Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-17-Speech-5-056"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001117.5.5-056"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what is happening in sport in the European Union, in particular in professional sport and, more specifically, in football, is the consequence of having a law without a policy, of having a law that no one really had any choice about. In other words, to put it plainly, it is the consequence of an attack on democracy, however hard we try to avoid seeing it in this light.
Most of the problems that we have experienced and that have leapt into the centre of the debate, particularly following the Bosman ruling, even when they are neither directly nor indirectly connected to the content or the nature of that case, result from the frequent and sometimes glaring contradiction between on the one hand, specific types of sporting bodies and their deeply ingrained practices, and on the other, certain rules contained in the Treaties, specifically competition rules or other principles of the internal market, particularly the free movement of workers and rules of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality.
Many of these rules are amongst the oldest in the Treaties, from the Treaty of Rome onwards, despite the amendments that they have undergone. We all know, however, that when they were originally defined, or even when amendments were added at a later date, no one, but no one, not even those drafting them or those who took the decisions, thought for a moment that a current legal framework would hang this truly imperial weight around the neck of the sporting world.
I was talking about the economy and just the economy, in the strictest sense of the word. Not throughout society, because in all sectors we can see windows of economic opportunity. This is what I mean when I talk about a law without a policy. A law which was drawn up without participation, this absurd law that nobody really wanted to be like this but which has been inexcusably foisted onto everyone. This is why it is crucial that the Treaties recognise the specific nature of sport. Otherwise, no problem will find a satisfactory solution. Otherwise, we will continue to stand by helplessly in this situation in which it seems that the European Union and lucre are working hand in hand to put an end to sport, to distort the profound nature of sporting competition itself, to sabotage the social roots of clubs and the national fabric of its traditional organisation. Otherwise, sport will continue to be regularly trampled upon with inexplicable legal violence by the corrosive and destructive effects of rules that were not designed for this purpose and about which in truth no one really had any choice or could vote on to any degree. We are not seeking to meddle with fundamental rules or basic principles of Community law in the Treaties. What we want is to be able to construct in a politically free and carefully considered way a balance which is appropriate to the specific needs of a sector which, although it is of primarily cultural value and enormous social relevance, also has other, economic, facets.
We need to be able to protect the sporting authenticity of sport itself and its social function from the exclusive control of the laws of the market. I repeat: we need to protect sport, not to abandon it. Why should we allow the basic fabric of training within the rich tapestry of sports clubs and associations to be abused? Why are we unable or unwilling to allow safeguards for a minimum of national identity in the professional teams that represent clubs? In sport, even in professional sport, the competition that really counts is the sporting competition itself, not just the unbridled economic competition of its agents. Furthermore, in European sport, there is not, nor should there be a true single market. What we have are fifteen national markets which are all different and which mirror the competitive situations in each country. This is even more true if we look at the specific case of the United Kingdom, which, together with other, equally European countries which happen to be outside the European Union, makes up the basic pool for long-established European competitions. Now, however, what is happening is completely the opposite. The growing inequality in wealth lays down the law and increasingly decides who wins all the trophies. The corruption of the authenticity of long-standing tradition has cemented the tendency and the pressures of the power of money, aided kindly by a poorly understood Community legal framework, to destroy everything that is of real cultural value and impose a single market of closed leagues and a money-obsessed spirit.
I shall end with a reminder of one of the conclusions of the resolution that we voted for in September following the Mennea report: “The European Parliament invites the Intergovernmental Conference to include an explicit reference to sport in Article 151 of the Treaty, so that the European Union will, in its actions, acknowledge the cultural, economic and social phenomenon that sport represents”. Perhaps we are still in time. I appeal to the forthcoming IGC not to be another wasted opportunity for sport. In particular, I urge the French Government not to reject at Nice the words and guarantees that President Chirac gave us here in July."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples