1. Introduction
2. Dialogue with the european sport movement
3. On-line consultation
   1. Background information on respondents
   2. Do you think that sport activities have a fundamental role to play in contributing to changing attitudes?
   3. Do you think the time for sport / physical activity should be increased in school?
   4. Which are in your view the main values that can be taught through sport?
   5. Should the EU measure the economic importance of sport in order to help raise the profile of sport in EU and national policies?
   6. European grassroots sport organisations base a large part of their activities on voluntarily engaged people. Would you agree that the specific role and status of non-profit organisations and volunteers should be taken into account at EU level?
   7. The overall economic impact of sport in quantitative terms is scarcely documented. Would you agree that the EU should address these shortcomings?
   8. In EU Member States sport, grassroots sport in particular, is often largely financed by the State through income generated by State-run lotteries. Would you agree that a White Paper on sport should address the need for Member States to seek more stable ways of financing grassroots sport in the long run? Should there be a debate at European level?
   9. Sport has an important employment dimension. Professions in sport have to adapt continuously to the developments and challenges imposed by the job market. Do you think that the EU should address the specificities of sport professions in the field of education to ensure a better recognition of sport-related qualifications at EU level?
   10. The European Council in its Nice Declaration of 2000 calls on EU bodies to give special consideration to the social, education and cultural functions inherent to sport. It points out that certain special characteristics of sport, such as internal cohesion and solidarity, fair competition, and the protection of the moral and material interests of sportsmen and women, particularly the younger generation, should be taken into account in current policies pursued by the Community institutions. We would like to have your views on the way the Commission should take account of the specific features of sport in current and future policies.
   11. There are many common features in the ways in which sport is practised and organised in the Union, in spite of certain differences between the Member States, and it is therefore possible to talk of a European approach to sport based on common concepts and principles. We would like to have your views on elements which characterise the European approach to sport in comparison with other continents.
   12. Would you agree that there is a European approach to sport clearly differentiated from other continents?
   13. Do you think that cooperation between sport organisations, Member States and EU institutions is desirable?
   14. Would you say that the role of the EU in the field of sport is:
   15. Statements on the European Union and sport:
   16. Priorities for the European Union in the field of sport:
   17. Any other comments, concerns or suggestions you may have on the role you think the EU should play (or not) in the field of sport.
4. consultations with EU states
   1. EU Sport Ministers and Sport Directors meetings
   2. Expert meetings (2005, 2006)
   3. EU Working Groups "Sport and Health", "Sport and Economics", "Non-profit sport organisations" (2005, 2006, 2007)
   4. Member State Working Group "White Paper" (2007)
5. Recent studies, survey, reports
   1. Studies on sport and education (2004), training centres (2007)
   2. Eurobarometer surveys (2003, 2004)
   3. EP reports (2004, 2007)

1. Introduction

Stakeholder consultations have been an essential tool in the process leading to the adoption of the White Paper on Sport. In addition to the formal requirements to consult with relevant actors, the Commission has been able to profit from its large framework for consultation, communication and interaction with Member States' Governments, sport organisations, other representatives of civil society, and individual citizens in the field of sport.

The Commission has a tradition of dialogue with Member States' sport ministries and European sport organisations. This dialogue is structured and reciprocal, and input from stakeholders – public as well as private – has provided crucial input during the preparation of the White Paper.

Stakeholders have regularly called on the EU’s institutions to take action on numerous sport-related issues and their expectations have often gone far beyond the limits of the institutions’ competences as conferred by Community law.

In the subsequent sections the consultation efforts of the last two years are presented, structured by type of consultation. An on-line consultation was open for all interested organisations and individuals during an 8-week period in February-April 2007, the results of which are presented below in detail. The two big stakeholder conferences organised in 2005 and 2006 are also discussed in more detail as they were particularly representative of the European sport movement – at all levels and in all disciplines – and because their results, prepared by external experts, have been published and are accessible on-line. Other consultation measures are presented in a more synthetic form.

2. Dialogue with the European sport movement

The Commission has a long tradition of dialogue with the European sport movement, dating back to 1991 when the first European Sport Forum was organised in Brussels. The Forum met in different formats, usually in one of the Member States, until 2003. It included representatives of the sport movement – usually limited to European federations and European organisations –, representatives of Member States' Governments, and occasional observers. The Forum gathered up to 300 delegates. In 2005, following the results of the 2004 Intergovernmental Conference, it became apparent that the Commission would need to consult with its sport policy stakeholders in such a way as to be prepared for various scenarios, in terms of the status which sport could be expected to have at EU level in the future. The Commission informed its stakeholders that it would consult with them in order to identify concrete topics of direct practical relevance to stakeholders. This approach was well received by stakeholders and a consultation process was launched under the title: "The EU & Sport: matching expectations".

TOP

2.1 Consultation Conferences: “The EU & Sport: matching expectations”

The first consultation conference was organised on 14-15 June 2005. Three workshops were organised, focussing on “The Social Function of Sport”, “Volunteering in Sport” and “The Fight against Doping”. In-depth discussions took place, introduced by recognised external experts (academics and stakeholders). Rapporteurs were also external and their reports were published on-line.

In relation to the social function, the Commission undertook to answer to calls to:

• “map participation in sport in the EU-25 including a focus on disadvantaged groups in order to find out which areas, which countries, which cross-border topics etc. need more attention” and
• “identify barriers limiting access to sport in order to maximise the inclusion of excluded groups.”

Recognising the importance of voluntary work, the Commission promised to:

• “set up a European agenda on volunteering in sport including a dialogue with all interested parties” and to
• “provide for ways of cooperation at EU level to progress on the issue of volunteering in sport.”

In relation to doping, the Commission undertook to:

• "make better use of already existing EU programmes and policies to increasingly raise awareness", and to
• "provide for better ways of cooperation at EU evel aimed at establishing best practices in the field of education and information for adolescents."

The second consultation conference was placed under the title: “The Role of Sport in Europe” and took place in Brussels on 29-30 June 2006. The conference followed the concept of the preceding one. Again, external speakers introduced the topics of the three workshops, and reports were prepared by external experts and published on-line. Discussions were frank and constructive. Each workshop dealt with one of the big themes of the White Paper – the societal function of sport, the economic impact of sport and the governance of sport.

The first workshop dealt with “The Societal Role of Sport”. Whereas previous policy documents (since the Nice Declaration of 2000) have usually referred to the social, educational, cultural and other non-sporting, non-economic functions of sport, the societal role was found to be an appropriate umbrella term to cover them all. The workshop provided a first opportunity to test this concept with stakeholders and it was well received. Numerous calls on the Commission to take action were made, of which only a few can be mentioned here:

• “Produce a comprehensive definition of sport that demonstrates its multi-faceted nature and represents sport’s current status, appreciation and value to society.”
• “Recognise the educative role of sport by mainstreaming sport within the EU and in particular align sport more effectively to other policy sectors such as health (a necessary link as regards obesity), education and social, as well as to International Relations policies to further support reconciliation and development projects.”
• “Promote the idea that sport organisations should take on new roles in relation to the societal function of sport, including its educational, intercultural and health-promoting functions.”

The workshop on “The Economic Impact of Sport” recorded substantial expectations with regard to the EU institutions’ ability to make the potential of sport for wealth and job creation better known. It became clear that stakeholders wanted the Commission to facilitate this process through concrete actions. A short selection of expectations includes:

• “A Sport Satellite Account, as recently implemented in Austria and as applied already for the tourism sector at EU level, would be a useful method that could be further developed and implemented in other EU Member States. […] This initiative could result in financial investments for establishing appropriate tools designed to collect sport statistics.”
• “Transparent guidelines for “measuring” the impact of sporting events so that sustainability of these events can be ensured in the long run.”

The workshop on “The Organisation of Sport” provided insights into stakeholders’ expectations for a pro-active role to be played by the EU, as well as the need to respect the autonomy of sport. While a need was perceived for the EU to act as an “honest broker”, there was also concern among some stakeholders about the exact scope of this role, about the implications of Community law and about the role of the “specificity of sport”. Key recommendations were made for the preparation of the White Paper, including the following:

• “It is important for the White Paper to take into account the diversity of sport (amateur/professional, different models of sport).”
• “Some participants stressed the importance of mainstreaming sport and EU policies. It is also important to take into account not only the legal aspects of sport but also other various components (educational role, promotion of health…) through the use of non-legal instruments.”
• “The importance of promoting new initiatives (e.g. gender mainstreaming) was also stressed.”
• “In the field of governance, the importance of social dialogue should be stressed.”
• “Some participants also asked for an emphasis to be put upon grass roots sport and volunteering.”

While the big stakeholders conferences included both organised sport and non-traditional sport (lifestyle sport, socio-cultural sport organisations, etc.), the Commission also recognises the need to meet at the highest level with European sport federations. Such conferences took place in Brussels in the autumn of 2004, 2005 and 2006.

The conference with sport federations of 2006 under the title “Sport Governance in Europe” focussed exclusively on governance issues. Chaired by the Commissioner responsible for sport, the meeting was conceived to provide direct input into the White Paper process. This provided an opportunity to discuss one of the core elements of the White Paper, and to identify the specific organisational features of sport. This high-level meeting included both federations with a high level of professionalisation in management structures, as well as other federations which, despite being often big in terms of membership figures, are less professionalized and also less commercialised. Ahead of the conference, the Commission met separately with representatives of some of the latter federations and one of them was invited to summarise the results of these talks to the plenary of the conference.

TOP

2.2 Bilateral consultations

Following an invitation extended by the Commission at the Consultation Conference "The EU & Sport: Matching Expectations" in 2006, a large number of organisations asked to meet with the Commission on issues related with the White Paper in 2006 and 2007. These consultations included meetings and contacts with the following organisations and bodies (in alphabetical order):

• Association of Commercial Television in Europe (ACT)
• Bridge Asset International
• Cadbury Schweppes
• Central Council of Physical Recreation (CCPR)
• Comité national olympique et sportif français (CNOSF)
• Conseil national des activités physiques et sportives (CNAPS)
• Council of Europe (CoE)
• Euroleague Basketball, S.L.
• Europäische Akademie des Sports, Velen, Germany
• European Athlete as Student Network (EAS)
• European Athletic Association (EAA)
• European Broadcasting Union (EBU)
• European Elite Athletes Association (EEAA)
• European Judo Union (EJU)
• European Lotteries (EL)
• European Newspaper Publishers' Association (ENPA)
• European non-governmental sport organisations (ENGSO) + ENGSO Youth
• European Olympic Committees (EOC)
• European Paralympic Committees (EPC)
• European Professional Football Leagues (EPFL)
• European Rugby Union (FIRA-AER)
• European Snack Association (ESA)
• European Sponsoring Association (ESA)
• European Squash Federation (ESF)
• European Youth and Sport Forum (EYSF)
• Fédération Internationale des Associations de Footballeurs Professionnels (FIFPro)
• Federation of International Basketball Association – Europe (FIBA)
• Federation of International Football Associations (FIFA)
• Finnish Sports Federation
• Football against racism in Europe (FARE)
• G-14
• Golf Environment Europe
• International Badminton Federation (IBF)
• International Olympic Committee (IOC)
• International Rugby Board (IRB)
• International Sport and Culture Associaton (ISCA)
• Nordic Sports Confederations
• Play the Game
• Premier League
• Press: Euractiv, Reuters
• Special Olympics Europe/Eurasia
• Sport Sans Frontières
• Supporters Direct
• UK Sport
• UNESCO
• Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI)
• Union of European Basketball Leagues (ULEB)
• Union of European Football Associations (UEFA)
• United Nations Environment Programme
• Willibald Gebhardt Institut (WGI)
• Yorkshire and Humberside Region, UK

TOP

3. On-line consultation

An internet-based consultation targeting all interested organisations and individuals was launched on 7 February 2007 and remained open until 3 April 2007. The website was based on the Interactive Policy-Making Tool and included a range of multiple-choice questions as well as boxes with space for respondents to insert their own ideas and comments.

1. Background information on respondents

777 replies were received to the online questionnaire. With the exception of Malta, every EU Member State is represented in the answers. France ranks first on the list with 18.9% of the replies, closely followed by Belgium with 17.5%. A large number of responses were also submitted from the United Kingdom, Germany and Spain. It should be kept in mind that many sport organisations have their seats in one of these European countries.

59.2% of the questionnaires were completed by a sport organisation, be it a sports club, a sport federation or other. 25.5% of the respondents claimed not to be a member of a sport organisation, nor of a governmental or non-governmental organisation, which means that the on-line consultation also reached a considerable number of respondents outside organised sport.

2. Do you think that sport activities have a fundamental role to play in contributing to changing attitudes?

There was consensus among respondents that sport activities have an important role to play in contributing to changing attitudes in society, in particular in the areas of health, tolerance and social inclusion. To increase the positive impact of sport in these areas, the level of participation in sport should be increased, particularly among young people. Most of the answers agreed on the need for more and better co-operation between educational institutions and sports organisations in order to optimise the use of infrastructure and know-how, and on the convenience for sport organisations to diversify their activities in order to meet new social needs. Additional solutions most frequently mentioned were: the promotion of co-operation between sport and public health organisations; the development of physical and health education at school; the development of programmes directed at less active and obese children and their parents; better use of sport as a tool for social inclusion at the local level; the development of programmes against racism and other forms of discrimination in the sport sector; the promotion of physical activity at work.

Many respondents suggested improved government support to sport and physical activity. Cross-sectoral initiatives could increase the attractiveness of sport and physical activity for young people and families.

Many respondents expressed the opinion that sport can be used to change attitudes and promote greater social tolerance and inclusion at European level. In this context, they called for an increase in Europe-wide initiatives and a stronger role of the European Commission as a coordinator.

TOP

3. Do you think the time for sport / physical activity should be increased in school?

A large majority of respondents (93.2%) found that sport / physical activity should be increased in school. Only 0.8% of the total number of respondents thought that no increase of sport or physical activity was needed since there were more important activities that should be reinforced.

4. Which are in your view the main values that can be taught through sport?

Among the list of values to be conveyed through sport, respondents selected the following five as the most important ones: respect for others, compliance with the rules, discipline, team play and fair play.

5. Should the EU measure the economic importance of sport in order to help raise the profile of sport in EU and national policies?

90.3% of the replies fully or partly agreed that the EU should help raise the profile of sport by addressing the economic importance of sport.

6. European grassroots sport organisations base a large part of their activities on voluntarily engaged people. Would you agree that the specific role and status of non-profit organisations and volunteers should be taken into account at EU level?

Most respondents confirmed the importance of voluntarily engaged people for European grassroots sport. Sport was frequently mentioned as the largest voluntary movement in Europe. Many respondents called attention to the fact that European sport is far broader than just professional sport. The grassroots sport system is based on voluntary work and non-profit club activities. Sport at all levels is underpinned by non-commercial support and structures, without which sport could not survive. These structures also contribute to fostering citizenship in European societies.

Many respondents expressed a wish for recognition of the role and impact of non-profit organisations and volunteers in European society and for a political and social "revaluation" of these organisations. A wider study on the operation of voluntary organisations could be useful to policy-makers. Public consciousness of the importance of volunteer work should be strengthened.

Fiscal incentives were most frequently quoted as a way of encouraging volunteers and voluntary organisations. Volunteers were said to be discouraged from offering their services because of tax legislation and their social situation. A favourable tax treatment for NGOs or VAT exemptions on equipment and services for organisations were suggested in many replies.

Another way to generate more awareness of the valuable work of volunteers could be grants for communication as well as encouragement of staff through corporate entities. Many respondents observed that the development of appropriate support frameworks for non-profit organisations was important, for example to provide training on the economic aspects of sport and opportunities for the exchange of best practice.

Some respondents pointed to the challenge to ensure quality of sport services in the face of the increasing demands on volunteers. This situation also called for better training in face of complex legal or regulatory frameworks, both national and European.

Most respondents stressed that sport should remain within the autonomous sphere of governance of sport federations. Public institutions should create good basic conditions for sport organisations to function. 78.5% of respondents agreed that the role and status of non-profit organisations and volunteers should be taken into account at EU level. The EU was asked to better promote volunteers and their organisations in its policies as well as to keep in mind the possible extra administrative burden on volunteers when drafting legislation. Voluntary work in sport should be acknowledged by the EU and considered in its legislation.

Some respondents mentioned the need for reflection on a European status for non-profit organisations and volunteers. The need for a better recognition of the qualifications of volunteers was also mentioned by some respondents. Some suggested that the exchange of volunteers should be promoted at European level.

TOP

7. The overall economic impact of sport in quantitative terms is scarcely documented. Would you agree that the EU should address these shortcomings?

A large majority of respondents (83.3%) found that the EU should address methodological shortcomings to measure the overall economic impact of sport.

8. In EU Member States sport, grassroots sport in particular, is often largely financed by the State through income generated by State-run lotteries. Would you agree that a White Paper on sport should address the need for Member States to seek more stable ways of financing grassroots sport in the long run? Should there be a debate at European level?

88.7% of respondents thought that a White Paper on sport should address the need for Member States to seek more stable ways of financing grassroots sport in the long run. There was general agreement that grassroots sport has great social importance, high educational value, and also great importance for public health. State funding for sport contributes to the health of the population. To exchange best practices in this area was considered useful.

Some respondents stressed the right of each EU Member State to decide upon the details of its own national lottery law. In their opinion the current lottery-based funding for sport was functioning well and was indispensable for the continued financing of the activities of the sport sector. Future financing debates on sport, in particular grassroots sport, should be about securing, optimising and complementing current State funding. Many respondents noted that a liberalisation of the betting sector, as called for by commercial betting operators, could have a number of negative effects, amongst them a reduction in funding for good causes by State lotteries, including sport.

Several respondents noted that sport organisations should be entitled to obtain funding also from private sport betting operators. Some indicated that alternatives should be sought in the field of tax payments for all legally established sport betting companies and suggested a coordination role for the EU.

Many replies observed that financing through income generated by State-run or State-licensed lotteries was not a sufficiently stable source of income for sport. Support for the good values promoted by sport should not be left to the vagaries of lottery fundraising. Alternative funding sources should be found. The wish for a more stable system of financing of sport, grassroots sport in particular, was expressed in most replies. A more stable system of financing could allow for a more structured network of sport organisations providing more sustainable sport programmes.

Numerous replies observed that politicians should provide more financial support for sport as this would lead to long-term healthcare savings. State funding for sport should therefore be given a share of the health and education budgets of Member States. A fair percentage of revenues generated by State-owned monopolies or private betting operators should be invested in social and educational projects, such as grassroots sport. Sport should thus be funded from public budgets, based on taxation, to a greater extent.

With regard to TV rights of professional sports, some respondents mentioned the importance of ensuring solidarity payments to the grassroots level. Many respondents called attention to the financing of so-called "minor" sports with limited access to TV-coverage.

Several respondents noted that an EU-wide approach to sport funding would be difficult because of different ways of financing sport in different Member States. Nevertheless, the European Commission should encourage Member States to include sport within their budget allocations. It could also encourage private sponsors to increasingly fund sport at the grassroots level. Researching and promoting sustainable funding opportunities for sport could be a task for the European Commission.

TOP

9. Sport has an important employment dimension. Professions in sport have to adapt continuously to the developments and challenges imposed by the job market. Do you think that the EU should address the specificities of sport professions in the field of education to ensure a better recognition of sport-related qualifications at EU level?

There was consensus that social changes in European society have been influencing sport and occupations around sport. Sport-related professions have to adapt continuously to these developments.

87.6% of respondents expressed the view that the EU should address the specificities of sport professions in the field of education to ensure a better recognition of sports-related qualifications at EU level.

Respondents frequently pointed out the importance of better cross-border recognition of sport-related qualifications and sport-related practical experience. Recognition of sport-related qualifications at EU level would allow for greater mobility of sport-related staff, both geographically and within the sports sector, and therefore an EU-wide transfer system for sport-related vocational education and training would be welcome. A need to create the profession of sports coach at EU level was stressed in several replies.

The need to ensure the quality of vocational education and training was also stressed, particularly concerning sports involving a degree of risk.

