|
|
For debate in the Standing Committee see Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure
Pour débat à la Commision permanente – Voir article 47 du Règlement
Doc. 8555
30 September 1999
Europe and professional sport
Report
Committee on Culture and Education
Rapporteur: Mr Laurentino Dias, Portugal, Socialist Group
Summary
The Assembly considers that the European Court of Justice ruling in the Bosman case introduced considerable changes in the framework within which professional sports were organised in Europe by declaring illegal the transfer rules and the nationality clause applied in professional football in Europe. The Assembly is also concerned at the current transformation of high-level football into a television circus, the dangers that may result from the conversion of sports clubs into joint-stock companies and possible malfunctions of the procedures for the licensing of sports equipment.
The Assembly calls on the competent authorities in the member states of the Council of Europe, on European sports federations and on the European Union to take appropriate measures to preserve the specific, social, unifying, educational and cultural role of sport. Among the measures proposed is the introduction of a non-discriminatory "training fee" which could be limited to the first transfer of a player as a professional or to transfers of players under a certain age.
I. Draft resolution
1. The Assembly recalls the judgement of the European Court of Justice in the Bosman case of December 1995 which declared illegal in the countries of the European Economic Area the transfer rules and the nationality clause applied by UEFA (Union of European Football Associations) in respect of professional football in Europe.
2. While being fully aware that this judgement ensures that professional footballers are able to exercise the right to the free movement of workers, the Assembly nevertheless draws attention to the appreciable repercussions for professional sport in general (and particularly team sports), the financial survival of small clubs, and the training and employment of young sportsmen and women in Europe as a whole.
3. The Assembly shares the desire, voiced first of all by UEFA, to find a way of reducing the negative impact of these implications in a way compatible not only with European law and other recognised legal texts, but also with the satisfactory development of sport throughout Europe.
4. Accordingly, the Assembly points out that the impact on developments in professional sport in Europe, and team sports in particular, of the liberalisation and technological development of television, resulting from the remarkable increase in demand for sports broadcasts and the prices paid for these broadcasts, has been at least as important as that of the Bosman judgement.
5. The Assembly is particularly concerned about the implications of the transformation of high-level football from a sport in its own right to a television event and the widening financial gap between high-level professional clubs and the rest of the football community.
6. It is concerned about the possible malfunctions of the procedures for the licensing of sports equipment (in particular with regard to exclusive agreements).
7. There is a danger that the conversion of sports clubs into joint stock or other corporate forms may result in the same economic group controlling several teams participating in the same competition. This would give rise to concern about the genuine nature of a match between two teams controlled by the same economic group, especially when major financial incentives are at stake.
8. It is also concerned about the veiled threats from some major European clubs to create their own European championship. While welcoming UEFA’s efforts to overcome these threats by adapting the rules of the Champions’ League, the Assembly notes that unless sufficient funds are spread throughout the game there is a danger of widening disparities between "rich" and "poor" clubs, thereby having an adverse effect on the competitiveness of national championships.
9. The Assembly asserts the specific, social, unifying, educational and cultural role of sport. It recalls, in this connection, the European Sports Charter and the European Code of Sports Ethics adopted by the Council of Europe in 1992. Sport is much more than a mere business matter: the opponents depend on each other, unlike in industry and the service sectors.
10. Consequently, the Assembly calls on the competent authorities in the member states of the Council of Europe:
i. to authorise the centralised marketing, for example by federations, of sports events broadcasting rights insofar as this would ensure a fair distribution of income among the participants;
ii. to include the main sports competitions on the list of events of major significance provided for in the European Convention on Transfrontier Television;
iii. to support non-governmental sports organisations and the millions working for sport on a voluntary and unpaid basis throughout Europe.
