Introduction
Every aspect of life is governed by terms and conditions which are usually set by the Stakeholders concerned, written down or stipulated as policies, rules and regulations. All these rules, regulations, terms and conditions are encompassed in a law (Adams 2006). Therefore a law can be defined as all the principles and rules which are legal, adopted and utilized by organizations to govern their activities as well as providing the way forward for solving any conflict or disputes arising in the process of executing their duties. The European Union is composed majorly of countries which are geographically located in the continent of Europe, although there are some other countries outside the continent which are also affiliated to the union. Among those countries outside European Union but are involved in the body include Russia, Turkey, Israel among others (Gardiner 2006).
Commercialization football
Commercialization is a term which stands for transformation of a certain act towards the business aspect. Most of the countries worldwide are transforming the traditional aspect of sports for leisure to the modernized business sports, where football has not been spared (Adams 2006).
The modern football in the European Union has been highly professionalized and like any other commercial organizations, the sports departments have to be guided and regulated by sports policies which are entailed in the main sports law of the European Union (McArdle 2000).
Various countries in the union have different bodies in their mother countries which governs their professional football activities and events. For example in England we have bodies like the English premier league, the football association. Countries like Germany have in place Bundesliga, in Spain there is la liga. Almost every country this union has one or more football body which governs their domestic professional football activities at home. In the umbrella body of European professional football, other organs like the UEFA champion’s league and the Euro cup are involved in governing football tournaments in the continent. All these bodies have in place policies which regulate the events so as to make the football activities to run or operate smoothly. This commercialization move has had a great impact on professional football in countries and states who are non-EU members as well. This is through adoption of the European union’s modernized and commercialized football, the exchange or trade between players of the different states (McArdle 2000).
The European law versus professional sports
Gardiner & Cagier 2000 argued that professional football in the European union was a sport which needed to be governed by legal regulations as the entire sports industry was experiencing changes as a result of commercialization of football which was bringing in a lot of challenges and legal issues. Debates were on the increase on whether the professionalization of football was meeting the set guidelines and policies regulating the commercial activities in the European Union block and its commercial football activities with non-member states (Blanpain & Inston 1996). The compatibility of the laws governing the modernized business football in the block, with other laws by football bodies outside the EU block was an issue of debate (Gardiner 2006). Its law on commercial football had to be in line with laws other football governing bodies outside the block like the International Football Federation among other bodies affiliated to professional football.
Gardiner 2006 continued arguing that another major issue which arose in this debate was whether the commercialized professional football in the block was addressing the issue of employment to citizens within the European union, and to what extend was it prioritizing the employment of its citizens of its member to those from states outside the European union block. Another issue of concern was whether the professional football sport in the European Union addressed the socio-cultural issues arising as a result of the sports in their policies. The big question on this issue was on commerce versus culture; how the ever increasing and growing professional sport was affecting the cultures and communities social wellbeing of the Europeans and the non-Europeans investing in the commercial sports industry (Gardiner 2006). The impact of this professionalization on individual players who are non-citizens of the EU is evident, as it still has some effects on their country’s commercial football activities.
The legal issues on immigration was also an issue arising in the debates, and the concern was whether the European union’s legal policies and laws of the professional football bodies on immigration were in compatibility with the established laws on immigration. This was an issue the laws were to address, as this commercialization would mean an influx of non-Europeans aiming to earn a living in the European commercialized football as well as investors wanting to invest in the established commercial football clubs (Gardiner & Cagier 2000).
Gardiner & Cagier 2000 went further to note that this commercialization of football, could lead to undesirable intervention of the European law. Increase in commercialization of professional football could impact negatively on the professional sports industry, as it would be difficult to differentiate and incorporate together rules that are economic and those which are on the ‘sporting side’. For example the discrimination which can arise as result of the nationality of a sportsman when it comes to matters like selection of a sportsman in the international team could have negative impacts economically on the individual’s employment as well as the country’s economic gain from the non-national in the professional football industry (McArdle 2000)..
