whereas bottom-up processes and attempts to analyse their interplay have entered the debate only recently. We seek to contribute to this debate by focusing on what we describe as the ‘societal/trans-national’ dimension of Europeanisation: this dimension encapsulates (1) the level and sphere of change; and (2) the type of agency generating or resisting change. Through analysing five cases of Europeanisation within the realm of German football, we not only want to shed some light on an under-researched field of study for political scientists interested in ‘Europeanising’ mechanisms. We also aim at exploring the applicability of systemising factors of the Europeanisation process derived from the analysis of political contexts to other areas of social interaction in order to capture hitherto neglected processes. Opening up the field in the societal/transnational direction should add to the awareness of the complexity of Europeanisation processes. In addition, studying Europeanisation in a sphere that constitutes an important and conscious part of people’s lives, may also allow us to incorporate the ‘Europeanised’ life worlds of European citizens into the academic debate. Our five cases are: (1) Bosman I: The Nationality Issue; (2) Bosman II: The New Transfer Regime; (3) Broadcasting Rights; (4) The Champions League; (5) The G-14. Hence, our first three cases are characterised by top-down EU pressures, while cases four and five are characterised by rather different sources of Europeanisation, emanating from domestic and above all transnational spheres.
Dr Arne Niemann is lecturer and post-doctoral researcher at the University of Dresden. His main research interests focus on empirical and theoretical dimensions of European integration. His publications include a monograph on explaining EU decision outcomes (Cambridge University Press, 2006 forthcoming), an edited book on German foreign policy (2005) and two peer reviewed articles in the Journal of European Public Policy (1998, 2004).
Alexander Brand, M.A., is lecturer and doctoral researcher at the University of Dresden. He currently works on his dissertation thesis on the relationship of mass media and international relations through constructivist lenses. Besides, he has edited a book on development issues (2004).
With the Bosman decision, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) forced Fédération International de Football Association (FIFA) to change its transfer rules. These new rules, adopted in July 2001, were supposed to answer the ECJ concerns about the restriction of the free movements of players. In July 2005, the rules were again modified. This paper looks at the 2001 and 2005 transfer rules in the light of the Bosman decision and tries to determine if they really are a long term solution or a quick fix until the next lawsuit. Analysing the rules in the Bosman perspective seems to show that FIFA did try to provide an appropriate answer to the ECJ’s concerns. In Bosman, the ECJ declared that a system restricting the free movement of players could be legal if it helped maintain the competitive balance between the clubs and if it encouraged the recruitment and training of young players. Both systems of rules seem to fail to meet these conditions. The main concern is the determination of the costs of training to be paid by the National Associations or the Confederations. If these amounts are too low, it will not prevent rich clubs from buying the best players and will not give enough incentives to clubs to develop young players. Additionally, the players under 23 years of age are still submitted to a restriction of movement. Although these rules are a step forward, they are still far from perfect.
Jean-Christian Drolet LLM, Universität Hamburg
Intellectual Property (IP) is one of the leading forces of today’s economy. This statement applies not only to the corporate world but also to other sectors, such as sport – including but certainly not limited to professional sport. The purpose of the paper, which shall be based on a comparative approach between the European Union and the USA, is to provide an analytical survey and generate discussion on the hottest topics of sport and IP. The topics to be examined shall be arranged around the following main centerlines: (i) patent law (e.g. should the European patent regime follow the US path where issuance of sport patents (including methods for doing sport activities or training practices) are getting more and more common?), (ii) trademark law, (iii) copyright law, (iv) merchandising (with an outlook to the competition law aspects of this issue), (v) media (entertainment law) and sport (such as broadcasting), (vi) new technologies and sport (including issues such as broadcasting sport events over the internet (incl. ITV) and different wireless communication methods (such as mobile phones). The paper will examine the current legal EU regime and policies and propose solutions to the new challenges.
The European Union likes to present itself as an ‘associative state’ that engages in a dialogue with civil society, but in practice it often operates as a ‘company state’ that shows a preference for engaging with big companies and their representatives. This pattern could be said to be reflected in the EU’s relationship with G-14 and Uefa. Asymmetries of power between clubs could hence be reinforced, but the relationships are complex, not least because the EU has an interest in using football as a means of tackling its legitimacy problem. This paper suggests that one could interpret the EU’s policy towards football as a two tier policy similar to the one it has developed in relation to European agriculture and rural society. Just as policies for competitive and marginal agriculture are run in parallel, it could be argued that there are policies for football as a media product aimed at consumers and football as a means of promoting healthy lifestyles aimed at citizens. This provides a context for considering the current EU review of football, the way that it relates to ‘stakeholders’ and the possible outcomes.