11. The Assembly also calls on European sports federations and in particular on UEFA:
i. to implement or continue implementing the centralised marketing of television rights for competitions coming under its competence and to ensure the fair distribution of income among participants so as to maintain financial balance and a spirit of solidarity in European sport;
ii. to ensure that the new rules of the Champions’ League do not have any adverse effect on the competitiveness of national championships;
iii. to propose, as a means of remunerating clubs for their activities in the training of young players, a non-discriminatory “training fee” which could be limited to the first transfer of a player as a professional, or to transfers of players under a given age;
iv. to prohibit the participation in the same competition of more than one club belonging to the same owner;
v. to ensure that the rules applied by the European Union to the European Economic Area are compatible, from the standpoint of sporting equity, with those in force within each state and outside the European Economic Area.
12. Finally, the Assembly calls on the European Union:
i. to recognise the specific nature of sport whose social, unifying, educational and cultural role should not be undermined by commercial activities;
ii. to accept the principle of remunerating clubs for their activities in the training of young players through non-discriminatory training fees;
iii. to accept the legality of the centralised marketing of sports events broadcasting rights with a view to the fair distribution of income among participating clubs and to the grass roots of the sport;
iv. to accept the continued organisation of sporting competition in Europe along national territorial lines;
v. to apply in the European Economic Area rules that are compatible, from the standpoint of sporting equity, with those in force within each state and outside the European Economic Area.
II. Explanatory Memorandum by Mr Laurentino Dias
Introduction
1. In recent years probably no other court ruling in international sport has caused as much of a furore as the Bosman judgement of the ECJ (European Court of Justice) of 15.12.1995. Numerous commentators spoke of a revolution in professional sport, the implications of which cannot be foreseen.
2. However, the verdict of the Court can have come as no surprise to experts. The increasing commercialisation of sport could not fail to have repercussions on the legal activities of sports associations. The earlier decisions in the cases of Donà1 and Walrave2 had already made clear that in the sports sector certain practices can also form part of the economic sphere and hence fall within the purview of the EC Treaty. Be that as it may, the judgement would appear to have opened a floodgate, since sport now increasingly often finds itself in competition with lawyers.
The Bosman judgement of the European Court of Justice of 15.12.1995
3. Following the expiry of his contract with the Belgian first-division club RC Liege in 1990, the Belgian professional footballer Jean-Marc Bosman concluded a contract with the French second-division club US Dunkirk. Due to doubts regarding the ability of US Dunkirk to pay the agreed transfer fee, RC Liege failed to request that the release document be forwarded to the French Football Association (FFF). In this way, it prevented the player's release by the Belgian Football Association (URBSFA). As a consequence of this, the transfer failed to take place. In the action which he filed in a Belgian court against RC Liege and the URBSFA - and subsequently also against UEFA - Bosman sought a declaration to the effect that the transfer rules and clauses on foreigners were not applicable to him and he demanded compensation for the loss caused to him through the application of these rules. The Belgian court submitted to the ECJ the question of the compatibility of the disputed rules with European law.
4. The European Court of Justice found that the transfer fee provided for in the Association rules illegally impairs the freedom of movement of a professional footballer from an EU member state pursuant to Art. 48 EC Treaty in those cases where he wishes to move to a club in another EU member state following the expiry of his contract. According to the Court, a professional footballer is to be considered an employee within the meaning of Art. 48 EC Treaty. It is true that in this case he is not being discriminated against in comparison with domestic players, since their transfers are also governed by the same rules. However, the Court pointed out that Art. 48 EC Treaty contains a comprehensive ban on restrictions, which goes beyond a mere ban on discrimination. In other words, even those provisions, which merely hamper or make unavailable the right of freedom of movement are prohibited.3 The transfer rules, however, prevented a player moving to a club in another EU Member State if the latter failed to pay a transfer fee4. The Court found that a breach of the ban on restrictions would only be permissible if the transfer rules sought to pursue a legitimate purpose compatible with Community law, were justified on compelling grounds of general interest and preserved the principle of reasonableness. Both with regard to considerations of maintaining a sporting and financial balance between clubs and from the perspective of remuneration for the training and development of players, the ECJ rejected the permissibility of an exception from the ban on restrictions in the Bosman case. The Court found that other possibilities could have been considered in this case, which could have achieved the desired goals with the same success and without entailing negative consequences for the employee's freedom of movement. In particular, the Court referred back to the Opinion of Advocate-General Lenz, and noted that he had identified other means that could be employed to maintain a financial balance between clubs and encourage player training and development. Thus, at paragraphs 231-232 of his Opinion, Mr Lenz had referred with approval to the redistribution of income generated by the central marketing of television rights to the UEFA Champions League and he considered this as a positive example to follow.