Regarding "quality assurance" on coaching and sports management (leadership of sport clubs), reference was made to the need for all training programmes for future coaches and leaders to be founded on sound academic evidence. Practice based on a business-as-usual attitude without scientific basis would be detrimental to sport.

TOP

10. The European Council in its Nice Declaration of 2000 calls on EU bodies to give special consideration to the social, education and cultural functions inherent to sport. It points out that certain special characteristics of sport, such as internal cohesion and solidarity, fair competition, and the protection of the moral and material interests of sportsmen and women, particularly the younger generation, should be taken into account in current policies pursued by the Community institutions. We would like to have your views on the way the Commission should take account of the specific features of sport in current and future policies.

A considerable number of respondents observed that more research was necessary to understand the impact of sport, especially from a social perspective, and a European observatory was suggested to this end. Values that can be reached or strengthened through sport should be listed and best practices should be identified and communicated.

For many respondents the protection of the autonomy and specificity of sport was essential. The autonomy of sport included the right to set its own rules and regulations and to govern and operate in the best interest of sport. The uncertainty of results should be guaranteed.

Most respondents agreed that the EU should take account of the specific features of sport. In particular, the following points were mentioned:

• The EU should create Europe-wide equal conditions for professional sports, clear competition rules for fair play, as well as regulations for the security of players and against hooliganism.
• The gender issue and intercultural dialogue between players from different countries should be given more attention.
• Local sports and voluntary engagement should be encouraged by the EU.
• The educational aspects of sport at school should be stressed and grassroots infrastructure should be extended.
• Sport should not only be considered from the point of view of professional and commercial sport.
• Policies should seek to promote participation and ensure the highest standards of facilities, coaching and development at grassroots level.
• Sport should be used as a tool for fostering the healthy development of children and young people.
• Sport has many potential benefits for efforts to promote development and peace.
• Solidarity must be ensured between the different components of sport.
• European identity and citizenship could be fostered through sport.
• Sport for people with disabilities deserves a special place.
• A more uniform EU approach to doping issues is necessary.

The Nice Declaration was quoted frequently as a basis for decisions in European sport. Many respondents expressed the wish that the status of non-profit associations should be taken into account in EU legislation, policies and programmes. Some respondents called for the role of sport to be mentioned in the Treaties, in order to achieve greater legal certainty and more intensive co-operation between sport stakeholders and the EU and national authorities. Several respondents expressed the view that sport should be included in different funding programmes. It was suggested to create a Public Health Programme for Sport and Physical Activity as an independent EU programme. The idea of a "social agenda for sport" was proposed too.

Several respondents stressed the need to promote inclusiveness and the fight against discrimination on the basis of origin, gender, age, race, physical condition and disability. Several called for an EU specific approach and support for sport and disability outside the programmes addressed to disabled persons.

Replies also referred to the need of sport organisations to accept that "not all young people are born athletes" yet they still should have access to sporting activities.

TOP

11. There are many common features in the ways in which sport is practised and organised in the Union, in spite of certain differences between the Member States, and it is therefore possible to talk of a European approach to sport based on common concepts and principles. We would like to have your views on elements which characterise the European approach to sport in comparison with other continents.

Possible replies to the statements were: "This is an essential feature of the European approach to sport"; "This is a characteristic of the European approach to sport but it is true only for some sports"; "This is a characteristic of the European approach to sport but it is true for sport regardless of the continent"; "This is not an essential feature of the European approach to sport."

Statement: In the European Union, sport organisations manage both amateur and professional sport.

37.3% of respondents agreed that this was a characteristic of the European approach to sport but only for some sports. 32.4% saw it as an essential feature of the European approach.

Statement: There is an important involvement of the public sector in the financing of sport in the European Union.

This statement was considered an essential feature of the European approach by 43.6%, although for 29.5% it was only true for some sports.

Statement: Solidarity links exist between elite and grassroots sport in Europe (elite sport finances grassroots sport).

33.1% considered this solidarity as characteristic of the European approach though only for some sports. 32.6% answered that they did not see this as an essential feature of sport in Europe.

Statement: In the European Union, sport structures are based on voluntary activity.

42.1% saw this as an essential feature of the European approach to sport. 25.4% agreed with the statement but only for some sports.

Statement: In the European Union, sport organisations are autonomous in running sport activities, sometimes in partnership with public authorities.

43.6% of respondents considered this autonomy as essential for the European approach to sport. 27.6% stated that this was an essential feature of European sport but was only true for some sports.

Statement: European sport is characterised by a system of open competitions based on the principle of promotion/relegation.

37.5% saw the promotion/relegation system as a typical European approach to sport, whereas 28.6% expressed the view that this was only true for certain sports.

Statement: European sport is organised in a pyramidal structure with a central role for sports federations.

51.7% agreed that this was an essential feature of the European approach to sport. 19.7% considered the pyramidal structure with a central role for sports federations as typically European though not for all sports.

TOP

12. Would you agree that there is a European approach to sport clearly differentiated from other continents?

41.7% of respondents agreed that there was a European approach to sport clearly differentiated from other continents. The pyramid structure of sport was said to be unique to Europe. Respondents often compared the European approach to sport with the American approach. The promotion of the educational and social role of sport was also mentioned as part of a specific European approach to sport.

