Working to build a bright future for sport

The Mavrommatis report, which is Parliament's response to the European Commission’s White Paper on Sport, was debated and voted through in the European Parliament today.

It’s a relatively tame report, in response to an equally tame White Paper but following the May Day rubbish some of the more excitable tabloids printed about a couple of transnational maps being an EU plot to abolish Britain, the likes of Chris Heaton Harris and Tom Wise lined up to accuse the EU of trying to hijack the governance of sport and describe it as “another Brussels power grab” courtesy of the Lisbon Treaty.

What the Lisbon Treaty does is precisely the opposite as it recognises the specificity of sport, i.e. that existing laws on employment, copyright, media rights and so on, which unavoidably affect professional sport, should be interpreted and applied in a way which takes account of the needs of sport. The most obvious example of this is the collective sale of television rights could be thought to contradict EU competition policy, but is clearly in the interest of fair sporting competition.

Indeed, the collective sale of television rights is one measure that the report does recommend. As this football season has once again proved leagues across Europe are dominated by one, two or maybe three teams and the problem will only get worse without the collective sale of television rights. The next few years should prove interesting (or a lot less so as the case will probably be) as the consequences of Barcelona and Real Madrid securing their own massive television deal becomes clear. Compared to the Premier League, Spain has been relatively exciting over the last 15 years, with Atletico Madrid, Deportivo and Valencia all winning a title while a host of others competed strongly against the dominance of Barca and Real Madrid. Whether it will continue to be so remains to be seen but, with the balance now so heavily weighted in favour of the two wealthiest clubs, it seems highly unlikely.

Staying on the subject of television, the report also calls on EU countries to draw together a list of sporting events which should be shown on free-to-air television. In Britain events like the World Cup, European Championship (in football) and the Olympics are protected but other events like Test matches and the Ryder Cup are only available on subscription television.

While the money that is paid for these events is important to the respective sports, there is a bigger issue of making them available to all. Viewing figures hit an extraordinary 8million during the last Ashes series in England and no matter how exciting they are in 2009 there is simply no chance that the same number of people will be able to enjoy the next series.

Finally, the report endorses UEFA's rules on home-grown players which will require clubs competing in the Champions League and UEFA cup next season to have at least eight home-grown players (trained either by the club or in the same league) in their 25-man squads. This is a realistic measure that will force clubs to invest in and develop talent in youth academies rather than just outspending their rivals in the transfer market, whilst also respecting EU employment law (unlike FIFA's six plus five proposals).

In short, getting away from the usual hyperbole spouted by Eurosceptics, the Mavrommatis report is a useful contribution to the debate on the future of sport and the way that we as MEPs can interpret and frame EU law in a way that safeguards the future of sport.