5. The European Court of Justice also found the restrictions on the use of foreign players from EU member states to be incompatible with Art. 48 EC Treaty. Whilst this rule did not prevent a sportsman signing a contract in another EU country, the core area of activity of the sportsman consisted precisely of participation in competitions. Thus, the clauses on foreigners prevented him exercising his profession and resulted in discrimination against foreign players compared to domestic professional footballers.5 With regard to the clauses on foreigners, too, the ECJ declined to allow any grounds for justification. The clauses on foreigners could not be justifiable on purely sporting grounds. Clauses on foreigners could not be justified on grounds of the local rootedness of players at clubs participating in professional leagues or as a basis for ensuring the supply of domestic players for the national team.6
6. Furthermore, the judgement made clear that the European Commission possesses no power of discretion whatsoever with regard to basic freedoms. Responsibility for the binding interpretation of the Treaty ultimately rests solely with the European Court of Justice. For this reason, the Commission is also not authorised to provide guarantees regarding the compatibility of certain practices with the Treaty.
7. The European Court of Justice left open the question of whether the clauses on foreigners and the transfer rules constituted a breach of the antitrust provisions of Art. 85 EC Treaty. In the opinion of Advocate General Lenz7, such a breach does exist.
Scope of the Bosman judgement
8. The applicability of the Bosman judgement is not restricted to certain types of sport. At first sight, the judgement is only of direct relevance to team sports, such as football and basketball. However, in individual sports such as tennis or track and field, the decision of the Court may become relevant when it comes to changing clubs or obtaining permission to participate.
9. The provisions of the EC Treaty are only applicable to economic activities. For sport, this means that the decisive factor is whether the athlete’s activity is to be classed as economic. This is certainly the case if he receives remuneration – even if only minimal – for his sporting performance. In individual cases, this may even be the case in the so-called amateur sector. The European Court of Justice has so far left open the question of where precisely this border may be found.
10. The basic freedoms of the EC Treaty are in principle only applicable when a so-called "cross-border element" exists. Consequently, they do not apply to purely internal matters such as the transfer of players within an EU member state.
11. The European Court of Justice has repeatedly made clear that certain rules are justified if exclusively non-economic grounds can be cited for their justification.8 In particular, such grounds may be found in the special nature of the competition. Thus, it is proper to provide that national championships or Olympic qualifying competitions shall only be open to citizens of the country concerned or that only citizens of the relevant nations shall be permitted to participate in competitions between national teams. On the other hand, as far as open championships are concerned – such as the All England Championships in Wimbledon –, a restriction to a certain number of participants from other EU states would not be permissible.
12. The issues of the extent to which transfer fees are permissible if transfers take place during a running contract or if a player is only transferred within an EU member state were not relevant to the judgement, and hence remained undecided. Furthermore, the issues of transfer fees when players are signed from countries outside the European Union or when EU citizens are signed in such countries as well as the permissibility of a restriction on the number of players of such origin were left open.
13. However, the judgement certainly is applicable to citizens of EEA states, since the interpretation of the EC Treaty by the European Court of Justice also applies to the EEA Treaties. On the other hand, it is open to question whether this is also true of citizens from countries, which are linked with the EU merely by an association agreement. Such agreements generally do not contain any provisions corresponding to the basic freedoms or even grant rights of immigration. Rather, they include a reservation in favour of the immigration provisions of the individual member states. On the other hand, such treaties also provide to the effect that discrimination in working conditions on grounds of nationality is prohibited. This is at least the case when the party concerned has already lawfully obtained work in a member country.