Many respondents pointed out that sport in Europe had a strong historical basis rooted in democracy and that clubs and associations were embedded in their cultures and regions of origin. They noted that between EU Member States there are as many similarities as there are differences regarding issues such as professional league structures, sport-related values and funding mechanisms. An advantage of the pyramid structure of sport in Europe is the facilitation of co-operation between elite and grassroots sport and the encouragement of mass participation. Some respondents observed that there is too strong a focus on elite sport, to the detriment of mass sports.

In view of the large historical and cultural differences between EU Member States and the resulting organisation of sport, many respondents demanded that the subsidiarity principle be respected in decisions concerning sport and sport organisations. In particular, pan-European rules and regulations should be adapted to the needs of individual Member States.

Some respondents pointed out that their sport was practiced on the basis of common international rules and in close cooperation with non-European sport governing bodies, without any European specificity whatsoever.

TOP

13. Do you think that cooperation between sport organisations, Member States and EU institutions is desirable?

The autonomy of sport is broadly recognised. However, 86.7% of respondents were in favour of cooperation between sport organisations, Member States and EU institutions in order to resolve problems linked to sport. Doping, violence, corruption, racism and over-commercialisation were considered the most important areas.

14. Would you say that the role of the EU in the field of sport is:

90.1% of respondents found that the EU's role in the field of sport was "not sufficiently active" (68.5%) or "insignificant" (21.6%).

15. Statements on the European Union and sport:

An impressive degree of consensus could be found in the following areas:

• 96.1% found that sport was an appropriate tool to promote active lifestyles;
• 94.5% thought that the EU should promote the ethical and social values of sport;
• 92% thought that sport could contribute to the education of people by promoting intercultural dialogue;
• 91.6% wished to see the EU to become more active in the promotion of education through sport;
• 91.2% agreed that the EU should contribute to Member State efforts to increase the level of participation in sport;
• 89.3% considered sport as an appropriate tool to promote social integration of people with disabilities and 88.7% to fight against discrimination;
• 90.7% found that the EU should financially support activities that use sport as a means to promote healthier lifestyles;
• 88.2% found that social integration should be financially promoted;
• 86.9% thought that the EU should participate in the fight against doping.

A majority of respondents also agreed with the following statements:

• 72.3% of respondents expressed the view that the EU should eliminate obstacles to the practice of sport for EU citizens who reside in another Member State than their own;
• 67.7% agreed that the EU should explore the need for action as regards the profession of agents in the field of sport;
• 62.7% of respondents found that the EU should have the capacity to intervene more in European sports issues.

TOP

16. Priorities for the European Union in the field of sport:

Among the topics that should be addressed at EU level, in the respondents' view, the following areas should have priority (combined figures for "top priority" and "high priority" for the EU):

• Promotion of sport as a tool to achieve more active lifestyles and to fight against sedentary lifestyles and obesity (84.1%);
• Promotion of education through sport (83.5%);
• Promotion of the ethical and social values of sport (81.9%);
• Promotion of "sport for all" regardless of age, gender, ethnic background, etc. (80.6%);
• Opening of EU programmes to finance activities that use sport as a means to promote other goals (80.2%);
• Fight against doping (77.9%);
• Promotion of the level of participation in sport (75.9%);
• Promotion of stronger cooperation between educational institutions and sport organisations (72.9%);
• Use of sport activities to fight against discrimination (71.4%);
• Promotion of volunteering activities in sport (66%);
• Cooperation with national sport organisations and national governing bodies in order to fight against corruption (65%);
• Promotion of the contribution of sport to intercultural dialogue (60.7%);
• Promotion of the European dimension of sport (55%);
• Collect and analyse statistical data on the impact of sport in economic and social terms (54.8%);
• Promotion of the equity and balance of sport competitions (54%).

TOP

17. Any other comments, concerns or suggestions you may have on the role you think the EU should play (or not) in the field of sport.

Sport was considered by several respondents as an activity which unites. Thus, it was often referred to as an area particularly relevant within EU policies. Many respondents pointed out that the EU should pay special attention to the relationship between the public sector (governments) and NGOs. Consultation mechanisms should be developed in respect of the sport sector's own structures, with an equal representation of governmental and non-governmental actors.

Many respondents mentioned that the EU and sport share a number of common concerns, such as the exploitation ("trafficking") of young players, the activities of players' agents, corruption and money laundering, violence at sporting events, racism and other discrimination, and doping. The importance of the Green Paper on Nutrition and Physical Activity was mentioned, as well as the need to develop a Public Health Programme for sport to address, inter alia, the challenge of obesity.

Most respondents called for closer co-operation between Member States, sport organisations, social partners and the EU. The EU should cooperate with UEFA and FIFA to improve security at football events and to strengthen the role of football in support of intercultural dialogue and fair play. The EU should find a way to encourage partnerships between media and sport organisations in order to communicate the many different facets and values of sport (social, cultural, educational) to the widest possible public. To be an effective tool for regional and international development, sport should be mainstreamed into EU programmes and policies as a low-cost high-impact tool to attain development aims, in particular the UN Millennium Development Goals. Intensified cooperation in the bidding process for major sporting events was also considered useful.

