Annexes to SEC(2011)67 - Analyse d'impact - Document accompagnant la Communication de la Commission au Parlement européen, au Conseil, au Comité économique et social, et au Comité des régions - "Développer la dimension européenne du sport" - Main contents

Please note

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

dossier	SEC(2011)67 - Analyse d'impact - Document accompagnant la Communication de la Commission au Parlement européen, au Conseil, au Comité ...
document	SEC(2011)67
date	January 18, 2011

Annex I: Report on the EU-wide public consultation 39

Annex II: White Paper Implementation table 53

Annex III: The added value of EU action in relation to Health-Enhancing Physical Activity 59
1.Procedural issues and consultations

1.1.Purpose

Article 165 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) gives the EU a new competence for sport. Article 165 calls on the EU to contribute to the promotion of sporting issues and provides that EU action should be aimed at developing the European dimension in sport. It is the Commission's role to develop and propose a suitable initiative to implement these new provisions. The aim of the Impact Assessment is to help prepare this initiative.

1.2.Identification

Lead service: DG EAC.E.3 (Sport Unit).

Other services involved: SG, SJ, DG AIDCO, DG COMM, DG COMP, DG DEV, DG ECFIN, DG EMPL, DG ELARG, DG ENTR, DG ENV, DG ESTAT, DG HOME, DG INFSO, DG MARKT, DG JUST, DG REGIO, DG RTD, DG SANCO, DG RELEX, DG TAXUD.

Commission Work Programme reference number:

2010/EAC/011: Communication on implementation of sport provisions;

Subject: Proposal for the implementation of the sport provisions in Article 165 TFEU.

1.3.Organisation and Timing

Action/Steps	Date
Inter-Service Group "Sport"	19 February 2010
Informal inter-service consultation about online questionnaire	22-26 February
Questionnaire for online consultation approved	10 March
1st meeting of Inter-Service Steering Group for the Impact Assessment – discussion of Impact Assessment Roadmap ¹	26 March
Bilateral consultations with stakeholders	February – June
Launch of public consultation	7 April
European Sport Forum & Informal Ministerial Meeting, Madrid	19-21 April
End of consultation process (8 weeks after launch)	2 June
Analysis of the results of the consultation process	June
Finalisation of draft Impact Assessment Report	30 June
Inter-Service Steering Group meeting on draft Impact Assessment Report	7 July
Submission of Impact Assessment Report to Impact Assessment Board	30 July
Impact Assessment Board meeting	1 September
Impact Assessment Board opinion	3 September
Re-submission of Impact Assessment Report to Impact Assessment Board	27 September
Impact Assessment Board final opinion	11 October

1.4.Re-submission of Impact Assessment report

On 30 July 2010, DG EAC submitted to the Impact Assessment Board (IAB) an Impact Assessment report (IA) for a proposal combining a political Communication and a limited spending programme in the field of sport. Following its meeting on 1 September 2010 the IAB requested to receive a revised draft IA report.

The discussion in the IAB meeting and the comments from the Board revealed that there were important underlying constraints with regard to DG EAC’s proposal for a new spending scheme, i.e. a 2-year EU Sport Programme (2012-2013). An analysis of the situation confirmed that there were three types of constraints:

- Political and budgetary constraints: It is the Commission’s obligation to carefully assess proposals for initiatives that require additional EU spending and to ensure that a proposal is conducive to meeting the EU’s general policy objectives. In the current political and economic context, a cautious approach must be taken regarding the mobilisation of additional financial resources for new policy initiatives within the remaining margins of the ongoing Financial Perspectives 2007-2013. The mere fact of a new Treaty basis for sport is an important but not sufficient justification for a proposal for a two-year EU Sport Programme at this point in time. While there is awareness in the Commission about the high expectations from sport stakeholders regarding financial support from the EU in line with the Treaty reference to “incentive measures” (Art. 165 TFEU), the remaining margin within the relevant budget line, under which the Programme would have been proposed (Heading 3B), is very limited. Thus a reasonable financial volume of the first EU Sport Programme, which would have had the potential of meeting its objectives, could not have been guaranteed. A proposal for a Sport Programme with too small financial resources would have risked not ensuring the achievement of the envisaged programme objectives.

- Substantial constraints: DG EAC’s intended proposal for a two-year EU Sport Programme aimed at financial support for transnational networks in four priority areas, building on projects financed from the 2009 and 2010 Preparatory Actions in the field of sport. Stakeholders’ great interest in such measures could be demonstrated (e.g. through the number of project proposals) and an independent evaluation of the Preparatory Actions is foreseen in 2011. However, no evaluation is available at this stage to justify the EU added value of such measures in an independent manner. An Impact Assessment for a future EU Sport Programme will be carried out drawing on the evaluation of the relevant Preparatory Actions in the field of sport.

- Procedural constraints: Necessary adaptations in the procedural roadmap have caused constraints regarding the possibility for a timely implementation of the proposed two-year Sport Programme as of 2012. Under the most optimistic scenario, the timetable foresaw the adoption of the proposal by the Commission at the very end of 2010. This would have been too risky an approach with a view to the inter-institutional adoption process in the EP and the Council under the ordinary legislative procedure, which may not have allowed for a Decision by the end of 2011.

These three elements have led DG EAC to reconsider its initial plan for a 2010 initiative combining a policy proposal with a spending programme. The initiative of a political Communication is maintained, but no longer includes a proposal for a spending scheme for 2012-2013. The proposed initiative for implementing the new EU competence for sport (Communication) is of a strategic nature. It is a policy measure which demonstrates the Commission’s willingness to meet the high expectations from stakeholders who want to see the EU playing its role in promoting sport in line with the new Lisbon Treaty provisions on sport.

According to the Board's observations and taking account of its recommendations, DG EAC submitted the present revised IA on 27 September. The revised report in particular aims at better demonstrating where the EU can add value to sport policy making (chapters 2 and 3). It identifies key challenges in 7 areas in the context of large disparities among the Member States. It also identifies suitable objectives that, in line with the new Treaty mandate, provide for policy support and coordination to address these challenges. To further clarify the choice of the proposed initiative (Communication providing for an EU framework for cooperation in sport), the available policy options (chapter 4) have been explained in greater detail and reduced to three choices, which has been mirrored in the assessment and comparison of the options (chapter 5). Three options are considered to be the only relevant policy choices following the decision not to propose any funding scheme at this stage. The assessment of the policy options has been significantly deepened based on four criteria: impacts, efficiency, effectiveness and coherence. Finally, a shortened summary of the consultation process has been annexed, the essence of which has been integrated into this IA report.

On 11 October the Board issued its opinion on the re-submitted report. Overall the Board was satisfied with the quality of the report and the introduced changes. It explicitly welcomed the fact that no Programme would be proposed at this stage. The Board asked for some additional minor changes in the report that have been addressed in the present final version as follows: insertion of an annex (Annex III) to illustrate the added value of EU action relating to health-enhancing physical activity, in particular by showing disparities among the Member States (point C.1 of the Board's opinion), inclusion of additional information regarding Member States' positions in the annexed consultation document (Annex I) and verification of the quotes made therein (point C.2), further clarification on monitoring and development of indicators (point C.3), and insertion of additional cross-references to the consultation process in the main document (point D).

1.5.Background

The Lisbon Treaty gives the EU an explicit competence for sport for the first time, which has several implications including new formal structures for sport in the Council and a mandate to promote sport at EU level. The new EU competence for sport has triggered high expectations on the side of sport stakeholders, who since the inclusion of sport in the draft Constitutional Treaty have eagerly waited to see their interests better promoted and the specific nature of the sport sector increasingly recognised at EU level.^²

Before the new competence entered into force, EU level activities in the field of sport were carried out solely on the basis of other Treaty provisions. Over the past years, cooperation in sport with the Member States took place exclusively on an informal basis. The Commission also developed a structured dialogue with the sport movement. These structures have proven to be very useful for the implementation of the Commission's 2007 White Paper on Sport^³.

Due to its societal and economic dimensions^⁴ and its complex organisational structures, sport is a sector that shows synergies or links with many other EU policy areas. It appears, however, that the EU’s potential, through interaction of its different policy areas, to support the sport sector in playing its part in Europe's society and economy, has not been fully used. The new EU competence for sport provides an opportunity to address these aspects and to thereby ensure that the positive effects of sport are of greater benefit for EU citizens and for European society as a whole.

The basis for this Impact Assessment are the new provisions for sport enshrined in Article 165 TFEU, the experience gained with the preparation and implementation of the White Paper on Sport, the ongoing Preparatory Actions in the field of sport launched in 2009 and 2010, and a broad consultation process carried out during the preparatory phase for the planned initiative in the first half of 2010. These elements are outlined in more detail in sections 1.6 and 1.7 below.

1.6.Main sources of evidence

The new Treaty provisions on sport (Article 165 TFEU) foresee a competence providing for supportive, coordinating and supplementary measures. They give clear indications for the scope of EU action and for the nature of actions to be proposed within the planned EU initiative (see section 3.3). The new Treaty mandate also provides for the objectives that the planned initiative in the field of sport is aiming to achieve and which are addressed accordingly in this Impact Assessment (see chapter 3).

The proposed EU initiative for which this Impact Assessment has been carried out builds on the 2007 White Paper on sport, which introduced a first informal setting for EU cooperation in sport and which was accompanied by an Action Plan "Pierre de Coubertin" that engaged the Commission.^⁵ The implementation of the 53 Actions has required close cooperation with the Member States and sport stakeholders and has meanwhile almost been accomplished. The White Paper actions had been solely based on soft policy measures (e.g. exchange of good practices, mainstreaming, studies, conferences) and aimed at paving the way for the then already expected entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty (Art. 165 TFEU).