14. The judgement does not contain any comments on European law on competition. This makes no distinction according to nationalities, but is geared solely towards market power and the implications of certain practices for a particular market. Sports clubs can be classed as undertakings in the light of their economic activities and federations can at least be regarded as associations of undertakings within the meaning of the competition law. The establishment of transfer rules or restrictions on the use of certain players is therefore to be considered practices conducive to the impairment of trade between the member states. However, on the other side such rules will often be indispensable for the conduct of competition, since it is them that make possible open, fair and exciting competition in the first place. Here, too, however, the decision must be made on a case by case basis whether a rule is essential for a competition to exist, or whether a similarly appropriate but less restrictive rule can be found.
15. Although at first glance the judgement has merely declared certain association rules to be unlawful, scope has also been left for interpretation. The European Court of Justice explicitly recognised three objectives worthy of endorsement, which must be weighted in any assessment of the admissibility of rules: the training of young players, the maintenance of a certain financial balance between clubs and hence the safeguarding of the uncertainty of results.
16. The actual repercussions of the judgement are appreciable. The market has reacted swiftly, and the number of transfers involving top players has rocketed. Following the lifting of the restriction on foreigners, the number of foreign athletes at richer clubs in first-class leagues has climbed sharply. Thus, for example, within Germany there has been a substantial decrease in the number of German athletes in the top leagues.9 For smaller clubs, the loss of the transfer fee has meant the disappearance of a traditional source of income. Younger up-and-coming players are replaced by older (more experienced) foreign players, who frequently are also willing to accept a lower salary than domestic players.
17. In the long term, there is a serious risk of a significant deterioration in the quality of matches outside the top leagues. The development of young players will also suffer. Richer clubs can find cheaper players on the market and poorer clubs will see no point in forming young players, since the expenditure on such activities can no longer be recovered through transfer fees.
Indirect implications for other areas of sport
18. Of late, the dispute over the legality of the marketing of sports events through television in the light of competition law has become a focus of interest. Two points are particularly controversial: the conclusion of exclusive agreements with a single vendor and the centralised marketing of television rights by associations.
19. The European Commission takes the view that the conclusion of exclusive agreements does not constitute per se a breach of Art. 85 Par. 1 EC Treaty. Rather, the Commission believes that whether or not the restraint on free availability can be tolerated depends upon the special market conditions as well as the economic and legal circumstances. The Commission accepts that exclusivity – also by way of the granting of sublicenses - is often the only way for a broadcasting company to safeguard the value of a sports broadcast, and thereby to achieve increased income from advertising and hence offer viewers an attractive range of programmes. On the other hand, where such agreements are of an excessively long duration they will also tend to impose unlawful restrictions on competition. However, the Commission is of the opinion that it is not possible to define the permissible contractual period precisely; here, too, the decision will be determined by the individual case. Nevertheless, criteria such as the media company's market position and its portfolio of already existing sports rights could be applied. Longer exclusive agreements may also be necessary in order to enable new market players to enter the competitive arena in the first place, especially if they use innovative and expensive technology and hence require investment security (the so-called "new entrant rationale").