Many respondents called for an EU financial tool to promote grassroots sport, including the training and exchange of volunteers in sport. Some called for a better knowledge of sport financing so as to explore more stable financing sources for grassroots sport.

Several respondents considered that education through sport should be a priority for the EU. Replies often stressed the need to ensure more regular sport at schools.

The need for legal clarity was mentioned in many replies, as well as the need to address the economic impact of sport.

The need to ensure the free movement of active sportsmen and sportswomen as well as people teaching sport was of concern to many respondents.

In numerous answers the Commission was encouraged to continue the current consultation process.

TOP

4. Consultations with EU Member States

EU-level discussions in the field of sport take place in an informal setting. To better focus the debates and to allow for continuity and progress, EU Member States, upon a proposal by the Commission in 2004, adopted a Rolling Agenda for sport. This Rolling Agenda contains the priority items Member States wish to see addressed at EU level.

4.1 EU Sport Ministers and Sport Directors meetings

Every Presidency organises a meeting of Member State Sport Directors (senior civil servants with direct access to their Ministers), and most Presidencies have until now organised an informal meeting of Member State Ministers in charge of sport. During the last two years, informal ministerial meetings were organised by the Presidencies of Luxembourg (Luxembourg, April 2005), the United Kingdom (Liverpool, September 2005) and Germany (Stuttgart, March 2007).

A Ministerial Conference was organised jointly by the Commission and the Finnish Presidency under the title “The EU & Sport: Matching Expectations” in Brussels on 27-28 November 2006. Joint conclusions were published. All debates were transmitted live on screens in an adjacent room. Attendance at this live-screening was open to all interested parties.

The Conference confirmed Member States' unanimous support for a White Paper on the role of sport in Europe as a response to the wish of Sport Ministers to give sport a higher profile in European and national policy making. It mirrored Member States' high expectations for this policy initiative and their wish to remain closely involved in the White Paper process. Ministers agreed that the White Paper should aim at ensuring that European policies increasingly take into account the added value of sport and its potential for achieving the EU's strategic objectives in the social and economic fields, at further implementing the "specificity of sport" in line with the Council's Nice Declaration and at facilitating relations between the EU and the sport sector, including by providing guidance and clarity for sport stakeholders. Ministers also discussed the three priority topics of the Finnish Presidency, namely sport and health, the role and status of non-profit sport organisations and the fight against doping. The outcome of these debates provided concrete input for the White Paper and gave orientation to the Commission ahead of the drafting process.

TOP

4.2 Expert meetings (2005, 2006)

In 2005 and 2006 a range of expert meetings with representatives of Member State Governments were organised, most of which have been documented through internet publications. In some of these meetings experts from the sport movement and from the academic world were also invited. These meetings have focused on the fight against doping, equal opportunities, the free movement of sportspeople and volunteering in sport. Some meetings were based on questionnaires prepared by the Commission, thus allowing for a comparison between realities in different EU Member States.

4.3 EU Working Groups "Sport and Health", "Sport and Economics", "Non-profit sport organisations" (2005, 2006, 2007)

Following decisions by EU Member States under the British, Austrian and Finnish Presidencies to work together more closely on certain specific issues of the Rolling Agenda for sport of direct relevance to them, EU working groups, chaired by the Commission, have been set up on the issues of "Sport and Health", "Sport and Economics" and "Non-profit sport organisations". Similarly, EU Sport Ministers decided in Stuttgart (March 2007) to set up a Network of National Anti-Doping Agencies. The form of cooperation practised in these Working Groups is not founded on Community law and the output is not binding. Participation is open, voluntary and self-financed. The system has a variable geometry, since Member States may choose in which Working Groups they participate. The practice of these Working Groups is supported by a strong consensus among all Member States, including those which are not participating. It testifies to the specific nature of sport as a policy field at EU level.

The Working Group “Sport & Health” was created to follow up on a study financed by the Commission entitled “Young People’s Lifestyle and Sedenariness” (Universities of Paderborn and Duisburg-Essen). It was set up by decision of Member State Sport Ministers in Liverpool in September 2005 with a remit to exchange information and good practice, and on this basis develop new models. Ministers later extended this mandate to also include the preparation of non-binding physical activity guidelines. Detailed reports from all meetings of the Working Group have been published on-line.

The Working Group “Sport & Economics” was set up by a decision of Member State Sport Directors (Vienna, March 2006) with a mandate to look at available data around the wealth and job creating role of the sport sector, and to make proposals for future data collection. The group has three main longer-term objectives: to measure the sport sector as a percentage of GDP and a percentage of employment in the Member States as well as at EU level; to measure the dynamics of the sport sector over time; and to have reliable data as a basis for future decision-making with a bearing on the sport sector. The first two meetings have already allowed for progress in agreeing on a European broader statistical definition of sport based on the NACE nomenclature.