The actions included in the "Pierre de Coubertin" Action Plan relate to sport's societal and economic dimensions and to its organisation. They cover a broad range of topics which are relevant for the Impact Assessment exercise and the content of the planned EU initiative in the field of sport. They include studies on specific sport-related themes that have been commissioned by either the Sport Unit (DG EAC) or by other units and Directorates-General, notably a study on the training of young sportsmen and sportswomen in Europe^⁶, a study on sports agents^⁷, a study on volunteering in the EU^⁸, a study on internal market barriers to sport funding^⁹ (ongoing), a study on the equal treatment of non-nationals in individual sport competitions^¹⁰ (ongoing), and a study on sport's contribution to economic growth and employment^¹¹ (to be launched in 2010). They also include views of the general public that were gathered in 2009 through a special Eurobarometer survey on sport and physical activity^¹². They furthermore include specialised EU conferences in the field of sport, notably an EU Conference on Anti-Doping (May 2009), an EU Conference on Licensing Systems for Club Competitions (September 2009), and an EU Conference on sustainable funding models for grassroots sports in the Internal Market (February 2010).^¹³ The actions foreseen in the White Paper have allowed for progress in specific areas where a high degree of consensus emerged for further action, such as the area of sport and health where the Commission can capitalise on the 2008 EU Physical Activity Guidelines^¹⁴.

Many of the focal areas addressed in the White Paper on Sport have been developed more in-depth in six informal EU Working Groups in the fields of "Sport and Health", "Sport and Economics", "Non-profit sport organisations", "Anti-doping", "Education and Training in Sport" and "Social Inclusion and Equal Opportunities in Sport".^¹⁵ The progress achieved by the experts in these working groups, led by the Commission's Sport Unit, has been regularly reported to Member State Sport Directors and Sport Ministers.

In addition, the consultation process for the 2010 initiative has revealed that there are new developments and challenges inside and outside sport that may require EU level action in areas not yet sufficiently covered in the 2007 White Paper (e.g. in the field of sport information or regarding the specific nature of sport), or areas where no specific action was taken, such as certain financing-related aspects (e.g. intellectual property rights).

The 2009 and 2010 Preparatory Actions in the field of sport^¹⁶ focus on areas that have been identified in the cooperation process with governmental and non-governmental stakeholders over the past years as relevant for possible future EU funding. They cover the areas of health-enhancing physical activity, gender and sport, sport for people with disabilities, education and training in sport, anti-doping, social inclusion of migrants in and through sport, and volunteering in sport. Calls for proposals launched in these fields are aimed at testing suitable transnational networks and actions for possible support through a future EU Sport Programme. The number of submitted proposals demonstrates the strong interest of stakeholders to get involved in transnational cooperation in sport. An evaluation will be carried out in 2011 and should provide an evidence base for assessing the added value which EU financial support can bring to sport. The results from this evaluation will feed into an Impact Assessment in 2011 for a possible EU Sport Programme as of 2014.

1.7.Consultations

To prepare the planned 2010 EU initiative in the field of sport, the Commission carried out broad consultations involving the Member States, the sport movement and other sport stakeholders, experts as well as the public at large. Given sport's horizontal nature, it also ensured a closely coordinated approach with all concerned Commission services. The consultations covered both policy aspects of sport at EU level and aspects related to a possible future Sport Programme. A report on these consultations is attached to this Impact Assessment.

(a) Member States:

- Informal meeting of EU Sport Directors (Barcelona, 25-26 February 2010);

- Informal meeting of EU Ministers responsible for sport (Madrid, 20-21 April 2010);

- First formal meeting of EU Ministers responsible for sport in the Council (Brussels, 10 May 2010), prepared by the first meeting of the Council Working Party on Sport (Brussels, 6 April 2010);

- Meetings of the informal EU Working Groups in the field of sport:

- Member State Working Group on the White Paper on Sport (3 February 2010)
- EU Working Group on Sport and Health (30 June 2010)
- EU Working Group on Anti-Doping (14 January and 27 May 2010)
- EU Working Group on Sport and Economics (10-11 June 2010)
- EU Working Group on Non-Profit Sport Organisations (17 February 2010)
- EU Working Group on Education and Training in Sport (19-10 May 2010)
- EU Working Group on Social Integration and Gender Equality in Sport (8 July 2010).

(b) Sport stakeholders:

- The EU Sport Forum, which constitutes the main dialogue platform between the Commission and key sport stakeholders, was organised the second time in 2010 (Madrid, 19-20 April) with discussions focussing on the implementation of the sport provisions in the Lisbon Treaty;

- Bilateral und multilateral discussions took place with targeted stakeholders such as European Sport Federations, the European Olympic Committees, other European umbrella organisations for sport, national umbrella organisations for sport, national Olympic and Paralympic committees, other actors in the field of sport at European level, social partners, and other international and European organisations such as the International Olympic Committee and international federations.

(c) Relevant international organisations:

- Council of Europe;

- World Health Organisation, UNESCO.

(d) The general public:^¹⁷

- A public on-line consultation was conducted during the second quarter of 2010 (7 April - 2 June). The online questionnaire was divided into two parts: "Addressing key challenges for sport in Europe" (Part I) and "Identifying policy priorities for EU action" (Part II). Public interest in this consultation was high and the response rate considerable (more than 1,300 valid submissions).

- In addition to the online consultation, the Commission received 48 position papers related to the consultation process, mainly from sport organisations, but also from Member States. The majority of these contributions provided high-quality input for sport-specific topics ranging from health-related issues over aspects relating to education in sport to governance questions. However, they also reflected issues, which are not part of the EU's mandate as defined in Article 165 TFEU.

- The outcomes of this public consultation exercise, including the list and the full text of submitted position papers, were published on the Sport Unit's website on 28 July: http://ec.europa.eu/sport/index_en.htm

(e) Group of Independent Sport Experts:

- Ten well-known independent experts with proven experience in the area of sport and the EU were consulted on the implementation of the new Treaty provisions on sport. The Group met twice. The final report was submitted to Commissioner Vassiliou in mid-September and published on the Sport Unit's website.

(f) Relevant services within the European Commission:

- An Inter-Service Steering Group for the Impact Assessment (ISSG) was established on the basis of the existing Inter-Service Group "Sport" which comprises the following services: SG, SJ, AIDCO, COMM, COMP, DEV, ECFIN, ELARG, EMPL, ENTR, ENV, ESTAT, INFSO, JLS (now JUST and HOME), MARKT, REGIO, RELEX, RTD, SANCO, TAXUD. The ISSG met twice, to launch the Impact Assessment process and to discuss the Impact Assessment Roadmap (26 March 2010) and to discuss the draft Impact Assessment Report (7 July 2010).

- Bilateral consultations have taken place between the leading service (EAC) and the main concerned services with responsibilities in the field of sport, notably COMP, EMPL, HOME, JUST, MARKT, and SANCO.
2.Problem definition

This chapter identifies the main challenges in the field of sport based on the experience gained in EU level cooperation in sport over the past years and more particularly taking account of the results of the consultation process. These are areas where coordinated EU action is currently considered insufficient. The delineation of the problems takes account of the Treaty mandate. This chapter begins with a short summary of the nature and scope of the problems in light of their relevance for EU-level action.

2.1.Nature and scope of problems

Most of the challenges and threats that sport is currently facing are related to the problems (A-G) identified hereafter. The degree to which individual Member States benefit from the positive values and effects of sport or cope with the identified threats to sport varies widely from one Member State to the other. Many of the problems have a cross-border dimension; some are of a global nature and they cannot be efficiently solved at national level. It therefore appears that the EU could play its part in helping the Member States and the sport sector to address the challenges identified, in particular through:

- increased policy support from the EU level, in particular to enhance mutual learning and to build knowledge;

- better policy coordination among the Member States;

- measures supplementing already existing policies and actions at national level to increase their positive impact.

A general problem, however, seems to relate to the fact that there is to date no defined framework for EU-level cooperation in sport to address the identified challenges in a structured, comprehensive and future-oriented way. No strategic approach exists that would engage the Commission and the Member States on the basis of a common agenda^¹⁸ and that would be able to integrate sport’s cross-cutting nature.

2.2.Main challenges

A) Challenges connected with sport's health-enhancing, social and educational functions

- H ealth concerns due to lack of physical activity

According to a 2004 Eurobarometer survey, a large majority of EU citizens (78%) cite the improvement of health as the principal benefit of sport.^¹⁹ The latest Eurobarometer survey^²⁰, however, shows that 39% of respondents never do physical exercise. The linkage to the school environment is likely to be one critical factor in this context. Studies show that the role of sport and physical activity in education is declining, leading to health-related impacts especially on the younger generation^²¹. The problems of overweight and obesity are growing in the EU. They reduce the quality of life, put individuals' lives at risk and are a burden on health budgets and the economy. In the public consultation process in 2010, stakeholders expressed the view that, like all governmental actors at local, national, European and international level, the EU has to make a contribution to efforts aimed at counteracting the current trend^²². The concept of health-enhancing physical activity (HEPA) seeks to address the problem. Some achievements have already been made but they need to be supported in a more targeted way. The 2008 EU Physical Activity Guidelines, developed in the EU Working Group “Sport and Health” and informally endorsed by EU Ministers responsible for sport, define how policies and practices of actors (public and private) at all levels (EU, national, local) can be used to make it easier for citizens to move more in their daily lives. However, interest in this approach among different Member States and different sport organisations has been uneven. Generally, Member States that have the lowest level of physical activity have been the least active in the informal cooperation structures on HEPA. And sport organisations often do not reflect on the balance, within their structures and activities, between competitive and non-competitive activities, between what they offer to talented people with high sportive ambitions and what they offer to the general population. Local networks with different types of actors – schools, parents, sport clubs, other associations – can explore new forms of cooperation, but this is not yet the case in many Member States or regions. The linkage of local networks through EU-wide networks is currently being tested with limited EU funding^²³.