20. As far as the centralised marketing of sports events is concerned, the European Commission's assumption is that in the first place it is for the member states to determine the owner of the television rights to an event. The definition may vary from case to case. The Commission believes that the permissibility of centralised marketing always depends also on the actual type of sport and, in turn, on the precise sporting event. Interestingly, in its Bosman judgement the European Court of Justice perceived the centralised marketing of television rights in football as a possible instrument for safeguarding a financial balance between clubs. Furthermore, in a recent case the UK Restrictive Trade Practices Court has upheld the legality of centralised marketing of the television rights to the English Premier League, recognising that these arrangements were necessary to invest money in the "grass roots" of the sport. In certain other countries (e.g. Italy, Spain) centralised marketing has been attacked by some of the biggest clubs, since they believe they would derive greater financial gains by individual selling arrangements
21. The licensing of sports equipment by sporting associations (homologation) has also attracted the interest of the Commission's competition watchdogs of late. In brief, the Commission has drawn up the following guidelines: the requirement that sports equipment be licensed is justified when it is necessary for the said sports equipment to meet specific quality and safety requirements. In individual cases, exclusive agreements may also be permissible. However, this is subject to the precondition that the homologation procedures are open to all competitors and are organised in a fair and transparent manner. The agreements may not contain excessive restrictions. Pure sponsoring relationships are to be very clearly distinguished from homologations; these are governed by stricter requirements, since they generally cannot be justified by means of technical requirements in respect of the sponsored sports equipment. In addition to these issues of competition law, homologation may also bring up the question of compatibility with the free movement of goods if differing requirements are imposed in various member states.
22. Recently the question arose as to whether sports clubs should be permitted to stage home games outside their home country.10 Measured by European standards, this could affect the freedom to render services. In the wake of the Bosman case, the prohibition of such a project would only survive if compelling non-economic grounds made it necessary to permit a club to play home games only in its country of origin. More detailed investigation is required in order to determine whether, for example, the link to the place of the club's registered office constitutes a basic precondition for the regular conduct of matches or whether it is immaterial where a club plays, provided its home games are held at a single location. The organisation of league sport in Europe along national territorial lines had deep-rooted cultural traditions and can be said to represent part of Europe's own sporting heritage. It remains to be seen whether these national structures will be recognised as falling within the "sporting" or "non-economic" parameters which are outside the reach of Community law.
23. Another phenomenon has surfaced in connection with the conversion of sports clubs to joint-stock companies - common ownership.11 A ban on the participation of several teams controlled by one person in a particular competition would have to be measured inter alia by the standards of free movement of capital. However, in this case there is greater likelihood of arriving at a justification on non-economic grounds. Common ownership entails the risk of manipulations in the interest of a considerable profit. Nevertheless, since the uncertainty of the results is admittedly one of the basic preconditions of competition, restrictions on the business activity of the shareholders in the interests of fair and open competition can possibly be tolerated. However, a precise limit should be determined in the light of the specific conditions of the sport in question.
Recommendations for the legal treatment of sport
24. In the light of the developments described above, sport can choose between two possible approaches. It can stand by and watch as numerous parties punch ever-greater holes in the edifice of rules - holes that can only be laboriously patched up from case to case until one day the entire building collapses. Or sport must face up to the challenges posed by the latest developments and make a critical and offensive effort to revise its rules comprehensively and adjust them in line with the requirements of Community law without neglecting the special features of sporting competition. Thus, most sports associations have already recognised that situations do exist which – while at first glance not governed by the EC Treaty – do fall within its purview by dint of their economic implications.
25. Yet sport is more than just a mere business matter. It is true that sports clubs must think and act in business terms if they want to participate in sporting competitions with good athletes and succeed. However, this does not entail the pursuit of profit at any price. For in sport, unlike in industry or the service sectors, the opponents are dependent on one another. Whereas economic competition is per se antagonistic, sporting competition is of a more symbiotic disposition. Clubs in professional sport are more joint ventures than real competitors. Entirely free competition would very quickly destroy the system. Consequently, rules are necessary to a certain extent and must be allowable.
26. A further factor is the pre-eminent position enjoyed by sport in today's society. Sport is of social, cultural and integrative significance. It offers the possibility of an amicable test of strength between various nationalities and thus serves to promote exchanges between people. Furthermore, the organisation of sport is reliant to a very large extent on the work of voluntary and unpaid (honorary) workers and much less on the activities and practices of highly qualified managers as in the free economy.
27. Consequently, the legal treatment of the practices of sports clubs and associations should give adequate consideration to these "soft" functions. All these factors may therefore render it necessary in specific cases to permit certain practices, which as part of the competition between purely commercial undertakings would have to give grounds for concern and hence be declared unlawful.