The issue of professional sports bodies within the European Union block to independently regulate their football affairs without much interference from the union’s commercial laws. Gardiner & Cagier 2000, argued that the possibility of these professional bodies being granted the freedom to regulate their affairs by the European Union where extremely low. If these professional bodies were to be given the chance to regulate themselves, probability was high that illegal and controversial matters would be swindled to evade subjection to law therefore their independence from the European Union law was highly unlikely.
Commercialized football sport encounters problems and challenges in complying with laws of the European Union, especially the competition law as noted by Foster who argued that the European Commission in article 81(3) in page sixty, should embrace on its powers and authority to make sure that revenues were redistributed increasingly to the clubs and leagues which were perceived to be weaker. This would be used as a provision of exemptions of those weak clubs in that article.
The European law has affected the commercialization of football in non-member either positively or negatively as discussed below (Gardiner & Cagier 2000).
Positive impacts of the law on non-EU members states
On the positive front, the European law which favors the both citizens and non-citizens of the EU community equally, is consequently beneficial to the non-EU member states. Laws which have positive impacts to all players are more likely to be adopted by non-EU member states.
The EU professional sports policy has adopted relevant means on re-regulating the commercial sporting activities to suit the welfare of both professional players from EU states as well as the non-EU member states. In the context of the European continent, the court of justice of Europe had succinct ruling on sporting organizations such as clubs and federations. It ruled out that these organizations can not act in a way as to breach the legal provisions stipulated in the EU sports law in regard to both countries in the block and those which are non-members. This re-regulation of the commercialized sport has been the force driving the block to achieve and foster an international understanding between the member states and non-member states (Pearson n.d).
Parrish 2003 conducted an extensive study on the regulation of the European sports law on commercial sporting activities and concluded that its main aim was to provide a free European sports market to both countries affiliated to the union as well as those which are not. The regulation was also meant to cultivate a positive impact on socio-cultural aspect of the professionalized sport. Parrish 2003 also confirmed that the internalization of the legal norms and practices regulating the sport resulted to minimal interferences from other external legal intercessions and government policies on the regulation of the sport.
This internal regulation of sports bodies in the EU has had an impact on the business football outside the EU block in several ways; for instance in the American and African continents, professional football has taken into the footsteps of Europe. Professional football clubs have emerged to the level of European clubs, in order to compete effectively and internationally (Parrish 2003). A good example is the Los Angeles Galaxy football club in United States of America, which has risen to the height to have transfer agreements with first class clubs in Europe like the Italy’s Ac Milan football club. In this case, an international player (David Beckham) was transferred on loan between the two clubs in an agreement. One club being on the EU block while the being outside the block, had the agreement easily effected as the clubs had their own internal decision-making organs, which were not having the intervention of larger bodies like the EU of FIFA. This flexibility on international professional club transfers has had a great impact on promoting the development of professional football in countries outside the EU block. Gardiner 2006 noted that many clubs out of EU are benefiting largely as a result of these intercontinental transfers therefore igniting the craving for countries all over the globe to imitate, adopting and initiating commercialized football just as it is in Europe.
The post-Bosman ruling had some impacts on the football transfer system. In the year 2000, the European Union claimed was concerned that football bodies were not adhering to the international system of football transfers on the issue of movement freedom, involving EU countries and non-EU states. Under the Amsterdam treaty, the stakeholders in the union’s sports law arrived to a conclusion that football players could terminate their contracts of employment as they wished and the amount to be paid for compensation was not to be huge (Pearson n.d).
The effect of this ruling on the aspect of the systems legality on foreign players was welcomed by their countries of originality. The ruling in this case of Bosman as made by the court of justice of Europe in 1995, made decisions to abolish the ‘quota systems’ in the European union(Blanpain & Inston 1996). It was also supposed to regulate all the activities of the organizations involved in governing football activities in the member states. Activities of bodies like UEFA competitions were also bound in the ruling even though it had its base in Switzerland, which was a non-EU member in Europe (Pearson n.d).
