Annexes to COM(2014)22 - Implementation of the EU Work Plan for Sport 2011-2014 - Main contents

Please note

This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.

dossier	COM(2014)22 - Implementation of the EU Work Plan for Sport 2011-2014.
document	COM(2014)22
date	January 24, 2014

agreement on the Vilnius Definition of Sport, as a basis for the collection and production of data at national level and serving as a harmonised framework for creating sport satellite accounts (SSAs). SSAs provide macro-economic statistics about the sport economy. Further progress could be achieved to improve the evidence-base on the economic importance of the sector and its potential to contribute to wider policy goals, such as the Europe 2020 strategy. Encouraged by the 2011 Communication on sport, the Work Plan, the 2012 Council conclusions on strengthening the evidence-base for sport policy making[27] and following intense cooperation within the Expert Group on Sport Statistics (XG STAT), six Member States (AT, CY, DE, NL, PL, UK) and CH have produced national SSAs. Other Member States have also joined the process. The Group’s deliverables, such as the manuals for the set up of SSAs, were instrumental in this context. A study on the contribution of sport to economic growth and employment in the EU was carried out in 2011/2012[28]. It shows that 1.76% of EU-wide Gross Value Added and 2.12% of employment are sport-related[29]. The Council in its 2013 conclusions on youth unemployment[30] underlined that growth in sport is employment-intensive and that sport therefore has the potential to contribute to counteracting unemployment. The XG STAT also presented proposals for future priorities, inter alia based on the 2013 study on a possible future sport monitoring function in the EU[31].

2.10.      Action 10: Recommend ways to strengthen solidarity mechanisms within sport

Based on the EU study on the funding of grassroots sport in Europe[32], the Expert Group on Sustainable Financing of Sport (XG FIN) looked into the main public and private funding streams that affect solidarity mechanisms in sport and identified the opportunities the sport movement has to raise funds and utilise public and private investment, as well as the barriers which prevent it from doing so. The Group recommended in particular a) the need for progress regarding guidance on the application of EU State Aid law to sport, b) the importance of guidance on the VAT regime applicable to the non-profit sport sector, c) the worth of using the EU structural funds to support sport, and d) considering the long-term sustainability of sport’s finances, the need to implement reform measures to ensure the protection of sports’ commercial property rights and to encourage a return to grassroots sports. The Commission has launched a study to analyse sports organisers’ rights in the EU.[33] The exchange of views on the Group’s recommendations was further deepened during the Irish Presidency.

Regarding State Aid, the Commission set out a comprehensive reform programme on State aid modernisation (SAM) which prompted the revision of a number of interrelated instruments. Following this, in June 2013, the Council of Ministers formally adopted two revised regulations on state aid exemptions (Enabling Regulation) and procedures (Procedural Regulation). The enabling regulation introduces new categories of aid, now also including sport, that the Commission may decide to exempt from the obligation of prior notification ("block exemptions").[34] The Commission will now be able to adopt regulations defining criteria under which aid in these categories can be exempted from notification.

3. WORKING METHODS AND STRUCTURES

In addition to existing EU cooperation structures for sport, the Work Plan introduced working methods, in particular six Expert Groups (XGs), and called for a close and structured cooperation with the sport sector. The Commission considers that the Work Plan helped to strengthen cooperation on sport. This is further confirmed by consultation outcomes: almost all Member States expressed general support for the structures introduced by the Work Plan and agreed that it had improved political coordination on sport at EU level as well as cooperation between the EU and the sport movement. Member States also positively noted the support from the Commission, the oral and written reporting arrangements and the involvement of observers. Views expressed by sport stakeholders overall confirmed this positive assessment. However, the Commission also shares the views of Member States and stakeholders that have identified limitations to these working structures.

3.1.        The work of the Expert Groups

3.1.1.     General assessment

Generally, the system of XGs appointed by Member States and reporting back to the Council, yet supported by the Commission, has worked well: XGs have produced results in line with their respective mandates, leading to policy outputs that informed Council documents, providing input to the policy debate on sport at EU level or influencing policy development and implementation in the Member States. This was in particular due to a focus on a few priorities and a mandate for the XGs that defined the actions, outputs and a timeline for delivery. The Commission believes that a similar system could be used to great effect under a future Work Plan, taking into account the specific issues hereafter.