28. In general, it is conceivable that in order to resolve these conflicts certain statutory regulations or provisions of international law could be adopted, which would provide for a balance between the requirements of business and the needs of sporting competition. However, the Conference of Amsterdam, for example, refused to incorporate an article for sport – similar to Article 128 for culture – into the EC Treaty. A legally non-binding declaration was merely appended to the Treaty. However, it is also possible to find solutions for the various points mentioned above on a case-by-case basis. Another possibility which might usefully be considered – and which could also help to resolve problems on a case-by-case basis – would be the inclusion of a Protocol on Sport in an amended Treaty. Such a provision could recognise the specific character of sport in Europe. It would not serve as a blanket exemption from the law, but would confirm that sport has certain unique and special characteristics, which ought to be taken into account, also in case-by-case assessments.
29. Within the direct scope of application of the Bosman judgement, an attempt has been made - with the aid of long-term contracts – to demand contractual compensation if a player wished to move during the term of his contract. However, the conclusion of contracts entailing a long-term commitment in turn gives rise to reservations as regards competition law. The clubs may be suspected of abusing a dominant market position in this regard.
30. It should not prove impossible to create a new training fee aimed at remunerating clubs for their training activities. In order to be acceptable under Community law, such a fee must be non-discriminatory, that is, it should be applied irrespective of the nationality of the players concerned and whether the transfer takes place within the same country or to another country inside or outside the European Economic Area. It should also reflect just remuneration for the training provided by the club and should therefore be applied only to the first transfer of a professional footballer or to the transfers of players under a given age. The Assembly proposes that UEFA and the European Union study the possibility of introducing such a transfer fee.
31. It was also proposed that the players' terms of employment should be governed by collective agreements in order to do justice to their status as employees under European law. However, this poses, on the one hand, the question of the collective bargaining capacity of the acting organisations and, on the other hand, the issue of the applicability of the rules of European law on competition to collective agreements as well as of the priority attached to free collective bargaining.
32. The specific problems of competition law in the area of television broadcasting rights could also be tackled most sensibly by means of a group exemption pursuant to Art. 85 Par. 3 EC Treaty. The European Commission has already stated that it appreciates the special requirements of sport. Nevertheless, here too, the negative consequences for competition must be weighed up against the positive results. Thus, for example, joint ventures are also permitted if they are necessary in order to place a certain product in the market at all. Ultimately, the dominance of just a few clubs in a particular sport would lead to a decline in spectator interest and hence to a falling-off in the appeal of this product in general. Competition would thus be hampered rather than promoted.
Reporting committee: Committee on Culture and Education
Budgetary implications for the Assembly: None.
Reference to committee: see Doc. 7557 and Reference No. 2086 of 29 May 1996
Draft recommendation: unanimously adopted by the committee on 24 September 1999
Members of the committee: MM. Nothomb (Chairman), Zingeris (Alt.: Raskinis), Roseta, de Puig (Vice-Chairmen), Arzilli, Bartumeu Cassany, Bauer, Baumel (Alt.: Ehrmann), Billing, Chiliman, Cubreacov, Diaz de Mera, Dumitrescu, Ms Fayot, Mrs Fehr, Mr Glotov, Mrs Gogoberidze, Mrs Granlund (Alt.: Einarsson), MM. Hadjidemetriou, Hegyi, Hornhues, Irmer, Mrs Isohookana-Asunmaa, MM. Ivanov, Jakic, Kalkan, Mrs Katseli, MM. Kiely, Kofod-Svendsen, Lachat, Mrs Laternser, MM. Legendre, Lemoine, Libicki, Mrs Lucyga, MM. Van der Maelen, McNamara, Mezeckis, Mrs Moserova, Mr Nagy, Mrs Nemcova, MM. O’Hara, Pereira Marques (Alt.: Dias), Pinggera, Polydoras, Mrs Poptodorova, MM. Pullicino Orlando, Radic, Ragno, Risari, Mrs Saele, Mr Sağlam, Mrs Schicker, MM. Shaklein, Mrs Stefani, MM. Sudarenkov, Svec, Symonenko (Khunov), Tallo, Urbanczyk, Valk, Verbeek, Wilshire, Xhaferi.
