The societal role of sport.

Anderson, Jack

Introduction

I would like to thank the organisers, and in particular Dr Richard Parrish of Edge Hill University, for this opportunity. My remarks follow the established pattern of this workshop by opening with some general observations on the White Paper and then moving towards the specific remit of my commentary: that of the societal role of sport. My comments will focus on the social and cultural aspects of recreational sport rather than the economic and legal aspects of elite, professional sport. The emphasis will be on the manner in which the White Paper might, in the true spirit of Pierre de Coubertin, facilitate greater levels of active participation in sport thus reversing recent trends, which are indicating a regrettable tendency towards the "passive consumption" of sport.

1. General Remarks on the White Paper on Sport

Commenting on "The Helsinki Report on Sport", (1) Professor Stephen Weatherill remarked that it represented an important attempt by the EC Commission to step beyond "accidents of litigation" and instead shape a framework for understanding how, why and, most importantly, WHEN, EC law applied to sport. (2) In other words, a core aim of the Helsinki Report was to help clarify EC law's application to sport. In that, Weatherill declared, the Report was not unsuccessful, particularly in its attempt to separate out the categories of sporting practice that are outside the reach of EC law (such as the purely sporting rules) from those which are within the scope (though not necessarily incompatible with) EC law. (3) I agree that the Helsinki Report was a helpful starting point. The Helsinki Report was also a considered one, as illustrated by the observation that the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the EC Treaty do not generally conflict with the regulatory measures of sports associations, provided that those internal measures can be objectively justified, and are seen in operation to be non-discriminatory, necessary and proportionate. (4)

From that observation, it can be implied that where a "sporting" breach of EC law arises there remains, on a case-by-case basis, the need to conduct a detailed examination of the extent to which the sporting practices at issue are supported and underwritten by the principles of objective justification, non-discrimination, necessity and proportionality.

It is argued that the major criticism of the White Paper on Sport is that it is little more than a restatement of the Helsinki Report. In other words, can it be said that the debate on EC law's application to sport, or more specifically, the Commission's analysis of that debate, has evolved to any recognisable degree since 1999? To be fair to the Commission, the Staff Working Document, which accompanies the White Paper, provides a welcome and thorough collation of the extant legal analysis on the applicability of EC law to sport. (5) Nevertheless, in a broader, policy sense, it appears that EU sports law remains overly dependent on "accidents of litigation", as evidenced most recently by Meca Medina and Majcen v Commission. (6)

More specifically, the Commission's observations in the White Paper as to the "specificity of sport" are disappointingly vague and, at times, rather glib. For instance, it is stated at section 4.1:

"The case law of the European court and the decisions of the European Commission show that the specificity of sport has been recognised and taken into account. They also provide guidance on how EU law applies to sport. In line with established case law, the specificity of sport will continue to be recognised, but it cannot be construed so as to justify a general exemption from the application of EU law." (7)

This paragraph provokes three points of discussion. Firstly, the view that ECJ case law and decisions of the Commission provide guidance on how EU law applies to sport is a somewhat ambitious one.

Guidance does not equate to clarity, and what remains outstanding is clarity as to when EC law applies to sport. In fact, one of the features of the Meca Medina litigation was the marked divergence of opinion (dare one say, confusion!) inherent in the Commission's, the Court of First Instance's and the ECJ's perspective as to when the rules of a sports body can be seen in a "purely sporting interest" light or when should they be clouded by their "economic effect". (8) Moreover, the observation by the Commission that the "specificity of sport" will continue to be recognised should read more fully to include "on a case-by-case basis". It is contented that that incremental approach might be appropriate in a purely common-law jurisdiction but in practice it will lead only to the piecemeal and irregular development of European sports law. (9)

Third, the sentiment that existing case law cannot be interpreted so as to justify a general exemption from the application of EU law might be true of itself but the impression is that this is a bit of a sleight of hand by the Commission. The Commission is, in effect, dismissing an application that has not been submitted i.e., not even the most belligerent of sporting organisations, such as UEFA, are credibly seeking a general exemption from the norms of EC law. Admittedly, that "all or nothing" approach has long been part of UEFA's negotiating stance with the Commission but in reality it is little more than that--a negotiating tactic. (10) UEFA's legal representatives are cognisant of the fact that there is little chance that an industry as determinedly commercialised, as elite professional sport, will be permitted to operate outside the fundamental freedoms of the EC Treaty. (11)

What the leading sporting organisations are seeking is that the Commission makes some attempt to provide an identifiable and consistent rationale upon which EC law can, in a general sense, be reconciled with the peculiarities of sport. For instance, how can football be permitted in a non-discriminatory and proportionate way to pursue policies such as home-grown player quotas; the enhanced regulation of football agents; collective TV bargaining etc, notwithstanding the scope of the relevant fundamental freedoms of the EC Treaty. The absence of such a rationale, and the present reliance upon the case-by-case approach, is the source of much frustration. (12) That very point despite the White Paper there is still a lack of legal certainty--was made most recently by UEFA's Director of Communications and Public Affairs (Gaillard), by the General Manager of the European Professional Football League (Macedo de Medeiros) and by the European Parliament's rapporteur on professional football (Belet) at a European Commission-sponsored conference on the White Paper held in Brussels on 8/9 October 2007. (13)

2. The Future of the White Paper on Sport

Flowing from that general introduction, I wish to make three further points. The first two of which can be dealt with quickly, and concern issues surrounding the influence that the White Paper might have on the development of EU sports law. The outstanding point is has a more specific remit--that of the societal role of sport.

The Competency Lacuna

The first point, and again in a spirit of fairness towards the Commission, is the observation that there is a significant lacuna in the debate on EU sports law--and that is, the lack of constitutional competency. The EC Treaty makes no mention of sport, and read in conjunction with the limitations set out in Article 5(1) of the EC Treaty, this means that the "agenda setting" model for sport in the EU has often been diffused into policy areas such as culture, youth, education and public health to the detriment of substantive, effective and doctrinal legal principle. (14) Of course, since 1974 the ECJ has held that where the organisation or operation of sport constitutes an "economic activity" within the meaning of Article 2 of the EC Treaty, it will fall within the parameters of Community law. (15) The "birth" and subsequent evolution of contemporary EU sports law and policy lies in such landmark judgments. (16) Nevertheless, despite that case law; despite its consequent precedent and principles as to the compliance of sport with the demands of Community law on free movement, competition law etc; there is no doubt that "sport and the EC Treaty" remains "a tale of uneasy bedfellows". (17)

In addition, it remains uncertain as to how useful the (supporting and complementary competency) references to sport proposed by the (Reform) Treaty of Lisbon will be for the future coherency of EU sports law and policy. (18) On ratification, Article 165(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Treaty will read: "The Union shall contribute to the promotion of European sporting issues, while taking account of the specific nature of sport, its structures based on voluntary activity and its social and educational function." This "promotion" is complimented by Article 165(2) TfEU, which notes that Union action shall be aimed at "developing the European dimension to sport, by promoting fairness and openness in sporting competitions and cooperation between bodies responsible for sports, and by protecting the physical and moral integrity of sportsmen and sportswomen, especially the youngest sportsmen and sportswomen."

The proposed Article 165 contains much that is of symbolic merit especially in its treatment of sport as an official Union policy. (19) Nevertheless, as van den Bogaert and Vermeersch have identified correctly in their discussion of the parallel provision of the ill-fated Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, the provision is unlikely to live up to its laudable objectives. (20) The Union's institutions have been granted limited powers only "in order to contribute to the achievement" of the Reform Treaty's sporting objectives, notably "incentive measures", which exclude any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member States, and the express limitation of the Council to the adoption of recommendations. (21) In sum, the issue of competence is the underlying weakness in this debate in the development of EU sports law and, in terms of jurisprudential development, it appears that in the short term at least, the development of EU sports law will continue to be determined by "accidents of litigation". (22) In this light, the immediate future of this topic is likely to be shaped by the debate as to whether Meca Medina provides a sound legal platform on which to build a coherent Community policy on sport. (23)

Careful What You Wish For

The second point that I wish to make is a somewhat controversial one, and one that might spark some debate. What if sports organisations, such as UEFA, succeeded in lobbying for exemptions from EC law--might it be a case of "careful what you wish for"? There is an argument--made provocatively in an editorial in The Financial Times (below)--that the market forces and contractual freedoms unleashed in the post-Bosman era have been for the betterment of the European football industry.

"When is competition bad for competition? When it's commercial competition between football clubs. That, at least, is the instinctive reaction of Europe's sports ministers, who have been clamouring for football's governing bodies, Uefa and Fifa, to be allowed to run football without interference from pesky know-nothings such as the courts and the competition policy authorities.

At the heart of this debate are the merits of the "European" model of sport versus the "American" model. Confusingly, the "American" model consists of sports leagues with powerful unions, privileged incumbents, salary caps and little openness to new entrants. The "European" model involves global competition, free entry and superstar salaries for the best players. Even more confusingly, sports ministers seem determined to preserve this competitive model with a dollop of dirigisme.

The European Commission will soon make its views clear with a white paper on sport. That is no bad thing; sport, especially football, has been plagued with uncertainty over when competition law overrides the authority of sporting bodies and when it does not. But the Commission should not pay too much attention to sports ministers' demands for wide-ranging exemptions from EU competition law.

The ministers commissioned an independent review, published last year, which fretted about market forces. The theory goes like this: market forces are bad for football because rich clubs hire too many foreigners and win too often, leaving fans unhappy. The solutions are said to be more redistribution of cash from rich to poor, and a compulsion to hire lots of local players.

The European Commission should take all this with a pinch of salt. Regulatory clarity would be good. So would better regulation of football agents. But market forces seem to be serving football very well.

Money and talent is indeed concentrated in the hands of a few clubs, but those who oppose such trends need to make a stronger case. Results remain unpredictable; the Premier League has had three champions in four years. It is true that the big clubs reliably do well, but that is no bad thing; since there are more fans of Manchester United than of Manchester City, the total happiness of fans probably is increased if United win more often. Traditionalists will moan, but new fans in Asia will be celebrating. And if upsets became too common, they would not be upsets.

In any case, unpredictable results are not the only good in sport; dour clashes between mediocrities are no less dour if the teams are evenly matched. Excellent play is valued by football's growing fan base and it is something that the top teams are able to offer. European football, especially the English Premier League, operates in a global market for attention and it is beating the competition handily. This is no time to start scoring own goals." (24)

There is not enough time in this brief paper to confront all of the issues raised in the above editorial. (25) It suffices to state that it suggests that the case made forcefully in the Independent European Sport Review of 2006--that football should be allowed govern itself--is not as altruistically minded for the sport as whole as might first appear. (26) It might even be the case that the review's biased view of the ineptness and inappropriateness of EC law's application to sport, which in any event is dated and flawed by its reliance on the CFI's approach in Meca-Medina, could be interpreted as largely being self-serving to the administrative and financial benefit of Uefa and the sport's leading clubs. (27)

In example, there is no doubt that the agreement in January 2008 between Fifa/Uefa and the G14/ECA, with respect to compensating clubs for players on international duty, (28) will negate much of the impact of the Oulmers/Charleroi litigation. (29) But might it also be a sign that the relevant parties have seen the benefits of enhanced cooperation? (30) Imagine a scenario where that level of cooperation is underpinned by exemptions from EC law. Would then, and without the mediating force of EC competition law, labour law etc, "social dialogue" soon and opportunistically transform itself collective bargaining? Would, as stated in the above FT piece, the existing European sports model slide into a restrictive American sports model of "powerful unions, privileged incumbents, salary caps and limited, franchise-dependent entry"? And would this be a good thing for European sport? Professor Stephen Weatherill has made this point with far more intellectual rigour as far back as 2000, and it remains of interest. (31)

3. Specific Remarks on the White Paper: The Societal Role of Sport

The etymology of the word "sport" is located in the notion of providing a "diversion" from the travails of everyday life. (32) Nowadays, and in terms of contemporary social policy, sport is seen as a mechanism of combating a range of social ills from obesity to bigotry. I argue that sport's role as some sort of societal "Good Samaritan" is prone to much hyperbole and exaggeration, as can be illustrated, unfortunately, by reference to section 2 of the White Paper. That criticism apart, sections 3 and 4 of the White Paper go on to demonstrate a welcome, if implied, understanding of the most formidable challenge facing modern sport--that of falling rates of active participation and volunteerism in local sport. In brief, it is through local, participatory sport, and not through the "corporate social responsibility" of the professional sports industry, that the societal role of sport is seen at its best.