3.1.2.     Specific issues

Assuring a high and coherent level of participation in the work of six XGs on sport at EU level has been a challenge. Member States’ sport departments could not appoint experts for all groups; not all experts could attend all of the meetings and not all experts were appointed public officials, some coming from the non-governmental sector. While these latter representatives were supposed to reflect their governments’ views, it appeared that they did not always have a clear mandate to do so. The composition of groups was therefore not homogeneous, but showed variety in the level of representativeness and the level of expertise. Despite the novelty in the Groups’ Work Schedules to introduce lead experts for specific deliverables, concrete work outcomes could often only be achieved by setting up additional “Groups of experts” and through input from Commission staff beyond its initial support role foreseen by the Work Plan. A new Work Plan could introduce a system that would allow Member States to devote scarce resources to the most relevant issues.

Priority actions described in the Work Plan Annex provided a political mandate for the XGs, but in some cases were not formulated in a sufficiently clear manner. Several Member States found that there should be more time in meetings for topical issues and for exchanging information and best practices. Some proposed to strengthen cooperation and exchange between the Groups and to better target outcomes at specific actors.

Deliverables of XGs, as presented to the Working Party on Sport, in many cases informed the political discussion on sport at EU level. Some of the outcomes originating from the Groups, e.g. guidelines or recommendations, would need to be implemented first, before their value for national policies can be properly assessed.

The fact that sport stakeholders could participate in the work of XGs as observers has been welcomed on all sides. However, Member States also felt that the number of observers in some of the Groups was too high leaving not enough room for debate between the Group members. While the interaction with ‘other participants’ should continue, a new Work Plan would benefit from clarifying the role of sport stakeholders, in the context of structures predominantly designed for Member State representatives.

3.2.        Structured dialogue with the sport sector

3.2.1.     General assessment

The structured dialogue with sport stakeholders was further strengthened in the context of the Work Plan by introducing the practice whereby sport representatives have exchanges with Member States in XGs and, albeit to a much lesser extent, through high-level dialogue meetings in the margins of the Council. The established Commission-led structured dialogue for sport has been maintained with continued success, with the annual Sport Forum as the main EU platform for exchange with sport stakeholders. In addition, an annual high-level dialogue between the Commission and the International Olympic Committee was introduced in 2013 as a means to deepen bilateral cooperation.[35] In the Commission’s view, progress could therefore be achieved in the EU dialogue with the sport sector, but there is room for further strengthening it in the future by addressing the specific issues listed hereafter.

3.2.2.     Specific issues

With the EU’s emerging sport policy role, the number of sport actors wanting to have their say in EU level work has grown substantially over the past years. EU institutions are faced with the challenge of leading an inclusive structured dialogue on sport with relevant stakeholders, while ensuring continued effectiveness. Despite its great value, only a few Member States established a regular dialogue on EU sport issues with national sport stakeholders.

The Commission shares the views expressed in consultations that the structured dialogue lunch organised in the margins of the EYCS Council could be further improved, as it is considered that it has not reached the objectives.

The views of the sport sector must continue to play an important role when developing and implementing EU policies and actions with relevance for sport. A new Work Plan could establish improved dialogue structures providing for such possibilities.

4. SOME LESSONS FOR THE FUTURE

4.1.        Priorities for future work

Many of the competences in the area of sport lie with the Member States. It is thus important that priorities for a new EU Work Plan focus on actions delivering unambiguous value-added at EU level. The Council will assess its priorities for a new Work Plan in view of such actions. In the Commission's view, future priorities should therefore a) be in line with and contribute to the overarching priorities of the EU economic and social policy agenda, b) build on the achievements made under the current Work Plan, in particular the implementation of work outcomes, c) cover other relevant priority fields for cooperation (as listed in the 2011 Communication on sport or topical issues) and d) reflect the need for mainstreaming sport into other policies.With this in mind, a future Work Plan could cover the following themes[36]:

1) Sport and society, including health-enhancing physical activity (HEPA):

· Social inclusion and sport: Future cooperation on sport should give attention to issues of social inclusion, in particular to the follow up on work on gender equality initiated in 2013. Expert work could deepen knowledge on the questions of participation, coaching, leadership, harassment as well as stereotypes and feed the exchange of good practices and ideas aimed at promoting gender equality in sport.

· HEPA: The implementation of the 2013 Council Recommendation in close cooperation with the Member States at EU level and the WHO, as well as coordination with ongoing processes, will be a priority. Areas that require political attention also include physical activity in the education environment and cooperation with the health care sector. Expert level work should focus on related HEPA issues, such as sedentary behavior, injury prevention as well as specific at-risk groups.