NB: The names of those who took part in the vote are in italics
Secretaries to the committee: Mr Ary, Mrs Theophilova-Permaul, Ms Kostenko
1 ECJ, Case 13/76 (Donà/Mantero), [1976], 1333 (1338 ff.).
2 ECJ, Case 36/74 (Walrave and Koch/Union Cycliste Internationale), [1974], 1405 (1418 ff.) = NJW 1975, 1093 (1094).
3 ECJ, Case. C-415/93 (Bosman), [1995] I, 4921 (5069) (No. 96) = NJW 1996, 505 (510).
4 The substance of the judgement with regard to transfer fees is as follows: "Art. 48 EEC Treaty precludes the application of rules laid down by sporting associations, under which a professional footballer who is a national of one Member State may not, on the expiry of his contract with a club, be employed by a club of another Member State unless the latter club has paid to the former club a transfer, training or development fee."
5 ECJ, Case. C-415/93 (Bosman), [1995] I, 4921 (5074) (No. 120) = NJW 1996, 505 (511). The substance of the judgement with regard to clauses on foreigners is as follows: "Art. 48 EEC Treaty precludes the application of rules laid down by sporting associations under which, in matches in competitions which they organise, football clubs may field only a limited number of professional players who are nationals of other Member States."
6 ECJ, Case C-415/93 (Bosman), [1995] I, 4921 (5077) (No. 131 ff.) = NJW 1996, 505 (511); cf. also ECJ, Case 13/76 (Donà/Mantero), [1976], 1333 (1340 f.).
7 Cf. Advocate General C.O. Lenz, opinion in respect of Case C-415/93 (Bosman), EuGRZ 1995, 459 ff.
8 ECJ, Case 13/76 (Donà/Mantero), [1976], 1333 (1338 ff.).
9 For example, the team of the German national league judo club Saar consists exclusively of English members. Cf. (FAZ dd. 16.9.1997, p. 39) and the Ochsenhausen table-tennis club became German champions with a Russian, Swede, Romanian, and Chinese on the team but no German (see Le Monde, 25 December 1998, p. 14)..
10 The English Premier League club FC Wimbledon, which, lacking a ground of its own, has to date played in the nearby Selhurst Park Stadium – which belongs to Crystal Palace – is now planning to build a new stadium in Dublin costing almost DM 300 million (FAZ dd. 13.2.1998, p. 31). Dublin is the largest city in Europe without a top-flight football club. This project has already met with massive resistance from FIFA, UEFA and the Irish Football Association FAI (FAZ dd. 11.2.1998, p. 25).
11 AEK Athens, Slavia Prag, , Glasgow Rangers and Vincenza (Italy) are controlled by the UK investment group English National Investment Company (ENIC). In May 1998 UEFA introduced a rule whereby only one club per owner may participate in each European Cup competition. (Letter from UEFA to the member associations dd. 26.05.1998 with regard to the integrity of the UEFA club competitions; the question whether UEFA has a right to introduce such a rule is currently under revue by the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne, Switzerland). The place in the Champions' League was awarded to the no. 2 in the Czech championship (FAZ dd. 29.6.1998, p. 40; cf. also Spiegel 43/1997, p. 165 f). In accordance with the Polish Law on Sport of 1996, an investor may hold a participation in a second sports joint-stock company only up to a level of 1 % (Art. 32, Item 5 of the Law on Sport dd. 18.1.1996 is reproduced by A. Scwarz, in: U. Scherrer (Ed.), Sportkapitalgesellschaften, Stuttgart etc. 1998, p. 94). In accordance with the Portuguese law on Sports Companies such companies should be truly independent from one another (articles 14, 19, 20 and 37 of Decree-Law 67/97)