- Social exclusion of disadvantaged groups and unused potential of sport

The potential of sport in relation to social inclusion and equal opportunities has not been sufficiently implemented in national and EU policy-making, as confirmed by stakeholders in the public consultation carried out in preparation of this initiative and within the EU Working Group “Social Inclusion and Equal Opportunities in Sport”. The rights of people with disabilities need further attention in the field of sport. Sport infrastructure is not developed and accessible for these groups throughout Europe. Training of monitors and volunteers for European sport events for people with disabilities is often lacking and European organisational structures are still in development. The popularity of sport and its social value are hardly used in specific integration-related programmes for immigrants or in programmes which could help reach the aims of full citizenship and prevent people’s exclusion from society. Participation in organised sport, which could prevent people from social exclusion in communities, is especially low among disadvantaged groups.^²⁴ The participation rates of women and girls in sport are not in balance with those of men and boys. Sport and its media coverage contribute to gender stereotypes throughout Europe. Moreover, the number of women in leadership positions in European and national sport governing bodies is still very limited.

- Unadapted systems to combine sport and education

Governmental and non-governmental sport stakeholders, most recently in the public consultation carried out in the first half of 2010 and in the EU Working Group “Education and Training in Sport”, have regularly expressed concern about the fact that the contribution of sport and physical education to educational objectives and the prevention of early school leaving is often not, or not sufficiently, recognised. Higher levels of EU mobility and a lack of qualified coaches and trainers in the sport sector increase the relevance of compatible qualification systems for sport professions, as confirmed by sport organisations in their written contributions to the planned initiative. The required training intensity for young talented sportspeople today makes it very difficult to ensure their school education (i.e. a "dual career"), which is particularly true for talented athletes who practise mainly abroad.^²⁵ Sport programmes for talented youth are often not open for people from outside the relevant Member State and quality standards are not transparent.

B) Challenges for sustainable sport structures

- Insufficient support for voluntary activity

Volunteering in sport has a long tradition in most but not all parts of Europe. According to the 2009 EU study on volunteering, up to 16% of the adult population volunteer in sport in the Nordic countries, while in some Eastern Member States structures for volunteering are much less developed. Experience from the majority of Member States has shown that voluntary activity is vital for running sport activities and managing sport structures, local sport clubs in particular. It helps ensuring that sport can be offered to all citizens and remains accessible for all. The study on volunteering and the exchange of views between Member States in the EU Working Group “Non-profit sport organisations” confirm challenges with regard to voluntary activity in sport in social terms (e.g. lack of recognition; lack of qualifications to ensure better employability; dominance of male volunteers), political terms (e.g. lack of national strategies), legal terms (e.g. lack of specific legal frameworks; unclear tax regimes) and economic terms^²⁶ (e.g. funding needs for local sport clubs; under-estimated economic value). Stakeholders participating in the public consultation called for increased support at EU level to address such challenges.

- Discrepancies between developments in gambling markets and the financing of sport

The organisation of gambling services, including those run by private operators and those run or licensed by the State, directly or indirectly contribute to the financing of sport activities in all EU Member States. Ongoing developments in gambling markets and changing national regulatory frameworks for gambling have led to perceived challenges on the side of governmental and non-governmental sport stakeholders with regard to sustainable income streams from gambling activities into sport. Stakeholders have pointed out the need to address the financial return for sport, especially grassroots sport, from the organisation of sport betting activities.

- Inadequate protection of intellectual property rights

Sports-related intellectual property rights (IPRs) are an essential source of income for professional sport. Representatives of professional sport supported by many EU governments have repeatedly called on the EU to ensure better protection of these rights, including in the form of written submissions to the consultations carried out in preparation of the planned initiative. The main questions concern the protection of IPRs from unauthorised use, the maintenance of practices based on exclusive territorial licensing and the balancing between the sale of media rights and the public's right to information. In connection with IPR, the issue of defining a property right for the organisers of sport competitions in relation to the event they organise while ensuring the right of the public to information deserves to be further examined.

C) Doping threatening the physical and moral integrity of sportspeople

Article 165 TFEU specifically requires the EU to protect the physical and moral integrity of athletes. The integrity of sportspeople is endangered by the doping phenomenon. Doping is a threat to European sport and European society alike. The fight against doping has therefore been dealt with as a priority topic in the informal cooperation on sport and in the EU Working Group “Anti-Doping”. Many organisations are dealing with doping as a problem in high-level sports, including the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), national and regional anti-doping organisations, WADA-accredited laboratories in the EU, the Council of Europe and UNESCO. In relation to these organisations, the EU tends to get involved because EU law protects the individual rights of athletes and players. In spite of considerable efforts from the mentioned institutions, doping remains a key problem in high-level sport. In recent years, doping practices have spread most rapidly in amateur sport and fitness, which are almost not covered by anti-doping efforts in many Member States.

D) Discrimination in sport on grounds of nationality

While the Treaties prohibit discrimination based on nationality and enshrine the principle of free movement of workers, the European Court of Justice has taken into account the need to preserve certain specific characteristics of sport in past rulings dealing with the composition of national teams, deadlines for transfer rules for players in team sport competitions and compensation for recruitment and training of young players. However, free movement rules do not only apply to professional players: since the entry into force of the TFEU, any discrimination on grounds of nationality is prohibited within the scope of application of the Treaties, which now includes amateur sport. A number of cases brought to the attention of the Commission and repeated calls for legal clarity from the sport movement indicate that there are restrictions on access to sport activities and/or sports competitions in some Member States and in various sports.

E) Unused scope for improving EU-level dialogue on sport

Dialogue and cooperation involving sport stakeholders at international, European and national levels are a key condition for the success of the EU's dealings with sport and related policy processes. Given the specific organisation of sport, the diversity of actors in sport and the complexity of the topics to be addressed, the organisation of a balanced dialogue at EU level is a challenging task. The European Council in its 2008 Declaration on Sport called for further strengthening dialogue with the Olympic and sport movement at EU level. As a follow-up, the Olympic and sport movement and EU Member States in the informal and formal structures for sport have made concrete proposals for a strengthened dialogue structure. While the EU Sport Forum, run by the Commission, is a widely accepted platform for dialogue with the main European sport stakeholders, thorough reflection is needed as to how a regular high-level dialogue on sport between the EU institutional level and the sport movement, including the Olympic movement, could be structured to remain efficient, representative and inclusive.

F) Perceived lack of legal clarity regarding the application of EU law to sport

A perceived lack of clarity on the application of EU law to sport, Internal Market and Competition provisions in particular, have led sport stakeholders to repeatedly call for more certainty and increased guidance from the Commission. Such requests have increased in light of the new Treaty provisions that call on the EU to take account of sport’s specific nature when promoting European sporting issues. While the White Paper on Sport has already provided comprehensive explanations on the application of EU law to sport, stakeholders claim that this was not sufficient, in particular as regards the application of the Treaty provisions and secondary law to sport in fields such as anti-trust, State aid, free movement of workers and services, and value-added tax, and relating to both professional and amateur sport.

G) Insufficient information on sport for the EU-27

Sound, accurate and comparable data and information on sport for EU-27 are scarce. Developing a new policy area without such parameters is difficult and often delicate, since it has to be based on assumptions. Policy making in sport at national and EU level would considerably benefit from a better knowledge base, allowing decision-makers to take informed decisions. EU Sport Ministers, including in the new Council structures, and sport stakeholders have repeatedly called on the Commission to provide EU-wide data in socially (e.g. participation) or economically (e.g. growth and employment in sport) oriented issues. While work has started among a group of 12 Member States within the EU Working Group on Sport & Economics to measure the macro-economic impact of sport, no full picture for the EU-27 will be available in the short term. Eurostat has not yet been involved in providing specific statistics on sport. In light of the new Treaty competence for sport, this should change in the years to come.
3.Objectives

This chapter identifies the general and specific objectives of the planned EU initiative in the field of sport in response to the challenges identified in Chapter 2. It describes the added value that EU involvement should seek to provide, and it defines the target groups that the initiative aims to reach.

3.1.General objectives

The planned initiative should aim at making a contribution to the EU’s overarching objectives laid down in the Europe 2020 strategy in terms of sustainable growth, fighting unemployment, reinforcing social inclusion and advancing people’s Europe. The specific objectives listed hereunder (points A, B, E and G) are of relevance in this respect. Moreover, through action relating to objectives under point A), the initiative should make a contribution to the fulfilment of some of the key objectives of the EU Health Strategy 2008-2013^²⁷.

The new Treaty basis provides the opportunity to develop the European dimension in sport in a new policy context. The planned EU initiative should aim at providing the Commission and the Member States with a strategic framework as a basis for EU level activities in the field of sport that could foresee actions to be carried out on the basis of article 165 TFEU in connection, or not, with other Treaty provisions but in full respect, always, of the fundamental principles provided in the Treaty. Such an EU framework should be coherent and closely coordinated with EU policies and programmes in areas that relate to sport, such as health, education and training, youth, regional development and cohesion, social inclusion, employment, citizenship, justice, home affairs, research, as well as internal market and competition. The framework should help the sport sector to play its part in contributing to the EU’s overall objectives, in particular the Europe 2020 strategy.

3.2.Specific objectives

The initiative seeks to address the challenges identified in section 2.2 by defining actions with clear EU added value in line with the experience gained from informal cooperation in sport and the 2010 consultation exercise. The main specific objectives that the initiative seeks to achieve result directly from the Treaty mandate (Article 165 TFEU).

A) Promote the health-enhancing, social and educational functions of sport

The initiative should put a strong focus on promoting the health-enhancing, social inclusion and educational functions of sport by providing for new actions where EU involvement is considered beneficial and of added value. The initiative should in particular facilitate policy approaches that identify best practice examples and that address the existing disparities between the Member States in order to lead to:

- more health-enhancing physical activity in Europe as a result of policies that make it easier for citizens to move more in their daily lives;

- more participation of disadvantaged group in (organised) sport; better access to sport for persons with disabilities, more gender equality in sport, better integration of and respect for disadvantaged groups in communities through sport activities and events;

- increased physical activity in formal and non-formal education, a dual career environment for talented sportspeople, and increased transparency of qualifications in sport furthering European mobility in sport.