· Education and training in sport: Work should continue, e.g. in the form of peer meetings, on implementation of the Dual Career Guidelines and the inclusion of sport qualifications in NQFs. The issue of international sport federations’ qualifications and the relation to NQFs and EQF should also be addressed at EU level. An increased focus should be put on the recognition of non-formal learning provided by sport and the employability of young people through sport, including young talented athletes’ educational part of their dual careers.

2) Economic dimension of sport:

· Evidence-base for sport: Work should continue at expert level to gather further information and data on sport and physical activity, building on existing methodologies. Attention should be given to strengthening evidence on the economic side, e.g. sport's role in increasing employability and health care savings.

· Sustainability of sport: Further action at Council level could help ensure that the sector’s interests are mainstreamed into EU policies that impact on the financing of sport structures and activities. Expert work could further clarify the impact of the developing EU legal framework (e.g. in the field of state aid) on the financing of sport and may lead to specific guidance; dialogue with sport organisations should continue to strengthen further solidarity mechanisms within sport; expert work should explore the economic, social and environmental sustainability of mega sport events.

3) Integrity of sport:

· Anti-doping: Work should continue to focus on compliance with EU law and the protection of athletes' rights. As part of the implementation of the WADC 2015 by Member States, the EU should offer its assistance to WADA, the Council of Europe and Member States in developing appropriate non-binding guidance. Work on doping prevention should be further developed based on the 2012 Council conclusions. Issues identified in Commission documents, e.g. illegal trade and possible criminal law initiatives, use of social dialogue, may be taken up again.

· Fight against match-fixing: Work will continue, notably to ensure the implementation of the above mentioned Recommendation on best practices in the prevention and combating of betting-related match-fixing and of the future Council of Europe's Convention against the manipulation of sports competitions.

· Protection of the physical and moral integrity of young athletes: Ways should be explored to protect young athletes and to strengthen ethical behaviour in particular regarding sexual harassment.

The Sport Chapter in Erasmus+ will provide financial support for grassroots sport activities and includes a range of instruments to support cooperation and action in most of these areas.

4.2.        Working methods and structures

To build on the positive experience of the first Work Plan and, at the same time, address the challenges identified above, the Commission sees value in an adapted form of working methods that would allow relevant actors to cooperate effectively and to cover the above priorities in the context of a new Work Plan. Based on its own observations and in response to views expressed in the consultations, the Commission concludes that the following improvements could usefully be introduced and replace the current working arrangements:

· Instead of the current six Expert Groups, three ‘Sport Strategy Groups’ (SSG), each composed of Member State and Commission representatives, should be established to cover the main broad priorities for EU cooperation in sport, i.e. ‘Sport and society, including HEPA’, ‘Economic dimension of sport’ and ‘Integrity of sport’. SSGs would steer developments (i.e. implementation of results achieved under the current Work Plan) and exchange views on progress made in implementing the new Work Plan. They would also be the fora to address mainstreaming of sport, to discuss topical issues and to exchange best practices, including results from the implementation of Erasmus+. SSGs would prepare submissions to the Council structures, notably on issues that require political support or follow up. The Commission would provide support to the SSGs and participate in the Groups' work to give guidance and to ensure continued involvement. SSGs should have a clearly defined mandate based on deliverables requested by the Council with specific delivery target dates.

· For special tasks of a technical nature work should be organised at expert level. “Groups of experts” (GoE), placed under the aegis of SSGs, should be established to continue work initiated under the current Work Plan and to carry out new tasks requiring special expertise.

· To associate sport stakeholders closely to the implementation of the new Work Plan, dialogue platforms, corresponding with the substance of the three SSGs, led by the Commission and the SSG chairmen, should be set up. Selected representatives from these platforms would be invited to SSGs meeting to present stakeholders’ opinion.

· The current structured dialogue lunch in the margins of the Council should be replaced by one of the following options for meetings convened by the Presidency and involving leading representatives of the EU public authorities and the sport movement[37]:

– Two high-level meetings per year, at the start of each Presidency term, to address the priorities for the semester;

– Two high-level meetings per year, one focusing on topical issues with relevance for professional sport, one on topical issues with relevance for grassroots sport;

– An annual high-level meeting, preceding the Council or as part of an informal meeting of EU Sport Ministers.

Such a working structure would have the advantage a) to keep the number of Groups and meetings manageable, taking into account scarce resources in the Members States, while responding to policy needs, b) to follow up on results from the current Work Plan, while providing the possiblity to address new priorities, c) to have a homogeneous composition of groups and to distinguish policy from expert level work and d) to strengthen the structured dialogue with sport stakeholders.