Section 2 of the White Paper

Section 2 of the White Paper is entitled "The Societal Role of Sport"; a theme that in its various educational, public health and social inclusion manifestations has been much beloved by the Commission. (33) Although the underlying sincerity of the Commission's approach is clear from the accompanying Staff Working Document, the overly verbose nature of this section of the White Paper is somewhat off putting. For instance, section 2 of the White Paper opens by stating that the societal role of sport has the potential to strengthen the Union's external relations. What proposals are offered in realization of this ambitious aspiration? The answer in section 2.7 of the White Paper is rather underwhelming: "When addressing sport in its development policies, the EU will make its best effort to create synergies (?) with existing programmes of the United Nations, Member States, local authorities and private bodies." (34) Continuing on this theme, it appears that, thanks to sport, citizens of the European Union are going to become thinner (section 2.1); realise the benefits of lifelong learning (section 2.3); become more active citizens (section 2.4); engage in inter-cultural dialogue (section 2.5); eradicate racism and xenophobia (section 2.6), and become more environmentally conscious (section 2.8). On a more serious note, it is suggested that all the above grandiloquence does is reveal a fundamental weakness in the Commission's approach to the societal role of sport--that of overburdening sport with social, cultural even political ambitions that it cannot possibly realise. (35) In fact, it could be argued that the examples of pre-Belfast Agreement Northern Ireland and apartheid South Africa demonstrate that on issues such as identity, social inclusion and tolerance, sporting associations and movements often maintain, even aggravate, existing levels of tension and misunderstanding. (36) Sections 3 and 4 of the White Paper

To be fair to the Commission, they have seen the futility of referring to the organisation of sport in Europe as a pyramid of interests--the so-call "European Sports Model". (37) Section 4 of the White Paper opens with a welcome recognition that any vertical solidarity between recreational sport (the foundation of the pyramid) and professional sport (at its apex) is somewhat artificial. There is no single, homogenous "European Sports Model" and the legal, social, economic and political needs of "grassroots" sport are very different, and need to be distinguished, from the commercial realities of elitist professional sport.

Of related interest, is the reference in section 3.1 of the White Paper to "moving towards evidence-based sport policies". Principally, this is concerned with initiating various statistical reviews of the economic impact of sport, with presumed emphasis on the professional sports industry. Of equal interest is the effort to collate information on non-economic or "recreational" aspects of sport such as participation rates, data on volunteering etc. A review of this nature was conducted in Ireland in 2005 by the government-funded Economic and Social Research Institute. (38) The analysis was done mainly with a view to establishing sport's influence in the promotion of what is called "social capital", which the report defines as the "practices and conventions that promote social contact between people, enhances interpersonal trust, and supports a shared acceptance of norms and values in society." (39) In summative interpretation of the findings, it was found that the role that local sporting activities and clubs have had in contributing to levels of social capital in Ireland has long been undervalued. Moreover, and in line with previous research, it was found that sport was the most outstanding arena or source for volunteering in Irish society. In sum, and on foot of this research, it has been recommended that at a policy level the Irish government should ensure that its investment strategy for recreational sport should allow for the personal infrastructure of sport (the funding and legislative protection of volunteers) as much as it does for its capital investment in the physical infrastructure of Irish sport. (40)

Conclusion

Finally, there is no doubt that interest in sport in EU Member States such as Ireland remains at a high level. Nevertheless, the consumption of sport (the purchase of TV sports packages, club merchandising etc) should not be confused with participation in sport. (41) In Ireland, it is noteworthy that the rate of participation in sport has been falling in socially deprived and disadvantaged (mainly urban) areas. Placed in the context of contemporary Irish sports policy, that has meant that public spending in sport has been seen as regressive in nature with the less well-off effectively subsidising the sporting activities and facilities of the better-off. (42) This is a fundamental point. It might not, in terms of the EU sports law, be a very sexy (or complex) point when compared to collective TV bargaining rights, the regulation of football agents etc., but I hope that one of the initiatives that might follow from the White Paper's "Pierre de Coubertin Action Plan" is a greater commitment to targeted EU funding of community projects in socially deprived areas. (43)

On a technical legalistic level, it is important to note that this level of support for "grassroots" sport would be boosted by the ratification of the (Reform) Treaty of Lisbon because through the proposed Article 165 TfEU direct budgetary support for sport would (at last) have a formal legal basis. (44) At an altogether more practical level, it is my view that the provision of all-weather pitches, clubhouses and sports equipment for deprived localities is more attuned to Pierre de Coubertin's original objectives for the enjoyment of sport than the sprawling, bloated mess that is contemporary "Olympian" professional sport.

(1) Report from the EC Commission to the European Council, "The Helsinki Report on Sport" (Brussels, 10 December 1999, Com(1999) 644 final).

(2) S Weatherill, "The Helsinki Report on Sport" (2000) 25 European Law Review 282.