B) Support sport structures based on voluntary activity

The initiative should seek to develop policy approaches and actions that contribute to sustainable sport structures in EU Member States. These should include in particular policy support to

- promote voluntary activity in sport based inter alia on the outcomes of the EU study on volunteering;

- contribute to a more sustainable financing for grassroots sport based inter alia on the outcomes of the EU study on internal market barriers to sport funding and in relation to planned EU level initiatives in the field of gambling;

- better protect sport-related intellectual property rights in light of the EU Digital Agenda initiative while ensuring the right to access to information;

- further strengthen solidarity mechanisms within sports (e.g. from top level to grassroots sport).

C) Protect the physical and moral integrity of sportspeople

The initiative should pave the way for the Commission and the Member States to join forces in the fight against doping and should contribute to the protection of the health and well-being of athletes. The initiative should in particular support the emergence of consistent anti-doping policies and actions at national and European level and in international fora (WADA, CoE and UNESCO). This should include support for the exchange of good practices between relevant actors, including preventive measures targeting amateur sport and fitness. A particular focus should be on cooperation with national data protection authorities.

D) Promote fairness and openness in sporting competitions

The initiative should aim at developing policy approaches and actions to contribute to fairer and more open sport competitions. This should include in particular the free movement of professional and amateur sportspeople, where the initiative should provide for continued monitoring of compliance with the EU legal framework while also taking account of the specific nature of sport.

E) Enhance dialogue and cooperation with sport stakeholders

The initiative should aim at contributing to efficient and inclusive dialogue and cooperation in sport at European level by providing appropriate EU level structures. The initiative should in particular ensure a strengthening of the existing structured dialogue with sport stakeholders by committing to the EU Sport Forum as the key annual platform for dialogue and exchange and by proposing a high-level structured cooperation between the Olympic and sport movement and the EU institutions.

F) Increase understanding of the application of EU law to sport

To address calls from stakeholders for more legal clarity regarding the application of EU law to sport, the initiative should aim at identifying areas where the Commission could provide guidance with the aim of increasing understanding on the side of sport stakeholders. The initiative should in particular provide for limited, but structured future assistance for Member States and sport stakeholders aimed at guidance on the interpretation of the specific nature of sport. Possible areas could be the reconciliation of provisions on nationality with the organisation of competitions in individual sports on a national basis, transfers in team sports, the application of state aid law to sport, or the application of the VAT regime to sport.

G) Support an evidence base for sport in the EU-27

The initiative should seek to strengthen the knowledge base about sport in the EU in order to facilitate informed policy decisions at European, national, regional and local levels and to support sport organisations and other interested stakeholders in their activities. The initiative should support enhanced cooperation and exchange of best practices involving e.g. academics, the sport industry, the sport movement and public authorities. The initiative should also support ongoing work led by the Commission aimed at measuring the economic impact of sport, and it should pave the way for including sport in the EU's annual statistical programme. The possibility of establishing a sport monitoring function in the EU should be studied.

3.3.EU added value and subsidiarity

The EU's right to act in the field of sport is explicitly set out in Article 165 TFEU. According to Article 6 TFEU, Union action in the field of sport should consist of measures to support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States. Regarding the scope of EU action, the main task according to the Treaty is the promotion of European sporting issues and the development of the European dimension in sport. Article 165 TFEU provides for the adoption of incentive measures, while any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member States is excluded. It also provides for the adoption of Council Recommendations further to a proposal by the Commission. The new provisions do not detract from the application of fundamental Treaty provisions, such as EU Internal Market rules, to sport.

The architecture of the EU initiative will be designed according to this mandate, including the possibility of Council Recommendations, and in full respect of the underlying legal framework provided by the Treaty with relevance for sport.^²⁸ The initiative should contribute to complementarity, synergy and compatibility with relevant EU policies and programmes.

Since Member States retain their full competence in the field of sport, the EU initiative will not substitute the actions of the Member States but propose action in full respect of subsidiarity requirements and in areas where experience (e.g. from implementing the White Paper) has demonstrated that progress in addressing the challenges identified cannot be sufficiently achieved by Member States in the framework of their national constitutional systems. Furthermore, no action will be envisaged that would be in conflict with the fundamental principle of the autonomy of sport organisations and representative structures.

In view of the large disparities among the Member States in the sport sector, European added value will mainly be achieved through the identification and dissemination of good practices and support networking. The EU will act as a catalyst in order to increase the impact of national actions in the interest of sport. The initiative will allow for the development of activities that establish links between different organisations and actors in and outside sport, including in particular public authorities at European, national, regional and local levels, sport organisations, sport-related organisations, educational bodies, and which lead to the exchange of know-how and good practices in different areas relating to sport and physical activity (e.g. health, education, social inclusion). This will contribute to the identification of innovative solutions to address challenges common to several Member States. It will also be a tool to promote the creation and development of European networks in the field of sport. The EU can thereby provide opportunities for cooperation among stakeholders that would not have existed without EU action. Existing disparities between Member States can thereby be addressed. In addition, the global or transnational nature of some of the problems identified exceeds the capacity of action of each individual Member State and can better be addressed at EU level.^²⁹

The planned EU initiative will not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the defined objectives. It takes account of proportionality requirements and the Treaty mandate, which excludes harmonisation and only provides for "soft" tools for EU-level action. The initiative, in line with Article 165 TFEU, does not have a regulatory objective. It will be implemented on the basis of existing national and European structures. The initiative will be designed to simplify and improve existing regulation in order to reinforce rule compliance and effectiveness in line with the EU proportionality principle.

3.4.Target groups

- Member States’ public authorities (national, regional, local levels);
- International sport organisations (International Olympic Committee, international sport federations and other international sport organisations, including leagues, professional sport organisations, amateur sport organisations and leisure and outdoor activity organisations);
- European sport organisations (European Olympic Committees, European sport federations and other European sport organisations, including leagues, professional sport organisations, amateur sport organisations and leisure and outdoor activity organisations);
- National sport organisations (National Olympic Committees, confederations, federations, regional organisations, leagues, clubs etc.);
- Other European sport-related organisations (e.g. in the fields of education, media, sporting goods);
- International and European organisations, such as the Council of Europe, the WHO, WADA and UNESCO;
- Organisations representing employees in the sport sector;
- Organisations representing sportspeople and support staff (trainers, coaches, volunteers, …);
- Citizens at large (e.g. minority groups, pupils, students, seniors, etc.).
4.Policy options

The following policy options represent the toolsets that can be used to address the problems identified in Chapter 2 and to seek the objectives outlined in Chapter 3. They are coherent with the Treaty mandate to support, coordinate and supplement the actions of the Member States. No new financial incentives will be proposed under any of these options.^³⁰

Option A: Cooperation based on the 2007 White Paper on Sport (Baseline scenario)

Nature of the tool: ^³¹

- Loose cooperation format; continuation of informal EU level cooperation with the Member States and of dialogue with sport stakeholders on the basis of the activities developed through the implementation of the White Paper (Action Plan "Pierre de Coubertin");

- No new policy actions; no new structured EU level agenda for informal cooperation and formal discussion in the Council.

Description of policy actions:

- Finalisation of the implementation of the Action Plan "Pierre de Coubertin" (few remaining soft-policy measures engaging the Commission);

- Continuation of ongoing EU level activities will be limited and will include: support through the exchange of views and best practices with Member States according to an ad-hoc agenda, experts’ cooperation within the six informal Commission-led Working Groups^³², the provision of a platform for stakeholder involvement, mainstreaming of sport in EU programmes and funds, monitoring of compliance with EU law (e.g. free movement of workers).

Focus areas: Topics should be in line with the three main strands of action identified in the White Paper (sport’s social role, economic dimension, organisation), and focus on those areas where informal cooperation has been most fruitful, i.e. promotion of health-enhancing physical activity, of education and training in sport, of social inclusion in and through sport, and of volunteering; the fight against doping; the development of an evidence-base.

Option B: Definition of a strategic medium-term framework for cooperation in sport, based on a new EU Agenda for sport (Framework + new Agenda)

Nature of the tool:

- Strategic EU framework for cooperation in sport as a basis for the identification of medium-term priorities;

- New EU Agenda for action in the field of sport involving cooperation with Member States, sport organisations, international bodies, third countries and other interested stakeholders. No compulsory targets will be defined; action will be mainly based on exchange of good practices and mutual learning.

Description of policy actions:

- Building on the activities developed on the basis of the White Paper on Sport, proposal for a strategic EU framework for cooperation in sport for endorsement by the Council, which is designed to support Member States' policies through the definition of medium-term objectives and through a new EU Agenda providing for actions engaging the Commission and the Member States in their respective spheres of competence.

- Actions in the new EU Agenda provide inter alia for

- support for policy-making processes and for the development of new policy initiatives through “knowledge building” (e.g. surveys / studies / analysis / legal guidance for specific areas; development of an evidence-base, such as Eurobarometer surveys and EU Sport Fact Sheets) and “knowledge-sharing” (e.g. exchange of best practices; conferences / workshops / expert meetings for specific areas; an annual EU Sport Forum as the main platform for stakeholder involvement);

- coordinated approaches in some selected areas (e.g. role for the EU in the fight against doping);

- the adoption of Council outputs in areas where sufficient progress could be achieved (e.g. Council Recommendations based on the EU Physical Activity Guidelines);

- continued mainstreaming of sport into EU programmes / funds and increased synergies with other EU policies relating to sport (e.g. health, education, internal market).

Focus areas: Topics for the new EU Agenda should include all those areas identified by stakeholders in the 2010 consultation process that are relevant for EU level action, including new themes that have not yet been addressed in informal and formal EU discussion on sport, i.e. health-enhancing physical activity; education in sport; social inclusion in and through sport; voluntary activity in sport; financing of sport (incl. gambling, IPR); the fight against doping in sport; free movement and nationality of sportspeople; clarification on the application of EU law to sport; enhanced dialogue with sport stakeholders; sport information/evidence-base.