5. CONCLUSION

The European Parliament, the Council, the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee are invited to take note of this report.

The Presidency is invited to take this report as a basis for the preparation of the next EU Work Plan for Sport during the first half of 2014.

As part of the next EU Work Plan for Sport, the Council is invited to consider the priorities for future work and the introduction of revised work arrangements identified in this report.

[1]     COM(2011) 12 final, 18.1.2011

[2]     OJ C 162, 1.6.2011, http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/11/st09/st09509-re01.en11.pdf

[3]     Annex I of the Work Plan

[4]     Reports from Expert Groups: http://ec.europa.eu/sport/library/consultation-and-co-operation_en.htm

[5]     Responses from 27 Member States: http://ec.europa.eu/sport/library/documents/b22/eu-workplan-sport-results-consultation-ms.pdf

[6]     Consultation workshops at the 2013 EU Sport Forum; written contributions from stakeholders.

[7]     The first EU contribution to the revision, adopted by Council 14 March 2012 and submitted to WADA, covers the existing Code 2009. The second EU contribution, adopted by Council 5 October 2012 and submitted to WADA, covers Draft Code 2015, version 1.0. The third EU contribution, adopted by Council 28 February 2013 and submitted to WADA, covers Draft Code 2015, version 2.0. The fourth EU contribution, adopted by Council 22 July 2013 and submitted to WADA, covers Draft Code 2015, version 3.0.

[8]     The second EU contribution to the revision covers existing International Standards (various years of adoption or revision). The third EU contribution covers Draft International Standards 2015, version 1.0. The fourth EU contribution covers Draft International Standards 2015, version 2.0.

[9]     Commission Communications: COM(2011)12 final; COM(2011)308 final; COM(2012)596 final

[10]    European Parliament resolutions of 10 March 2009 (2008/2215(INI)), of 15 November 2011 (2011/2084(INI)), of 2 February 2012 (2011/2087(INI)), of 10 September 2013 (2012/2322(INI))

[11]    Council conclusions on combating match-fixing (2011/C 378/01)

[12]    http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/educ/133873.pdf

[13]    http://ec.europa.eu/sport/library/documents/b1/eusf2012-nicosia-declaration-fight-against-match-fixing.pdf

[14]    Council decisions 10178/13 and 10180/13

[15]    http://ec.europa.eu/sport/library/documents/f-studies/cons-study-transfers-final-rpt.pdf

[16]    http://ec.europa.eu/sport/documents/study_on_sports_agents_in_the.pdf

[17]    http://ec.europa.eu/sport/library/sport-and_en.htm#C10_Sports-Agents

[18]    http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/08/st17/st17271-re01.en08.pdf

[19]    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2013:168:0010:01:EN:HTML

[20]    http://ec.europa.eu/sport/documents/summary_be_presidency_imm_en.pdf

[21]    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2012:393:0022:0025:EN:PDF

[22]    COM(2013) 603 final

[23]    http://ec.europa.eu/sport/news/documents/hepa_en.pdf

[24]   http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/12/st17/st17468.en12.pdf

[25]    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2012:396:0008:0011:EN:PDF

[26]    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0928:FIN:EN:PDF

[27]    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2012:393:0020:0021:EN:PDF

[28]    Final report, November 2012: http://ec.europa.eu/sport/library/documents/f-studies/study-contribution-spors-economic-growth-final-rpt.pdf

[29]    Figures are based on the "Broad Definition", i.e. direct effects only, no multiplier effects from suppliers of intermediate goods. Aggregate figures as well as structures differ substantially between Member States.

[30]    http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/educ/139733.pdf

[31]    http://ec.europa.eu/sport/library/documents/f-studies/final-rpt-may2013-study-monitoring-function.pdf

[32]    http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/top_layer/services/sport/study_en.htm

[33]    Contract notice in the OJ of the European Union on 06 July 2012 (2012/S 128-211223)

[34]    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:204:0011:0014:EN:PDF

[35]    The Council’s and the Commission’s approaches to structured dialogue were laid down in policy documents: OJ C 322/1 of 7.11.2010; COM(2007) 391 final; COM(2011) 12 final. The Commission also has established rules regarding participation in the Sport Forum.

[36]    The fact that certain topics are not elaborated upon in this Communication does not imply that they are not important for the Commission, but that existing policy documents remain a sufficient basis to address them.

[37]    In line with the Council Resolution of 18 November 2010 on the EU structured dialogue on sport (see FN 35).