Borja Garcia

Engaging with the EU in Order to Minimise Its Impact: Sport and the Negotiation of the Treaty of Lisbon

The absence of explicit reference to sport in the European Union (EU) treaties has allowed the Court and the Commission room to require sport to adjust to the standards required by EU law. Sporting federations typically assert a need for a wider zone of autonomy than the Court and Commission have been prepared to grant, but, unable to persuade the Member States that they deserve exemption from the application of the Treaty, sports bodies have increasingly been induced to develop strategies of co-existence with the EU. This paper shows how they were able to exert influence in both the Convention on the Future of Europe and the subsequent intergovernmental conference in order to secure recognition of sports special characteristics within the Treaty, albeit in ambiguous form. Sports bodies engage with the EU precisely in order to minimize its impact. The relevant provisions of Treaty of Lisbon dealing with sport are examined to show that they leave open scope for future contestation about the interaction between EU law and policy and the systems of sports governance.

Sport governance after the White Paper: the demise of the European model?

In 1998 the European Commission introduced into the political arena the concept of a ‘European model of sport’ in the build up to the Helsinki Report on Sport, the Commissions first attempt to formulate a comprehensive approach towards sport in the ‘post-Bosman era’. In the recently adopted White Paper on Sport (July 2007), the Commission however considers it ‘unrealistic’ to define a single model of sport for Europe. This article argues that the Commissions departure from its previous position deserves attention because it is an explicit acknowledgement of the transformations in the governing structures of European sport over the last two decades. The article suggests two possible motives for the Commissions new understanding of European sport. First, the Commission is responding to the politicisation and redefinition of the concept of the ‘European Model’ by sport governing bodies, who are attempting to forestall legal intervention by the European courts and the Commission. Second, the Commission is just acknowledging the reality of the new governance of sport. In this respect, the article focuses on professional football to argue that the governance of the sport in Europe is transforming from the old pyramidal and vertical structure to more horizontal configurations of stakeholder networks. The White Paper is just another step in this process, and the Commission has used it to position itself within the network structure. The Commission, it is argued, has opted for a supervisory role, offering governing bodies a degree of ‘supervised autonomy’ where the specific role of federations is recognised in exchange for greater stakeholder representation within governing structures.

Limits of Interest Empowerment in the European Union: The Case Of Football

Abstract The European Union (EU) represents an emerging opportunity structure refining societal actors’ chances to get access to and influence over policymaking. While research has mainly focused on lobbying within the legislative arena, we provide evidence that competition policy can also be understood as a venue of interest group politics by taking the case of European football. The specific institutional features of competition policy have the potential to increase probability of access and lower costs for political action for certain interest groups, but also to limit potential benefits from interest group politics. Professional football players and clubs in Europe have used competition policy procedures as an avenue to challenge the supremacy of governing bodies such as UEFA in the game’s organizational structures. Whilst managing some impact in terms of policy, the challengers have attained only moderate influence in football’s sectoral governance.

Sport policy in Spain

This article was accepted for publication in the International Journal of Sport Policy [© Taylor and Francis]. The definitive, published version can be found at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2010.519343

Using a smartphone app in qualitative research: the good, the bad and the ugly

This article reflects on the use of a smartphone application (‘app’) in qualitative research following the experience of the FREE (Football Research in an Enlarged Europe) project, which investigated the lives of football fans in the UK. To meet this aim, a participant-focused audiovisual methodology was designed, featuring the use of an app to collect data. Fans were asked to take photographs and keep diaries to show the role football plays in their lives. The smartphone app was developed to allow fans to use their own mobile phones, capturing qualitative data in ‘real time’. The paper reflects on our experience of using the smartphone app in this qualitative research, analysing the advantages, disadvantages and the main risks that researchers will need to take into account when using smartphone apps in their future qualitative research projects. We encourage others to build on and advance this under-researched but potentially valuable tool.

Abandoning hopes for veto power: institutional options for sport governing bodies in the European Union

For a long time, sport governing bodies have put high hopes in a consideration of sport in the European Union (EU) Treaties. Ideally, such a sport consideration should not only entitle the sport bodies to get access to the EU budget but, more importantly, also attach more weight to political considerations of sport specificity in proceedings before the European Commission and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). While the Treaty of Lisbon denied the sport bodies once more any exception under EU law, it has set a new scenario under which to develop EU sports policy. This article explores what institutional status would be most beneficial for the sport bodies in that new scenario. By employing basic ideas of veto player (VP) theory, we arrive at the conclusion that veto power within EU policymaking would be likely to grant sport bodies more influence in policymaking, but could also result in bargaining deadlock without ending or solving the conflicts at stake. Only if the sport bodies would be given the status of a legitimate representative of the ‘sporting movement’, they could prevent any detrimental EU-induced policy change. Since such a status is unlikely to be achieved, our recommendation for the sport bodies is to continue to pursue a more inclusive approach towards other stakeholders in the sport sector.

A ‘healthy’ future? Supporters’ perceptions of the current state of English football

Over the last few years, clear public policy support in favour of fan engagement in the governance of football has developed. This is based on the assumption that supporters are dissatisfied with the current governance structures within the sport. There is, however, no robust academic evidence of whether this is indeed the case. This article aims to contribute to the debate by presenting data from qualitative fieldwork with 21 football supporters during March–May 2013. Each participant created a photograph album over an eight-week period, and was then interviewed individually to elicit the meaning of their photographs and diaries. This group of fans used their photographs to express dissatisfaction with several aspects of current football governance, highlighting issues with the financial, physical and social health of the sport. We suggest a number of implications of this, both for the fans and for the future state of the game.

Global sport power Europe? The efficacy of the European Union in global sport regulation

The effectiveness of the European Union (EU) as global regulator is controversial. Some scholars characterize the EU as one of the most important shapers of global regulations; others argue that the EU’s effectiveness critically depends on its regulatory cohesion, the political opportunity structure and regulatory capacity of its interlocutors. Since global sport represents a regionally segmented industry and is governed by private actors of diverse regulatory capacity, global sport regulation represents an excellent domain to study these propositions systematically. Comparative case studies on global sport regulation support the idea that the EU can impose its regulatory ambitions on sport governing due to market size and regulatory capacity. However, the broader political opportunity structure is found to be relevant and the EU does not appear as a strong regulator of global sports.

Conclusions: The Rising Importance of Supporter Activism in European Football

Based on the 12 chapters covering a wide range of traditional and non-traditional football nations in Europe, there is evidence of increased salience of football fans in club management and governance in most European countries, but football supporters remain marginal in comparison to other stakeholders such as the managers, sponsors and TV broadcasters. Moreover, despite the increasingly active role of football supporters, including fan representation, there is very little evidence of supporters’ engagement in club ownership.

Football and Supporter Activism in Europe

This book is the first to explore and compare football governance, fandom culture and supporter engagement in Europe. With a specific focus on supporter activism and campaigning, the collection provides a comparative study of several European countries. The authors argue that supporters, despite being the pillar or the ‘lifeblood’ of their club, see their role in football governance marginalised. The volume is unique in that it challenges the widely accepted assumption that membership football clubs encourage the democratic participation of supporters. Covering football fandom in both the traditional ‘big five’ leagues and non-‘big five’ countries such as Portugal, Turkey, Croatia, Poland and Czech Republic, the volume will be of interest to students and scholars across a range of disciplines, including sociology, history, sport management, sport governance and political science.