Option C: Definition of a strategic long-term policy framework, based on the creation of an Open Method of Coordination in the field of sport (Long-term framework + OMC)

Nature of the tool:

- Long-term framework for EU policy-making in sport (as a basis for identification of long-term priorities) with defined policy cycles and annual updates involving Member States, sport organisations, international bodies, third countries and other interested stakeholders;

- Creation of an OMC for selected sport topics providing for strongly coordinated policy actions (incl. definition of common targets, indicators, monitoring and reporting requirements for Member States).

Description of policy actions:

- Building on the activities developed on the basis of the White Paper on Sport, proposal for a strategic framework for EU policy making in sport for endorsement by the Council, designed to coordinate Member States' policies and actions through the definition of common longer-term objectives within multi-annual policy cycles;

- Following the priorities defined by the Council for implementing the policy framework, creation of an OMC for selected areas within the multi-annual work programme.

Focus areas: An OMC at this stage appears most realistic for health-enhancing physical activity, dual careers, social inclusion, volunteering and anti-doping.
5.Analysis of impacts

This chapter identifies the likely economic, social and environmental impacts of the planned actions of the EU initiative in light of the different policy options (section 5.1), based on which a short assessment of the most important impacts is carried out (section 5.2, table 2). The latter feeds into the assessment of the efficiency of the options, which considers the correlation between inputs, in terms of human resources, and desired impacts (section 5.3, table 3). The following section (section 5.4, table 4) assesses the effectiveness of each option to reach the objectives defined in Chapter 3. The coherence of the options with regard to the EU’s policy objectives is assessed in the final section (section 5.5, table 5).

5.1.Economic, social and environmental impacts

5.1.1.Option A (Baseline scenario)

Activities carried out on the basis of the White Paper on Sport have only had indirect economic impact until today.^³³ The continuation of the policy activities until 2012 and the finalisation of the few remaining actions of the Action Plan "Pierre de Coubertin" within the informal EU cooperation and dialogue structures for sport therefore cannot be expected to change this assessment. Without new EU action the expected innovation potential inherent to sport will not be used to the benefit of many of the target groups mentioned in section 3.4 and the opportunity to encourage the sector’s contribution to the EU’s economic ambitions will be missed. Considering social impact, activities carried out on the basis of the White Paper on Sport until today have forged more regular and structured cooperation in sport at EU level, on the basis of which a number of topics could be addressed more efficiently than in the past.^³⁴ The continuation of these activities and the finalisation of the few remaining actions of the Action Plan "Pierre de Coubertin" can, however, not be expected to lead to further improvements in this respect.^³⁵

The White Paper on Sport illustrated that sport activities, in particular big sport events, have an environmental impact. For example, sport events can have significant impacts on the use of natural resources and generation of waste.^³⁶ The White Paper encouraged the “greening” of sport especially through environmentally sound management. Sport organisations and sport event organisers were encouraged to adopt environmental objectives in order to make their activities environmentally sustainable, for instance through participation in the Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS). The implementation of the White Paper has led sport organisations to consider EMAS certification.^³⁷

5.1.2.Option B (Framework + new Agenda)

An initiative comprising a strategic policy framework, including a new EU Agenda for action committing the Commission and the Member States, can be expected to have positive economic and social impacts.

Regarding economic impact action aimed at increased levels of physical activity along the concept of health-enhancing physical activity covering sectors such as sport, health, education, transport, public safety and working environment, can lead to a healthier society, which may imply considerable savings in the longer term (medical costs, health insurance, drug sales). Member States' expectations in this direction have been expressed in all meetings of the Working Group Sport & Health since its creation in 2006 and confirmed in many informal meetings of EU Sport Directors and Sport Ministers.^³⁸ Similarly, stronger links between the education and sport sectors, especially increased time spent on sport and physical activity in and around education and a better quality of national programmes, can contribute to a healthier society and are positively correlated with reduced health-care costs.

Political support for volunteering in sport aimed at promoting voluntary activity and at encouraging a higher quality of services provided by sport organisations and sustainable funding of these organisations can potentially have a positive economic impact in terms of furthering better adapted structures in increasingly competitive markets. A financial return to sport from gambling activities, including lotteries, can positively impact on the maintenance of sport structures at grassroots level.^³⁹ Better protection of sport-related IPRs against illegal piracy has high relevance for ensuring financial income for the professional sport sector, which is supportive to investments in the sector and which in turn may positively impact on economic growth and jobs in the EU.

Promoting free movement of sportspeople has a positive impact on the functioning of the Internal Market.

Strengthened efforts to fight doping involving all relevant stakeholders at national level and in cooperation with responsible European and international organisations may have an indirect positive effect in terms of an improved image for sport and credibility for sporting competitions, thus attracting more sponsors and spectators.^⁴⁰

More legal clarity regarding sporting rules through increased understanding about the application of EU law to sport thanks to specific guidance at EU level has a positive impact on the functioning of the Internal Market, as it potentially helps the sport sector, in particular professional sport, to develop its activities within a sound legal framework.

Experience from other sectors, e.g. education, culture, youth, shows that support for developing an evidence base for the EU-27 can lead to better informed national and European policy making based on sound economic reasoning, for instance regarding public spending or investment decisions. Access to information of sufficient quality can equally benefit other actors, such as sport organisations, which have to ensure sound economic management of their activities.

Regarding social impact policy action aimed at increased levels of physical activity along the concept of health-enhancing physical activity as well as stronger links between the education and sport sectors as described above will have a positive impact on public health and can lead to a healthier society.^⁴¹ Regarding education and training, support for developing a dual career environment can positively affect the transition of talented athletes into labour markets. More transparency of qualifications in sport can positively influence the functioning of the sport labour market. The option also bears the potential to indirectly contribute to greater equality in society, in particular regarding women, people with disabilities and other minority groups.

Political support for voluntary activity in sport contributes to the sustainability of sport structures, which provide valuable opportunities to ensure people’s involvement with society in terms of participation, active citizenship and non-formal learning. Encouraging the sustainable financing of grassroots sport (e.g. public support, income streams from gambling services, solidarity mechanisms within sport) potentially enhances the quality of sport services and, in turn, ensures people’s access to local sport structures.

Addressing the challenges relating to free movement and nationality can help avoid discrimination of EU citizens that make use of their right to free movement.

Strengthened efforts to fight doping involving all relevant stakeholders at national level and in cooperation with responsible European and international organisations contributes to protecting the integrity of sportspeople and sport competitions, as well as to improving individual and public health.

More legal clarity regarding sporting rules through increased understanding of the application of EU law to sport thanks to specific guidance at EU level can help avoid tensions between different actors (e.g. public authorities, sport movement) or legal conflicts.

Support aimed at improving EU dialogue and cooperation structures can lead to better cooperation with stakeholders as well as inclusive and transparent processes.

Experience from other sectors, for instance education or culture, shows that support for an evidence-base for the EU-27 can lead to informed policy making, e.g. using sport as a contribution to healthier and more inclusive societies, as well as to informed decision making within the sport sector.

Regarding environmental impact, in addition to the effects described under Option A, an initiative with a strategic policy focus can promote environmentally friendly approaches and the implementation of voluntary schemes through the structured dialogue with sport stakeholders. Topics could include aspects relating to sport organisations' possible need to adapt to climate change or to develop sustainable activities, e.g. environmentally friendly services. The application of the EU environmental legal framework has, however, not surfaced as a problem for sport in the consultation process.

5.1.3.Option C (Long-term framework + OMC)

A long-term EU framework for policy-making and cooperation in sport with defined policy cycles and annual update is expected to generally have similar positive economic and social impacts as described under policy Option B. The indirect effects on society and employment can be expected to be even greater and may increasingly benefit specific target groups. In addition, through the proposed tool of an Open Method of Coordination (OMC) in selected areas more efficient EU-level review and coordination mechanisms apply and positive direct and indirect economic and social effects can be achieved in a shorter timeframe. This is true for areas where a high degree of political consensus has already been achieved through the informal and formal cooperation at EU level, for instance regarding health-enhancing physical activity (based on the EU Physical Activity Guidelines), social inclusion in and through sport (based on the work carried out at EU level in 2010), education (based on the work carried out at EU level since 2008), volunteering in sport (based on the work carried out at EU level in 2009, 2010 and in view of the European Year 2011) and strengthened efforts in the field of anti-doping (based on the work carried out at EU level and in the context of the Council of Europe over the past years). Improvements in timing and quality of delivered information could be achieved through the exchange of best practices and benchmarking.

For other areas the creation of an OMC does not seem realistic in the short term, but in the longer term economic and social impacts could be expected. For instance, addressing the challenges relating to fairness and openness in competitions (e.g. free movement of sportspeople) could have a direct positive impact on the functioning of the Internal Market and on individuals (e.g. athletes), higher than the one described under Option B. An OMC in the field of structured dialogue potentially could lead to more consistent national dialogue mechanisms on EU sport matters, which have been neglected in a number of Member States.

Regarding environmental impact, in addition to the effects described under Options A and B, a long-term policy framework is likely to have more impact on the environment, since concerns linked to the practice of sport could be addressed as a horizontal approach within multi-annual policy cycles.

5.2.Assessment of most important impacts

The assessment of impacts in this section is of a qualitative nature since it is not possible to quantify the impacts. This section analyses the likelihood of each option to reach benefits in terms of positive impacts. For this purpose, in a first step, the most important impacts are identified and, in a second step, an impact matrix is used to present the assessment in terms of the likelihood that the impact will occur and in terms of the estimated magnitude of each impact.

In light of the assessment under section 5.1 and taking account of wider policy objectives, the following are the areas where EU intervention in the field of sport can be expected to produce the most important impacts. A diagram illustrates the “chain of effects” illustrates for each area:

- Contribution to public health: Direct positive effects of policy actions in the fields of health-enhancing physical activity and of education can be expected, in particular if combined with a strategic framework as provided for under Options B and C. An increased policy focus on the concept of health-enhancing physical activity at EU level and promotion of the implementation of physical activity guidelines at national level, including in less advanced Member States, will increase daily physical activity levels of European citizens. Likewise promoting the time and quality of sport and physical activity in and around education can contribute to a healthier society. A rising level of physical activity among Europeans can be expected to e.g. reduce overweight and lead to a better quality of life for individual citizens and, in turn, to reduced health costs for public budgets and improved productivity for businesses in the mid- to longer term. Protecting the physical integrity of sportspeople through more coordinated policy approaches at national, European and international levels regarding the fight against doping can make an indirect contribution to individual and public health. Thus, and in line with the EU's mandate to promote healthy lifestyles, the planned EU initiative in the field of sport not only represents a major follow-up to the Commission's White Paper on Obesity^⁴², but will also contribute to achieving some of the objectives of the EU Health Strategy^⁴³.