Abolishment of these illegal transfer systems as well the illegal quota systems which existed prior to the case, led to the proffesionalization of the football sport in Europe, which consequently spread to other countries all over the world, which initiated the move of commercializing their football activities (McArdle 2000).
The integration of the commercial sports model of Europe with other continent’s models, the perspective of the modernized football for business is greatly taking root in non-EU member states. Before such integration moves were initiated in the sports arena in Europe, there was an increasing worry on the increasingly unchecked commercialization as well as high rise in legal intervention from sports governing bodies. All these were posing a grave danger to the cohesion evidenced between the European countries and others outside Europe (Gardiner & Cariger 2000). The American sports model on the other hand was receiving an international rejection; hence there was a concern in Europe to re-establish its sports model in order to the future developments and the sovereignty of the sport globally (Gardiner & Cariger 2000).
Later there were observations in Europe, that attempts were being made on integrating both the European and the American commercial sports systems. For instance a clause in the recent UEFA plan was aimed at abolishing the system of promotion and demotion of clubs playing in the tournaments governed by UEFA. The move to adopt the American style of franchise system in sports, whereby countries could utilize club-relocating was supported globally as the move would make Europe and other countries outside Europe to utilize the opportunity of untapped sports market all over the world. The proposed ‘Atlantic League’ if incorporated could expand the sporting activities of European football clubs even outside the continent. This move could be highly beneficial to other countries outside the EU block in terms of employment and development of the commercialized football (Gardiner & Cariger 2000).
McArdle 2000 seconded by Gardiner & Carriger, all noticed that the professional football sport worldwide, was aimed at ‘profit maximization’, a system which was adopted in the European sports model from the economic model of north America. This system is proving to be economically desirable even to countries outside Europe hence shaping and promoting development of commercial football globally (Blanpain & Inston 1996).
The issue of drugs and doping has been thoroughly addressed by the European Union law on sports. The law has termed drug use on sports as cheating which goes with harsh penalties to the professional involved in the act. This phenomenon has been assimilated in many other countries outside the EU region so as to be able to conduct actions like football transfers between countries. This is a great boost to the development of commercial football in all countries globally (Gardiner & Cagier 2000).
The new tendency of the European Union law on abolishment of the discriminating quota system was a great relief for football players of non-EU originality and their countries of originality. Parrish 2003, after the ruling of Bosman’s case, observed that the European Union sports unit law illegalized any acts of football transfers which had a negative impact on a player or which was contradicting international set policies on the transfers. After the ruling of Bosman case, the benefit was to be not only for players originating from the region but also to all professional football players all over the world. The restrictions on the length of player’s contract in the European clubs were now over, and this meant that players could now prolong or sign for longer contracts in the clubs. The ruling in this case would guarantee players better wages, better terms in their contracts among other benefits. Automatically, their countries of origin would indirectly benefit if its professional players were benefiting abroad. Their incomes would complement their countries income from abroad and this would impact positively on the countries’ concern on commercial football sport (Pearson n.d).
Negative impacts of the law on non-EU member states
A number of negative impacts have been inflicted on football sportsmen from outside the European Union block. Among the most outstanding impact is that one on discrimination in terms of sportsman’s race and/or nationality in employment, access to other resources and violation of their rights(Griffith 1997). Even though this has got a little direct impact on business football, negative impacts are realized on the long run. The quota systems in the European Union is a major concern for professional football players from non-member in the block. Pearson on the Bosman case points out clearly that limits were still imposed on players of non-EU originality (Blanpain & Inston 1996). Prior to the Bosman’s case, the limitations of these quota systems were such that players from outside the EU block were to be limited in participating in certain matches. Parrish 2003 cited the UEFA champion league tournament as an example, whereby not more than three foreign players could play in a specific match. Even though after the case, the quotas were made flexible somehow, some countries have the quotas still operation for foreigners, but secretly or indirectly. This has had negative impacts on the foreign players as well as the professional sports industry in Europe. After the case was ruled out, conclusion was arrived at, that any quota system which discriminating against foreigners playing in a certain club as now illegal (Parrish 2003).
