EU as a Global Sports Regulator
Reluctance to Regulate Sports at National Level:
1. Risk of Punishment by Federations:
◦ Example of Spain: National governments may face sanctions from international sports federations if they interfere in the governance of sports. For instance, if Spain attempts to remove corrupt decision-makers from its sports system, the international federation might claim this as an interference in sports autonomy. As a result, Spain could be barred from participating in major competitions like the World Cup. This potential loss of access to top-level competitions deters governments from intervening.
2. Limited Scope of National Regulation:
◦ National Boundaries: Governments can only enforce regulations within their own jurisdictions. For example, if Germany enacts a robust anti-doping law, it applies only to German players. Such national regulations have no effect beyond Germany's borders and do not influence sports governance at the international level.
Market Power Europe and the Brussels Effect:
• Internal Market:
◦ Single Largest Trading Bloc: The EU’s internal market is the largest trading bloc globally. Companies worldwide have a strong incentive to enter this market due to its size and economic influence. This makes the EU a significant player in setting regulatory standards, including in sports.
• Brussels Effect:
◦ Regulatory Influence: The EU’s regulatory power often extends beyond its borders. Because of its market size, the standards and regulations set by the EU can influence global practices. This effect, known as the “Brussels Effect,” allows the EU to act as an effective sports regulator on the global stage.
EU Sports Law:
• Lack of Explicit Competence:
◦ No Specific Sports Competence: The EU does not have a dedicated sports competence in its treaties. However, sports regulation is addressed through other legal frameworks, such as free movement and competition law.
• CJEU Case Law:
◦ Focus on Free Movement and Competition Law: The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has dealt with sports-related issues primarily through the lens of free movement and competition law. This includes cases concerning the free movement of players, non-discrimination, and the regulation of sports markets.
• Commission's Role:
◦ Decisions on Competition and State Aid Law: The European Commission has started to intervene in sports through its decisions on competition and state aid law. It monitors and regulates aspects of sports governance, such as state subsidies and anti-competitive practices.
Private Regulators and Member States:
◦ Private Regulation: Many aspects of sports are governed by private regulators, such as sports governing bodies (SGBs), trade unions, and professional associations. These private entities often have significant control over sports regulations and competitions.
• De Facto Regulation:
◦ State Measures: Despite being private actors, regulations issued by these bodies can be considered state measures and are subject to national legislation. The challenge arises when a private actor becomes a de facto regulator in a sector without explicit state delegation of power.
Conclusion:
The EU’s role as a global sports regulator is shaped by its internal market power and the Brussels Effect. While the EU lacks explicit sports competence, it leverages free movement and competition law to influence sports governance. National governments face challenges in regulating sports due to the risk of sanctions from international federations and the limitations of national jurisdiction. The involvement of private regulators further complicates the landscape, as these entities exercise significant control over sports regulations without formal state delegation.