While FC Bayern poured around Tor at the start of the new club world championship Auckland City Tor, a lettering was rolled out in Munich fan block: “10 years BAURS BAUR AU LAC-World Football is more Poorly Governmed Than Before!” A message to the International Football Association (FIFA). The banner alludes to the arrests of prominent football officials in Zurich a decade ago. Criminal processes followed that a general overhaul of the dilapidated FIFA structures was announced.
Since then, a lot has changed in world football, but has improved little. Governance scandals are still the order of the day, human rights violations, especially in the context of sports mega events, aisle and accusation, sexual assault and abuse-promoting structures are a widespread evil. And players, despite protests by the International Fifpro union, have to take part in a tournament after a long season that many consider not only superfluous, but potentially harmful to health.
The problems in football are no exception. The International Olympic Committee is increasingly criticized for its undemocratic decision -making mechanisms and weak human rights records. The management team of the international automotive association responsible for Formula 1 has decided despite a number of affairs changes in the articles of association that promote power concentration in the organization and make accounts more difficult. Rugby associations are sued by their own players for inadequate protective measures to avoid head injuries and consequential damage. Ethical, financial and organizational misconduct have become questionable trademarks of the world. The sport is in a crisis.
The EU has a better position
A reform is urgently needed. But who could do this? Traditionally, the answer was always: the associations. The principle of autonomy gives you the right to manage yourself and regulate your affairs independently. The principle comes from an era in which sport was a predominantly regional pastime of limited economic scope. The hope that sports organizations would be carried out properly and appropriately regulate their opaque disciplines. This has proven to be illusory. Too often autonomy has been abused as a guise for bad association tour. The regulating activity of the associations is also increasingly overlaid by commercial purposes – a structural conflict of interest that produces decisions that do not always serve the benefit of sport.
In many places, one has understood that only stronger public control can help. France has issued a law to democratize sport, in which it exacerbates transparency requirements for sports organizations and stipulates the term of office for officials. Spain has revised his sports law to strengthen the rights of athletes. The Polish government is targeting the introduction of a women’s quota for sports associations, still a male domain. Great Britain builds up a football authority that will watch over club licensing, fan rights, and redistribution of television funds. State solutions like this are significant, but have two decisive disadvantages.
On the one hand, they create national rules for an international phenomenon. Modern top sport has long been acting across borders. On the other hand, they allow sports associations to put pressure on local decision -makers. The warning of the European Football Union (UEFA) to deprive England due to the upcoming football law due to “state interference” to withdraw the rights of vouchers for the Euro 2028 is only one of countless examples in this context.
The European Union (EU) has a better position here. It is comparatively immune to pressure from associations because it does not have its own team that can be excluded from tournaments. In most cases, the maintenance of major sports events without teams or athletes of all Member States would be unthinkable for sporting and economic reasons. The scope of the European internal market also allows the Union to make demands that individual states cannot or are difficult to allow. Even large companies cannot easily do without access to an economic area that extends to 27 countries and almost 450 million citizens. Therefore, you often adapt to European standards outside the EU-a trend called the “Brussels effect”.
A “European Sports Act” is needed
To date, this position of the strength has been made fruitful for sport. The European Court of Justice has issued a number of prominent judgments, such as the Bosman decision, after which football professionals in the European Union can change the association free of charge after its contract was terminated. This goes back to the Belgian player Jean-Marc Bosman, who had sued his employer RFC Liège in 1995. Another example would be the decision in the dispute to found a Super League. But such judgments have only caused selective changes.
Court processes typically refer to a concrete, often closely defined object of dispute (such as transfer rules, new competitions or player contracts) and are therefore only partially suitable for fundamental reforms. The many explanations, resolution and discussion papers that have also been published by the EU draw an attractive vision of and for sport. They emphasize the importance of values such as democracy, integrity, solidarity, equality and respect for human rights. However, they are legally non -binding and are therefore regularly disregarded by the sports world.
The EU can and should do more. What exactly is the subject of an intensive debate in Brussels. The European Parliament is working on an initiative report on the role of the EU in the design of the European sports model. The Commission is expected to respond with a long -term sports strategy towards the end of the year. It also reacts to the appeals of the Member States’ sports ministers, which they had already asked for in the past year, to think about suitable measures to promote sport -based sport and to protect their guiding principles.
Our suggestion: A “European Sports Act” is needed. A European Ordinance that sets binding rules for (professional) sport issues based on the internal market competence and implemented by a new EU sports agency in cooperation with national authorities. We recently formulated a corresponding design. This includes minimum standards in relation to “good governance” or good government that would commit associations to observe principles such as democracy, representation, transparency and responsibility in their decisions.
Human rights would have to be guaranteed to take into account the duty of care that is similar with the EU Lief Coveret Act, and would have to be taken into account as a contract criterion at a sporting event. Fan rights would be guaranteed across Europe, the fair redistribution of income as well, and athletes are finally entitled to adequate health and maternity protection. Sports competitions would remain open and performance -related, but associations would have to make clear, transparent and non -discriminatory requirements.
So far, legislation has been completely neglected by the EU as a regulatory strategy in this area. However, she has the potential to create a coherent legal framework that brings sport in line with social expectations and demands the values that both the EU and the associations themselves want to see for a long time. Democracy, solidarity and equality would no longer be mere slogans, but requestable legal obligations. We would not have to stand by and if sports officials such as despot are behaving, human rights are kicked with feet and the concerns of athletes and fans are neglected. Because on this point the supporters of FC Bayern Munich are certainly right: sport is too important to be managed poorly.
Jan Exner teaches European law at the legal faculty of the Karls University Prague.
Stephen Weatherill is Senior Research Fellow of the Somerville College and Professor Emeritus of the University of Oxford.
Jan Zglinski is Associate Professor of the Law School of the London School of Economics.