Illegal football transfers also have had a negative effect on the progress and development of commercial football sport in EU as well as in states outside the EU region. Gardiner & Cagier 2000 in their investigations of the cases of ‘Karpin V and Balog T’, established that the European Union commission on professional sports negotiated with the International Football Federation (FIFA) which resulted to the sale of rights of the UEFA champions league to the European Union(Blanpain & Inston 1996). This meant that the latter could not exercise their affairs independently, but with influence from the European Union, whose laws could suit the citizen while violating the rights of sportsmen from countries who are non-members of the EU (Bowyer 2002). This would adversely affect the mutual cooperation between the states in the EU block with those outside the block. The trading agreement between the countries would be hampered as UEFA champions league would have no mandate to safeguard the rights of sportsmen non-EU members therefore laws such as heavy taxation among others were most likely to occur. The consultations between FIFA, European commission and other football authorities were said to be practiced with a lot illegalities in the transfer system and this resulted to the implementation of new regulations by FIFA which were released in Brazil’s Buenos Aires, shortly before circular 769 which was full of controversy as it could give professional footballers freedom to move from any professional football club.
Bowyer 2002 criticized this transfer system arguing that it was full of irregularities and that Europe’s clubs in conjunction with other governing authorities such as the European commission were adamant and reluctant in modifying this transfer system which gave the clubs the power and authority to buy football players and selling them just like worthless ‘pieces of meat’. This system of football transfers was highly detrimental especially to footballers of non-EU origin (Griffith 1997).
Conclusion
In the commercial football industry, laws must be present to govern and regulate all the activities involved so as to create and maintain a balance between the ‘business’ and the ‘sports’ aspects. The European Union law on sports in article 39 entails all football rules which should govern the practices of the sport.
Even though the European Union has got a little role to play in sports, its commercial laws on any commercial body where the modernized professional football takes position in, take effect in regulating this commercialized sport. Its sports unit is only involved in collaborating institutions concerned with sports, as well as football federations. The case of Bosman brought out issues like the E.U’s common market which had got some rights of movement which prohibited professional football players and are citizens of the EU on nationality quotas basis, which is a main blow, not only to sportsmen of non-EU countries, but also citizens of European community. The move by European Union to declare quotas illegal revived the soveighnity of the sport, as it abolished restrictions on foreign players, even though some restriction were still held on footballers from outside the European union block (Pearson n.d).
A need for reforms is then evident to fully professionalize the sport. Therefore the European Union law in its policies and rules on sports has played a great significance in both developing and down turning the progress of commercial football in countries which are out of the EU block.
References
Adams, A 2006, Law for Business Students, Pearson/Longman, London.
Blanpain, R & Inston, R 1996 The Bosman Case, Sweet & Maxwell, London.
Bowyer, L 2002, soccernet England, ESPN.com, Web.
Foster, K 2000 Can Sport Be Regulated by Europe, Cambridge, London.
Gardiner, S & Caiger A, 2000, Professional Sport in the EU: Regulation and Re-Regulation, Asser Press, The Hague.
Gardiner, S 2006 Sports Law, Oxford: Cavendish.
Griffith, D 1997, Law and the Business of Sport, Butterworths, London.
McArdle, D 2000, From Boot Money to Bosman: Football, Society and the Law, Oxford: Cavendish
Parrish R, 2003, Sports Law and Policy in the European Union, Manchester University Press, Manchester City.
Pearson, G ,Factsheet, University of Liverpool FIG, Web.