- Contribution to more inclusive societies: In line with the EU's ambitions to promote the active inclusion in mainstream society of vulnerable groups and to overcome discrimination and increase the integration of people with disabilities, ethnic minorities and immigrants, direct positive effects can be expected from policy actions aimed at the inclusion of women, people with disabilities and immigrants in sport and through sport into society, in particular if combined with a strategic framework as provided for under Options B and C. Deep-rooted disadvantages faced by people because of their personal characteristics prevent them from fully participating and contributing at all levels of society, including sport. The initiative will help address this challenge through EU action, which is supportive to the development of equality policies and encourages exchange of good practices between actors in the field of sport and improve the use of the potential of European and national sport activities to more inclusive societies. Regarding equality between women and men, for instance, the EU initiative will contribute to increasing the number of women in leadership positions (e.g. as members of management bodies of national, European or international sport organisations). Direct positive effects of the initiative can also be expected regarding the right of people with a disability to participate in sport, in line with the EU human rights approach to disability issues, e.g. through better access to sport facilities. A contribution could thereby be made to the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities.^⁴⁴ Positive effects can be expected for disadvantaged citizens who will have increased opportunities to actively participate in society through membership and paid or non-paid (voluntary) activity in a civic organisation, such as a sport club. The intercultural dialogue between different groups in society will be activated. More cost effective and efficient approaches are likely to develop at national level through the exchange of best practices at EU level regarding success factors for sport interventions favouring social inclusion. European sport-networks could raise awareness and contribute to social inclusion and the fight against discrimination through the organisation of European events, competitions and other activities.

- Contribution to employability and jobs: Direct and indirect positive effects on labour markets can be expected as a result of policy actions in the fields of education, social inclusion and volunteering, in particular if combined with a strategic framework as provided for under Options B and C. High elite sportspeople are better prepared to a new career because of the regulated combination between education and sport. Better qualifications and increased recognition of qualifications in sport, as well as increased mobility of sport support staff (e.g. coaches, volunteers) enhance the employability of people active in the sport sector. Through the use of the manifold non-formal learning opportunities existing within sport (e.g. through volunteering) people, especially young people, acquire skills that qualify and prepare them for the job market. The job creation potential in the sport sector is dynamic and particularly high when considering the synergy effects with related sectors^⁴⁵. Calculations in three Member States confirm the direct effects generated in the sector^⁴⁶: in Austria 5.8% of total employment is sport-related, as compared to 2.2% in Cyprus and 2% in the United Kingdom. Through the promotion of sport at EU level by the planned EU initiative, further impacts in terms of job creation can be expected, both in the sport sector (professional sport and fitness sector in particular) and in related upstream and downstream sectors (e.g. sporting goods industry). Finally, indirect positive effects on jobs can be expected as a result of policy measures aimed at sustainable and stable sport structures that in turn could help ensure that current jobs can be maintained and additional jobs created (Options B and C).

Table 2 hereafter assigns the likelihood of the impact (very probable, probable, less probable, unlikely, very unlikely) and estimates its magnitude (very high, high, medium, low, very low).^⁴⁷ A combined value has been attributed to rate these impacts in comparison with the baseline. The last column attributes an aggregated score for each option.

The following key to describe the value/score of the options is used for all tables (2-6) hereafter:

Table 1: Definition of values

Symbol	Key
=	Baseline or equivalent to baseline
+ / ++ / +++	Minor to major improvement compared to baseline
- / - - / - - -	Minor to major worsening compared to baseline

Table 2: Likelihood and magnitude of impacts

	Improvement of public health	Social inclusion of disadvantaged groups	Contribution to employability and jobs	Aggregated score
Likelihood	Magnitude	Likelihood	Magnitude	Likelihood	Magnitude
Option A Baseline	Less probable	Very low	Less probable	Very low	Unlikely	Very low	=
- Value -	=	=	=
Option B Framework + new EU Agenda	Very probable	Medium	Very probable	Medium	Probable	Low	++
- Value -	++	++	+
Option C Framework + OMC	Very probable	High	Very probable	High	Probable	Medium	++/+++
- Value -	++/+++	++/+++	++

5.3.Assessment of efficiency

The assessment of the efficiency of the options considers the relationship between inputs, in terms of Human Resources, and the desired impacts. It also considers the Commission’s ability to deliver, in terms of internal processes to handle the implementation of each option and of political support.

Option A

The baseline scenario does not involve any budgetary expenses. The needs for human and administrative resources continue to be covered within the allocations granted to the managing services in the framework of the annual allocation procedure. For the implementation of this option, the current staff in DG EAC's Sport Unit (8 AD-level, 6 AST-level) would not need to be increased. On the contrary, after the finalisation of the ongoing Preparatory Actions (in 2012/2013) reductions in staff could be expected. However, the attainment of impacts through implementation of this Option would be less probable or unlikely, with the risk that the impacts will not occur.

Given the experience with the implementation of the White Paper on Sport over the past three years, the systemic capability of the baseline scenario is excellent. However, the implementation of this option, which would amount to a continuation and subsequent reduction of current activities and processes, appears extremely difficult to justify in light of the new Treaty mandate that explicitly calls for EU action in the field of sport.

From the point of view of efficiency this option must therefore be rated very low.

Option B

The proposed new EU Agenda for sport has been designed so as to keep implications in terms of resources necessary for its implementation as limited as possible. No additional budget is required under the ongoing financial framework. The needs for human and administrative resources continue to be covered within the allocations granted to the managing services in the framework of the annual allocation procedure. No additional administrative burden is to be expected in the Member States. The implementation of the EU framework for sport, in particular the actions foreseen in the new EU Agenda during the next 4-5 years, is likely to require additional sport and sport-related tasks in some European Commission services (e.g. COMP, EAC, EMPL, ESTAT, MARKT, JUST, REGIO, SANCO). However, these tasks are not likely to have human resources implications in those DGs. Considering the relatively high likelihood and magnitude of this option to contribute to the desired impacts through policy measures based on the new EU Agenda for sport, the efficiency of this option must be considered high as compared to the baseline. Although at this stage, in view of the fact that sport is a new EU competence area, there are no hard data to corroborate this claim, it seems highly likely that public health, social inclusion and employment benefits induced by EU action would come at low costs.

Regarding the ability to deliver, Option B can build on the experience of implementing the White Paper on Sport, which suggests that the Commission, and DG EAC in particular, has the expertise to handle the implementation of this option and related internal processes. The policy process to ensure the implementation of the initiative, involving the Commission and the Member States, could start immediately. The consultation process with the Member States and the sport movement in 2010 has shown strong support for such an approach. The ability to deliver therefore can be rated very high.

Option C

As the most complex of the options, Option C is expected to lead to more significant demands in terms of additional human and administrative resources. Experience from other DG EAC policy areas indicates that the implementation of an Open Method of Coordination (OMC) will significantly increase the workload for the leading policy unit. It will also require intensified cooperation with a larger number of services within the European Commission. It is estimated that the choice of this option would lead to additional costs in terms of input (i.e. 3 AD and 1 AST) in comparison with the other options.^⁴⁸ The demands in terms of input for this option compared to the baseline have to be seen in light of the higher likelihood and magnitude of the option to contribute through an OMC to the desired impacts. Efficiency must be considered higher than for Option A. While Option C, in proportionate terms, is likely to produce slightly higher impacts than Option B, the level of input associated with the implementation of Option C in terms of human resources would be much higher than in Option B. Efficiency is consequently lower for Option C.

Regarding the ability to deliver, Option C is the most challenging to assess due to the lack of experience with launching an OMC in a new horizontal policy area like sport. At this early stage of formal EU cooperation in the field of sport, there is not yet sufficient evidence for a developing consensus or political support for an OMC, which renders the smooth and timely implementation of Option C difficult. The ability to deliver has therefore been rated very low.

Table 3 hereafter takes account of the analysis in section 5.2 to rate the "expected impacts" (first column), it defines the inputs by determining the "human resources needs" (second column) and establishes the "input/impact relationship" (third column) to evaluate the efficiency. Aggregated scores take account of the "ability to deliver" (fourth column) as an additional element to assess efficiency.

Table 3: Efficiency of options

	Likelihood + magnitude of desired impacts	Human Resources	Impacts / Inputs	Ability to deliver	Aggregated score
Option A Baseline	=	no additional staff; decrease after 2012/2013	=	=	=
Option B Framework + new EU Agenda	++	no additional staff	++	+++	++/+++
Option C Framework + OMC	++/+++	additional staff: DG EAC ⁴⁹: 3AD + 1 AST	+	- -	+

5.4.Assessment of effectiveness

The effectiveness of each option is assessed by determining the likelihood of achieving the objectives defined in Chapter 3.

Option A

The baseline scenario does not foresee the development and implementation of a strategic EU approach to sport that would engage the Commission and the Member States. The loose form of cooperation introduced by the Commission’s White Paper would remain the basis for cooperation. Because the informal cooperation between experts in the 6 Commission-led Working Groups^⁵⁰ is fruitful, a limited contribution to the achievement of the set specific objectives could be expected in the fields of health-enhancing physical activity, social inclusion in and through sport, education and training in sport, voluntary activity, anti-doping and sport information (objectives A, B, C, G). However, the lack of a clear policy framework that would ensure a follow up to the results from these works does not allow for an effective attainment of these objectives. Without any new action as foreseen under this option, only very marginal to no progress can be expected in addressing legal concerns related to discrimination in sport and the lack of legal clarity, which should be tackled by objectives D and F respectively. It is not possible through this option to effectively improve dialogue structures in sport (objective E) given the lack of a strategic and structured framework underpinning such debates. Sport stakeholders clearly want to see the EU taking action and would not be willing to engage in any form of strengthened dialogue without a new agenda that addresses their concerns.