The Working Group “Sport & Non-Profit Organisations” was set up as a follow-up of an expert meeting on “volunteering in sport” and, being one of the priority topics of the Finnish Presidency, was officially established by EU Sport Ministers at their conference in November 2006. The activities of this Group reflect concerns as to how the interests of sport organisations are affected by Community law, including implications for the role of volunteers. The purpose of the Working Group is to review the status of non-profit sport organisations, their activities and the financing of grassroots sport in relation to Community law. The kick-off meeting held in February 2007 allowed for a clarification of concepts and the national situation with regard to the non-profit sector. The meeting confirmed that the sector faces challenges that also affect the field of sport. It also confirmed the common wish by participating Member States to be able to continue to promote and maintain a privileged treatment of the grassroots sport sector.

TOP

4.4 Member State Working Group "White Paper" (2007)

As a follow up to the decision by EU Sport Ministers at their conference in November 2006, an ad-hoc Working Group "White Paper", chaired by the German Presidency, met on 7 March 2007 in Brussels. 16 EU Member States participated in order to discuss concrete, practical topics of interest to them, thus providing informal input and concrete ideas for the White Paper. The meeting illustrated that Member States were not looking for an EU “doctrine” or “philosophy” on sport, but that they were interested in concrete actions related to specific points of relevance to them. Topics which the represented Member States wished to see addressed in a White Paper included a focus on the health-enhancing role of sport, the need to tackle criminal activities linked to sport, the fight against doping, volunteering in sport, enhancement of the integration role of sport, the creation of a European satellite account for sport, the use of sport for development purposes, the need to discuss the funding of sport, environmental aspects, players’ agents, protection of minors, intellectual property rights protection, training of sportspeople, and ideas to control costs by way of self-regulatory measures.

5. Recent studies, surveys, reports

5.1 Studies on sport and education (2004), training centres (2007)

Independent studies in the field of the fight against doping have been carried out in the past, as have evaluations of co-financed anti-doping projects and of the European Year of Education through Sport (EYES 2004). However, four recent studies have played a more direct and targeted role in the run-up to the White Paper. Compared with classical consultancy studies, they have focussed more strongly on stakeholders’ opinions and expectations.

In an attempt to know more about four key topics, the Commission financed four studies in 2004 (published in January 2005) focussing on:

• The issue of lifestyle change in relation to childhood and youth obesity: “Study on young people's lifestyles and sedentariness” (Universities of Paderborn & Duisburg-Essen). This study led to the creation of the Working Group “Sport & Health” (see above) and inspired a number of Commission initiatives in the field of the fight against obesity, as seen from a sport perspective.
• The job creation potential of the sport sector: “Améliorer l'emploi dans le domaine du sport en Europe par la formation professionnelle” (EZUS-Vocasport). This study formed the basis for the creation of the Working Group “Sport & Economics” (see above) and led to an EQF Test Project entitled: “EQF Sports”. This project, which received Community funding in early 2007, will define a European Qualifications Framework (EQF) for the sport sector.
• The inter-cultural dialogue function of sport and the problem of rapid career shifts (the need for dual careers) in young top-level athletes were subjects treated by two further studies.

The specifications for the studies provided for a structured review of already published academic knowledge in the given area (rather than the generation of new primary data), as well as a mid-way conference where the draft report was discussed. The Commission insisted that stakeholders’ views and experience must be reflected in the final reports, and in the conclusions and recommendations thus presented.

As a follow-up measure to the EZUS-Vocasport study, a study on training centres for future professional athletes in Member States was launched in January 2007.

TOP

5.2 Eurobarometer surveys (2003, 2004)

In connection with the European Commission's Year of Education through Sport (EYES 2004) two Eurobarometer surveys were conducted – one before the beginning of the Year , the other towards its end.

5.3 EP reports (2004, 2007)

Since the mid-1990s, MEPs have regularly taken a strong interest in sport and urged the Commission to take action in this field. The support of the Culture Committee of the European Parliament was crucial in obtaining funding for anti-doping projects (2000-2002) and in establishing the European Year of Education through Sport (EYES 2004). A variety of EP documents testify to the Committee's expectations. Most recently, on 29 March 2007, the EP adopted a resolution on "the future of professional football in Europe". The Parliament's primary objectives were to tackle the legal uncertainty surrounding football, to provide an answer to negative developments (money laundering, fraud, gambling, etc.) and to stimulate a competitive balance. Other adopted texts and publications from the EP have provided valuable input for the drafting of the White Paper, in particular:

• European Parliament resolution on "Promoting healthy diets and physical activity: a European dimension for the prevention of overweight, obesity and chronic diseases" (2006/2231(INI), 1 February 2007;
• European Parliament resolution on "forced prostitution in the context of world sports events", 15 March 2006;
• European Parliament resolution on "development and sport", 1 December 2005;
• European Parliament resolution on "The Olympic Truce – Turin Winter Olympics 2006", 1 December 2005;
• European Parliament resolution on "combating doping in sport", 14 April 2005;
• European Parliament resolution on "respect for core labour standards in the production of sports goods for the Olympic Games", 22 April 2004;
• European Parliament resolution on "women and sport" (2002/2280(INI), 5 June 2003;
• Studies:
• "Current situation and prospects for physical education in the European Union", study commissioned by the European Parliament. Author: Ken Hardman, University of Worcester, Brussels 2007;
• "Professional Sport in the Internal Market" (Asser Study), August 2005

TOP