(3) S Weatherill, "European Sports Law: Collected Papers" (2007) 1-2 International Sports Law Journal 33 at p.35. This article serves as an introduction to the contents of S Weatherill, European Sports Law: Collected Papers (The Hague: TMC Asser Press, 2007).

(4) The Helsinki Report, above at note 1, at para.4.2.3.

(5) EC Commission Staff Working Document, "The EU and Sport: Background and Context" (Brussels, 11 July 2007, SEC(2007) 935), at Annex 1 (Sport and EU Competition Rules) and at Annex II (Sport and Internal Market Freedoms).

(6) Case C-519/04P [2006] ECR I-6991.

(7) EC Commission, "White Paper on Sport" (Brussels, 11 July 2007, Com(2007) 391 final), at para.4.1.

(8) Note S Weatherill, "Anti-doping Revisited: The Demise of 'Purely Sporting Interest'?" (2006) 27 European Competition Law Review 645, and, more generally, E Szyszczak, "Competition and Sport" (2007) 32 European Law Review 95 and A Vermeersch, "All's Fair in Sport and Competition? The Application of EC Competition Rules to Sport" (2007) 3 Journal of Contemporary European Research 238.

(9) For a broader interdisciplinary perspective on the inconsistency of the European Union's approach to the regulation of sport, see B Bogusz, A Cygan and E Szyszczak (eds), The Regulation of Sport in the European Union (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2007).

(10) For a review of UEFA's "relationship" with the Commission, note B Garcia, "UEFA and the European Union: From Confrontation to Co-operation" (2007) 3 Journal of Contemporary European Research 202.

(11) For a comprehensive review of this topic, note R Parrish and S Miettinen, The Sporting Exception in European Union Law (The Hague: TMC Asser Press, 2008).

(12) As acknowledged by the Commission in its Staff Working Document, "Executive Summary of the Impact Assessment of the White Paper on Sport" (Brussels, 11 July 2007, SEC(2007) 936), at p.2.

(13) Conference report available at: http://ec.europa.eu/sport/whatsup/d_159 82_white_paper_conference-report.pdf (last accessed on 10 March 2008).

(14) Note R Parrish, "The Birth of EU Sports Law" (2003) 2 Entertainment Law 20; R Parrish, "The Politics of Sport Regulation in the EU" (2003) 10 Journal of European Public Policy 246; and, more recently, B Garcia, "From Regulation to Governance and Representation: Agenda Setting and the EU's Involvement in Sport" (2007) 5 Entertainment and Sports Law Journal 1, Online, available at: http://go.warwcik.ac.uk/eslj/issues/volume 5/number1/garcia/ (last accessed on 11 March 2008).

(15) Case 36/74, Walrave and Koch v UCI [1974] ECR 1405, at para.4.

(16) That "evolutionary process" is reviewed by R Parrish, Sports Law and Policy in the European Union (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2003). See also the essays in A Caiger and S Gardiner (eds), Professional Sports in the EU: Regulation and Re-regulation (The Hague: TMC Asser Press, 2000), and the legal and policy documents collated by R Siekmann and J Soek (eds), The European Union and Sport: Legal and Policy Documents (The Hague: TMC Asser Press, 2005).

(17) S van de Bogaert and A Vermeersch, "Sport and the EC Treaty: A Tale of Uneasy Bedfellows" (2006) 31 European Law Review 821.

(18) Article 124 of the Reform Treaty amending Art 149 EC Treaty.

(19) A deficiency that has long stunted the growth of this topic, see S Weatherill, "Fair Play Please! Recent Developments in the Application of EC Law to Sport" (2003) 40 Common Market Law Review 51.

(20) Van de Bogaert and Vermeersch, above at note 17, at pp.838-840 discussing Art III282 of the Constitutional Treaty.

(21) Article 165(4) TfEU. Note the prescient comments by D Bailey, "The Pathway to a Stable European Legal System for Sport" (2008) 15(1) Sports Law Administration & Practice 3.

(22) Note S Weatherill, "The White Paper on Sport as an Exercise in 'Better Regulation'" (2008) 1-2 International Sports Law Journal (forthcoming).

(23) Note the analysis above at note 8.

(24) "Leader: The Special Ones", The Financial Times, 12 May 2007.

(25) For a more considered approach note "The Wathelet Report" commissioned by the ASSER International Sports Law Centre, and summarised by M Wathelet, "Sport Governance and the EU Legal Order: Present and Future" (2007) 3-4 International Sports Law Journal 3.