Option B

The EU framework for cooperation introduced by this option meets the strategic objective in the medium-term (for the next 4-5 years), i.e. in this early phase of developing a new field of EU competence. The proposed new EU Agenda for sport foresees specific actions that are designed to tackle all the problems identified and to directly contribute to the achievement of all specific objectives (A-G). Given the nature of the proposed tools at hand to implement the Agenda (i.e. 'soft' policy measures as defined in chapter 4) there are limits to the extent to which the objectives can be reached. The likelihood of reaching the objectives to a large extent depends on the willingness of Member States and, to a lesser extent, of sport stakeholders to engage in the processes to implement the proposed actions. However, the formal and informal discussions with the Member States and the public consultations provide strong evidence that governments and stakeholders want to increasingly engage in EU-level cooperation to develop the new EU dimension in sport referred to in the Treaty and that there is strong support for an EU Agenda for action to implement the new Treaty mandate. The proposed EU Agenda builds on the White Paper on Sport and can capitalise on the progress made over the past three years in terms of substance and regarding cooperation structures for developing a first EU approach to sport. Generally, a contribution to the achievement of the set objectives in the field of health, social inclusion, education (A), volunteering (B) and doping (C) must be considered probable given the high consensus among all involved actors for EU level action. Under this option, the EU can very probably achieve more open and fair competitions (D) through additional guidance provided in the field of free movement (e.g. guidance as foreseen in a specific staff working document). Action to ensure strengthened dialogue structures (E) would also be envisaged. The explicit call from Member States and the sport movement to establish such a dialogue suggests that this objective can be reached. The action which foresees an assistance mechanism to provide guidance on the application of EU law to sport very probably contributes to increased understanding among sport stakeholders (F). Proposed action in the field of sport information, such as studying the feasibility of a sport monitoring function, can result in concrete follow up to support an evidence base for sport (G).

Compared to the baseline the effectiveness of Option B must therefore be rated high to very high.

Option C

The EU policy framework coordinating Member States policies as introduced by this option allows for a very effective attainment of the strategic objective due to its long-term basis. As discussed in previous sections of this IA, the proposed introduction of an OMC in selected areas will depend on Member States' priorities. At this stage it seems most relevant for areas where there is a high degree of consensus among the Member States and sufficient progress in the substantial debates at EU level (i.e. health-enhancing physical activity, dual careers, social inclusion, volunteering, and anti-doping). Given the nature of the tool of an OMC providing for targets, reporting and monitoring mechanisms, the likelihood of achieving at least part of the related objectives (A, B, C and G) is slightly higher than under Option B. The achievement of objectives D and F must be considered less likely under Option C as compared to Option B that, through the EU Agenda, foresees specific action to address the challenges identified. It should be noted that for many areas identified in the consultation process and which should be addressed by the planned initiative, no sufficient basis exists to establish a review and coordination mechanism, and certainly not in the short term. There are also areas where an OMC is not an adequate tool, e.g. in the field of sport governance, where the autonomy of sport needs to be respected and where it is not for the EU to tackle related challenges through a review and coordination mechanism. This affects the likelihood of the achievement of objective F. Regarding strengthened dialogue with the sport movement, Option C can contribute to achieving the objective (E), since Member States seem to be willing to push the topic forward in the Council regardless of a specific action proposed in the EU Agenda.

The following table illustrates the likelihood (certain, very probable, probable, less probable, unlikely, very unlikely) of the options to achieve the strategic and the specific objectives.

Table 4: Effectiveness of options

	Option A Baseline	Option B Framework + new EU Agenda	Option C Framework + OMC
Strategic objective	very unlikely	certain	certain
Specific objectives	A. Promote the health-enhancing, social and educational functions of sport	less probable	probable	very probable
B. Support sport structures based on voluntary activity	less probable	probable	very probable
C. Protect the physical and moral integrity of sportspeople	unlikely	probable	very probable
D. Promote fairness and openness in sporting competitions	very unlikely	very probable	probable
E. Enhance dialogue and cooperation with sport stakeholders	very unlikely	very probable	very probable
F. Increase understanding of application of EU law to sport	very unlikely	very probable	probable
G. Support an evidence base for sport in the EU-27	unlikely	probable	very probable
Aggregated score	=	++/+++	+++

5.5.Assessment of coherence

The coherence of the options is assessed in relation to the objectives of EU policy, in particular the overarching goals of the Europe 2020 strategy, the EU Health Strategy and the functioning of the Internal Market. Accordingly, an assessment is made as to how the options can make a contribution to:

- Europe 2020, in terms of growth and jobs;

- Social cohesion;

- Public health policy;

- Functioning of the Internal Market.

Option A

The White Paper does not include additional actions that would be conducive to the EU's ambitions as defined in the Europe 2020 strategy or with regard to social cohesion. As outlined in the introductory part of this report, one of the main underlying concerns regarding the current EU's dealings with sport is that sport's potential to make a contribution to the EU's overarching social and economic goals has been neglected in EU policy making. Regarding public health, the informal works that have been carried out at EU level until today illustrate that the promotion of physical activity is coherent with the EU's Public Health Strategy. In order to make a distinct contribution, however, additional action in the field of health-enhancing physical activity, including follow-up at formal Council level, would be necessary. However, this is not foreseen under this option. Regarding the White Paper's contribution to the functioning of the Internal Market, some progress has been made on the basis of the implementation of the "Pierre de Coubertin" Action Plan in fields such as free movement. However, the Commission is still regularly receiving complaints from market actors (e.g. in the fields of free movement and taxation). Moreover, the consultation process confirmed that there are developments within the sport sector (e.g. new regulations from sport governing bodies) and in sectors impacting on sport (e.g. gambling, IPR) that cannot be addressed on the basis of the White Paper, but require new action at EU level. The policy approach under this Option is therefore not coherent with the EU's strategic goals.

Options B and C

In contrast to Option A, Options B and C can make a contribution to achieving the EU's strategic goals in the social and economic fields (as already referred to in section 3.1 and in the analysis of impacts in sections 5.1 and 5.2).

Option B provides for a policy framework and a new EU Agenda which aim at using sport's potential to contribute to the objectives of Europe 2020. Regarding growth, account should be taken of the fact that sport is a very dynamic sector. For instance, recent work covering selected Member States has shown that sport-related value added amounts to 3-4% of total value added, even without considering indirect or induced effects.^⁵¹ Giving an impetus to the promotion of sporting issues and sustainable sport structures (as called for in Art. 165 TFEU) through actions proposed in a new EU Agenda is coherent with Europe 2020 ambitions. Regarding the coherence of this option with the employment goals of Europe 2020, the analyis and diagram in section 5.2 have already illustrated the effects of EU-level action in the field of sport to enhance employability in and beyond the sport sector. Likewise, coherence of this Option with the EU's objectives for social cohesion and public health can be assumed, following the analysis in section 5.2. Through the foreseen actions to address the lack of legal clarity regarding the application of EU law (including fundamental freedoms) to sport, this option makes a direct contribution to the better functioning of the Internal Market.

The same general considerations are valid for Option C. It can be assumed that an initiative with a long-term vision for an EU approach to sport providing an OMC with targets, reporting and monitoring mechanisms is coherent with the four abovementioned general policy goals. For a "soft" policy area like sport, a framework using an OMC must, however, be considered to be an even more suitable instrument to help the sport sector develop its full growth and job potential (Europe 2020) and to contribute to strategic goals in the field of public health. As explained in previous sections in this report, an OMC seems most relevant for selected areas, including health-enhancing physical activity (based on the EU Physical Activity Guidelines) and education (e.g. regarding qualifications). Coherence of Option C with the two general policy goals connected with these fields can therefore be assumed to be higher than that of Option B.

The following table attributes a value to this assessment.

Table 5: Coherence of options

	Option A Baseline	Option B Framework + new EU Agenda	Option C Framework + OMC
Growth	=	++	+++
Jobs	=	+	++
Cohesion	=	++	++
Health	=	++	+++
Internal Market	=	++	++
Aggregated score	=	++	++/+++

6.Comparing the options

This chapter first compares the short-listed options by applying different criteria based on the above analysis, which leads in a second step to the identification of the preferred option.

6.1.Comparative analysis of options

Based on the above assessments and comparison of policy options, conclusions can be drawn regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the individual policy options with regard to their ability to address the problems identified in Chapter 2. For this comparative analysis, Options B and C are differentiated on the basis of their performance against the following four criteria and compared to the baseline (Option A):

- Impacts: to illustrate how the options are conducive to reaching desired impacts (analysis in sections 5.1 and 5.2);

- Efficiency: to assess the ratio of desired impacts and required inputs, including the systemic capability of the competent Commission services to handle the implementation of each option (analysis in section 5.3);

- Effectiveness: to assess the extent to which the options achieve the strategic and specific objectives of the proposal (analysis in section 5.4);

- Coherence: to assess the coherence of the different options with overarching objectives of EU policy making (analysis in section 5.5).

While Options B and C can both reach desired impacts, the likelihood and magnitude of desired impacts is slightly higher for Option C. Option B must however be considered much more efficient than Option C considering the level of inputs required. Both options are also capable of reaching the objectives identified, whereas Option C must be considered slightly more effective, especially in the longer-term through the proposed OMC providing for review and coordination mechanisms for certain areas. Options B and C are both coherent in terms of their ability to help reach objectives in other policy areas. In the longer term, through the proposed tool of an OMC, Option C is slightly more coherent.