Professor Wyn Grant, Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Warwick
Formulation and adoption of the World Anti-Doping Code in 2003 (“WADC”) provides the basis for a new lex sportiva internationalis. Applying Schmitthoff’s (1964) classical triad for the existence of transnational legal regimes consisting of
(i) consensual contractual agreements, (ii) international legislation, and
(iii) arbitration, WADA’s project of harmonizing the fight against doping displays transnational law: (i) WADC itself as the generally accepted code, (ii) Copenhagen Declaration as instrument under international public law, and (iii) Court of Arbitration for Sports (“CAS”) as exclusively competent private conflict settlement body.
The need for enforceability and legitimacy of this transnational regime poses diverse challenges for national and supranational legislators. These derive from national legal systems as well as from public international law.
National legal systems grasp for application in international sports cases and jeopardize the mandatory uniformity sport rules cannot live without. In order to overcome the legal obstacles of international private law EU legislation could be of decisive help, raising once again questions of competence and subsidiarity.
Furthermore, the transnational approach of WADA requires legitimacy under international public law. The scope of the current Copenhagen Declaration seems not sufficient as there is a need for a widely accepted treaty under international public law clearly mandating WADA and providing mechanisms for its enforceability, thereby providing additional tasks for the EU.
My presentation at the Loughborough Workshop on Sport and the European Union, 10 years after Bosman would extrapolate some of the abovementioned issues in order to stress EU’s challenges within the worldwide fight against doping in sports.
Bastian Kern, Associate at Smeets Haas Wolff Rechtsanwälte, Frankfurt - Former PhD researcher at Prof. Haas’ chair for private law and sports law, university of Mainz - Currently with Morgan Stanley Bank International, London, Special Situations Group Europe
The increasing dependence of professional game sports on migrant workers has created widespread concerns within host countries over the loss of development opportunities for indigenous athletes, as team places are taken by migrant workers, professional clubs choose to hire rather than train new talent, and indigenous role-models are lost to a global market-place. Changes may also be taking place in the working and career expectations of players and coaches and their felt obligations to one another, in other words, in their mutual understanding of their ‘psychological contract’. An empirical study, informed by figurational social theory, was carried out to explore the ways in which sports migration might be shaping the psychological contract between players and coaches working for professional and semi-professional British basketball clubs. The present paper will seek to explore the findings of this study from the perspective of the Bosman Ruling, which has had a significant impact on athletic migration in Europe in the last decade, but nevertheless represents only one of a number of critical enabling and constraining pressures impacting on labour mobility in this sport. It will show that, while the Bosman Ruling has undoubtedly expanded the European market for migrant basketball talent, it has worked paradoxically to enhance the Americanisation, rather than the Europeanisation, of the British game, by exacerbating the already polarised access to court-time between North American ‘starters’ and British ‘bench-players’. It appears that the psychological contract between coaches and players may be working, reflexively, to reinforce this polarisation, as coaches adopt differing expectations of the work of North American and British players, and commercialising processes enhance the bargaining power of the game’s elite athletes.
In 1996 the European Court of Justice ruled in favour of Jean-Marc Bosman, a former player of FC Liege, who filed suit against the club, the Belgian football authorities and UEFA, arguing that the football regulations on the payment of transfer fees prevented players from having the same human right of freedom of movement that was common practice in other areas of employment. The central object of this paper is to offer a figurational sociological analysis of some of the unintended consequences that have resulted from the Bosman ruling for English professional football clubs. In particular, it will be suggested that one of the unintended consequences of the ruling has been to exacerbate the already widening economic and performance-related differentials between English Premier League clubs, and between Premier League clubs and those in the Football League. These unintended consequences and the difficulty with which they could be predicted, it will be argued, can only be understood adequately as resulting from the changing balance of power between clubs that has resulted from the growing complexity of the relational network characteristic of professional football in England and elsewhere in Europe. In the light of this relational complexity, the paper concludes by outlining some of the policy issues and problems of implementing current European law regulations within professional football.
Chris Platts is a MSc Sociology of Sport and Exercise student at the Chester Centre for Research into Sport and Society, University of Chester, UK.
The European Union, often perceived as a complex elite-project, is for the ordinary citizen not more than a ”far from my bed‘-show, and as a result generally receives little public support. The aim of many member states is to bring EU decision-making closer to the people and to create a common postnational identity. In countries all over the world, sport is used in numerous ways to help form and bolster collective identity. EU policy-makers conceive sport therefore more and more as a great tool in the process of European identity-formation. A common European sports policy may -by the creation of a postnational, European identity-reduce the democratic deficit and increase public support for ”European integration‘. This article seeks to analyze the attitudes of EU-citizens towards an increased role of the European Union in the field of sport. Using Eurobarometer-data from 2004, the analyses show persistent differences between countries in their support for more EU-responsibility in the field of sport even after equalizing for national differences in socio-economic and ideological variables. The proof of an increased postnational, European identity by means of sport is thus not yet provided. ”Sport as vehicle for European integration‘ still belongs to the world of myths.
Charlotte Van Tuyckom, assistant - Ghent University (Belgium) Department Sociology