(26) The "Arnaut Report" is available at: http://www.independentfootballreview.co m (last accessed on 11 March 2008). For a critical overview, see S Miettinen, "The 'Independent European Sport Review'" (2006) 3-4 International Sports Law Journal 57.

(27) Note especially paras.3.49-3.51 and paras.3.88-3.96 of the Arnaut Report, ibid.

(28) For a brief, contemporaneous account, see R Hughes, "A ceasefire, at least, in the soccer kings' war" The International Herald Tribune, 18 January 2008.

(29) Case C-243/06, Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Charleroi lodged on 30 May 2006--SA Sporting du Pays de Charleroi, G-14 Groupment des clubs de football europeens v Federation internationale de football association (Fifa).

(30) The effusiveness of Uefa's response to the G14/ECA deal is telling. Note Uefa President Michel Platini's comments entitled, "European football the winner" available at http://www.uefa.com/uefa/keytopics/kind =64/newsid=668008.html (last accessed on 10 March 2008).

(31) S. Weatherill, "Resisting the Pressures of 'Americanization': The Influence of the European Community Law on the 'European Sport Model" in S Greenfield and G Osborn (eds), Law and Sport in Contemporary Society (London: Frank Cass, 2000) at p.155 et seq.

(32) For a lively, journalistic account of the "importance" of sport, by the chief sportswriter of The Times, see S Barnes, The Meaning of Sport (London: Short Books, 2007).

(33) Note sport's role in promoting "A People's Europe" as mentioned by the Adonnino Committee Report, Com (84) 446 final. This general thematic approach to sport's societal role is also prominent in the Council of Europe's approach to sport; see generally R Siekmann and J Soek (eds), The Council of Europe and Sport: Basic Documents (The Hague: TMC Asser Press, 2007).

(34) See also Article 165(3) TfEU.

(35) See further S Weatherill, "Sport as Culture in European Community Law" in R Craufurd Smith (ed), Culture in European Union Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) at p.113 et seq.

(36) For Northern Ireland, see J Sugden and A Bairner, Sport, Sectarianism and Society in a Divided Ireland (London: Leicester University Press, 1993) and M Cronin, Sport and Nationalism in Ireland (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1999). For South Africa, see, for example, M Bose, Sporting Colours: Sport and Politics in South Africa (London: Robson, 1994) and, more generally, M Marqusee, Anyone but England: Cricket and the National Malaise (London: Verso, 1984).

(37) See previously, EC Commission Consultation Document of Directorate-General X, "The European Model of Sport" (September 1998), available at: http://ec.europa.eu/sport/action_sports/h istorique/docs/doc_consult_en.pdf (last accessed on 13 March 2008).

(38) L Delaney and T Fahey, Social and Economic Value of Sport in Ireland (Dublin: ESRI, 2005). The general purpose of the report was to enhance knowledge of the socio-economic dimensions of sport in Ireland with a view to informing public policy. For access to this and related reports, please search the "publications" section of http://www.esri.ie.

(39) The most celebrated critique of "social capital" can be found in R Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York, Simon & Schuster, 2000).

(40) See P Lunn, Ballpark Figures: Key Research for Irish Sports Policy (Dublin: ESRI, 2007).

(41) In Ireland, note the reports by T Fahey, L Delaney and B Gannon, School Children and Sport in Ireland (Dublin: ESRI, 2005) and T Fahey, R Layte and B Gannon, Sports Participation and Health Among Adults in Ireland (Dublin: ESRI, 2004).

(42) See P Lunn, Fair Play? Sport and Social Disadvantage in Ireland (Dublin: ESRI, 2007).

(43) EC Commission Staff Working Document, "Action Plan 'Pierre de Coubertin'" (Brussels, 11 July 2007, SEC(2007) 934), at section B.2.

(44) Note the discussion by W Tokarski et al (eds), Two Players, One Goal? Sport in the European Union (Oxford: Meyer & Meyer Sport, 2004) at p.64 with reference (in sport) to the Eurathlon programme and (in law) to Case C-106/96, UK v Commission [1998] ECR I-2729.

Jack Anderson, School of Law, Queen's University Belfast, United Kingdom. This paper was presented at the International Workshop on the European Commission's White Paper on Sport, organised by Edge Hill University, United Kingdom and the ASSER International Sports Law Centre, The Hague, The Netherlands, and supported by The British Council--NWO Partnership Programme in Science, The Hague, 22 February 2007.