The aggregated scores (from tables 2-5) resulting from the assessments made in Chapter 5 have been transposed in the following final comparative assessment of Option B and C in relation to the baseline:

Table 6: Comparative analysis

	Option A Baseline scenario – Continuation of cooperation based on the White Paper on Sport	Option B Definition of a medium-term EU framework for cooperation in sport + new EU Agenda for action	Option C Definition of a long-term framework for policy coordination + OMC for certain policy areas
Impacts (likelihood and magnitude)	=	++	++/+++
Efficiency	=	++/+++	+
Effectiveness	=	++/+++	+++
Coherence	=	++	++/+++

6.2.Choice of the preferred option

In this starting phase of more comprehensive EU-level cooperation in the field of sport, the higher efficiency of Option B must be considered as greatly outweighing the slightly higher likelihood/magnitude of impacts and the slightly higher effectiveness of Option C. At this stage, Option C is difficult to implement in terms of required inputs and given the current lack of political readiness for the creation of an OMC. At this early stage of formal EU level cooperation in sport, the analysis suggests that Option B is most attainable.

Therefore, based on the analysis under 6.1, Option B – "Definition of an EU framework for cooperation in sport" is concluded to be the most appropriate way to respond to the challenges faced by sport in the European Union and to implement the sport provisions of Article 165 TFEU. Option B is the most balanced option and the one that is likely to provide the greatest net benefits in this phase of developing the EU dimension in sport.

A Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament will define the strategic policy framework and introduce a new EU Agenda for sport with concrete actions. In order to meet requests from stakeholders for financial incentives for sport that could support the policy agenda, the Communication should also announce an Impact Assessment addressing the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and utility of a possible EU Sport Programme from 2014 onwards, in order to complement the policy cooperation framework.
7.Monitoring and evaluation

The Commission will continue its dialogue with public and private stakeholders and with expert practitioners. The Commission will also actively engage in the continued institutional dialogue with the Council, the European Parliament, the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee. A number of conferences, seminars and other discussions are scheduled for the period after publication of the Communication. These will provide the Commission with opportunities to receive feedback from, and exchange views with, representatives of sport organisations and Member State governments.

The following table provides an overview of the core indicators of progress towards meeting the general and specific objectives pursued by the proposed initiative (Option B). At this stage, only eight indicators are mentioned which can be considered to be tangible in a short to medium timeframe based on the existing formal and informal cooperation structures in the field of sport. More indicators will be developed in the course of the implementation process, once a better assessment can be made, and subject to a thorough discussion with relevant governmental and non-governmental stakeholders. This is the case for indicators relating to fields such as social inclusion, education and training, volunteering and anti-doping. The relevant informal Working Groups in the field of sport will be instrumental to help develop additional indicators. Regarding processing of data and information, the Commission will regularly present progress reports to the formal (Council Working Party) and informal structures (e.g. EU Sport Directors, EU Sport Forum).

Part of the proposed EU framework for cooperation in sport is an evaluation of the latter in 2015, which should provide the opportunity to consider the possible introduction of an OMC (Option C) for certain aspects of cooperation in sport at EU level.

Table 7: Indicators

Strategic objective	Indicator	Processing
Strategic EU framework for cooperation in sport	(1) Established EU-level political cooperation based on agreed objectives and an agenda for action	Endorsement of the framework for cooperation by the Council (Resolution); Commission to regularly report on progress regarding the implementation of the new EU agenda for sport in the Council Working Party on Sport
Specific objectives	Indicators	Processing
Promote the social and educational functions of sport	(2) Number of Member States implementing EU Physical Activity Guidelines (3) Number of women in leadership positions in sport	Based on national reports in the Working Group "Sport & Health", Commission to report to the Council Working Party on Sport Commission to gather feedback from sport stakeholders and researchers; possibly also by means of a Eurobarometer survey before 2014
Support sport structures, in particular those based on voluntary activity	(4) Number of (sustainable) local clubs offering access to sport for the general public	Commission to gather feedback from sport stakeholders and researchers; possibly also by means of a Eurobarometer survey before 2014
Enhance dialogue and cooperation with sport stakeholders	(5) Frequency of meetings with sport stakeholders at EU level (6) Satisfaction of stakeholders (e.g. new Eurobarometer)	Commission to organise an annual EU Sport Forum; Commission to keep track of meetings with European sport stakeholders Commission to gather feedback from sport stakeholders; possibly also by means of a Eurobarometer survey before 2014
Increase understanding of the application of the EU legal framework to sport	(7) Number of complaints or infringement proceedings	Commission to ensure internal monitoring (in particular involving the following services: COMP, EMPL, MARKT, HOME, JUST, SG, TAXUD)
Support an evidence base for sport in the EU-27	(8) Number of established EU statistics and surveys on sport	Commission and Member States to monitor sport data collection and publication of sport surveys

Annex I: Report on the EU-wide public consultation
8.Introduction

With the entry into force of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) on 1 December 2009, sport became one of the EU’s supporting, coordinating and supplementing competences. Based on Article 165 TFEU, the EU should develop action aimed at promoting sport in Europe.

In preparation of its proposals to implement the new Treaty provisions, the Commission carried out broad consultations with all concerned parties, the centrepiece of which was an online consultation in the first half of 2010.

The objective of the public consultation was twofold. Firstly, it aimed at gathering stakeholders’ views on the key challenges for sport in Europe. Secondly, it intended to help the Commission identify priority areas for action, including possible incentive measures, at EU level.

Regarding possible incentive measures, Member states and experts were invited to identify areas where incentive measures at EU level would be desirable in the framework of a possible sport programme and to define priority areas. The results of the consultation as regards possible incentive measures are summarised in sections 2.1 and 2.2 below.

In parallel to the online consultation, the Commission carried out broad consultations involving the Member States, the sport movement and other sport stakeholders and experts. The Commission received a wealth of written contributions in the form of position papers from stakeholders.

In line with the Commission’s general principles and standards governing consultation of interested parties, this Report describes the public consultation process and provides an overview of the wide range of suggestions received and the diversity of opinions expressed in the course of this process. Without claiming to be exhaustive, the Report highlights the key trends and concerns arising from the contributions.

It should be noted that the results of the consultation complement the experience gained with the implementation of the 2007 White Paper on Sport, including evidence gathered through EU studies conducted on selected topics (training and education in sport, sport agents, volunteering in sport), surveys carried out at EU level (Eurobarometer 2010) and EU conferences in the field of sport (EU Sport Forum 2008, EU Sport Forum 2010, anti-doping, licensing systems, funding of grassroots sport).
9.Summary: Results of the consultation

The consultation process in the first half of 2010 produced a satisfactory result in terms of volume, scope and depth of contributions.

2.1 Stakeholders and General Public

The EU Sport Forum, which constitutes the main dialogue platform between the Commission and key sport stakeholders, was organised the second time in 2010 (Madrid, 19-20 April) with discussions focusing on the implementation of the sport provisions in the Lisbon Treaty. In addition to the Forum, the Commission held a large number of bilateral und multilateral discussions with targeted stakeholders throughout the first half of 2010. These stakeholders included European Sport Federations, the European Olympic Committees, other European umbrella organisations for sport, national umbrella organisations for sport, national Olympic and Paralympic committees, other actors in the field of sport at European level, social partners, and other international and European organisations such as the International Olympic Committee and international federations.

An online public consultation was launched on 7 April 2010 and remained open until 2 June 2010. The online questionnaire was based on the Interactive Policy-Making Tool and consisted of a range of multiple-choice questions divided into two parts, "Addressing key challenges for sport in Europe" (Part I) and "Identifying policy priorities for EU action" (Part II). The questions took account of the Treaty mandate to develop EU action in the field of sport as enshrined in Article 165 TFEU. Only fully completed questionnaires were accepted.

In addition to filling out the structured part of the online questionnaire, respondents replying on behalf of organisations were invited to provide supplementary written contributions. The Commission received almost 50 position papers as a contribution to the consultation process, most during the period when the online consultation was open but some before or after this period.

Most of the written papers provided high-quality input on sport-specific topics ranging from socially driven issues over economically oriented suggestions to sport governance aspects. It should be noted, however, that many of the recommendations included in the position papers reflected issues which are not part of the EU's mandate as defined in Article 165 TFEU and which can only be dealt with at national or regional levels (e.g. suggestions for direct EU financing of local sport clubs).

The online consultation was a success as more than 1,300 valid submissions were received. Approximately 30% of respondents filled out the questionnaire on behalf of their organisations^⁵². This ratio demonstrates that the online consultation reached a considerable number of respondents outside organised sport.

Online questionnaire – number of replies
	Number of replies	Percentage of total number of replies
As an individual	935	70.5%
On behalf of an organisation	391	29.5%
Total	1326	100%

Regarding the nationality of respondents, all EU nationalities except Cypriots and Luxembourgers were represented. Belgium ranked first on the list with 16.1% of replies, followed by France (15%) and Spain (14.8%), as outlined in the following chart:

Regarding the nature of responding organisations that filled out the online questionnaire or submitted a written contribution, sport organisations were the most active in replying and provided almost two-thirds of the contributions. The repartition of participating organisations is visualised in the chart hereafter:

Results

The following summary synthesises the results of the online questionnaire, relevant contributions contained in the written submissions and positions presented at the EU Sport Forum and other bilateral and multilateral discussions.

The replies to the online questionnaire were rated with a corresponding relative value of points between 3 (strongly agree) and -3 (strongly disagree). The analysis of the replies demonstrated an impressive degree of consensus between the two groups of respondents (individuals and organisations) for a large majority of issues. Some questions showed particularly high scores assigned by both individuals and organisations.

Concerning key challenges for the EU in the field of sport, replies to questions 4, 5, 8, 16, 18, 24, 28, 35, 38, 39, 41 and 42 of Part I (see section 3 below) demonstrated that all of the sub-areas of the questionnaire were found to be important by the general public as well as by the organised sport sector. Replies to questions 4 and 24 represented the highest cumulative value, highlighting public concern about insufficient presence of sport and physical activity in education and about the doping phenomenon as a threat to the physical and moral integrity of sportspeople. This was confirmed by a number of position papers and at bilateral meetings.

The degree of consensus between the two groups of respondents was even more significant regarding Part II of the questionnaire, which sought respondents’ views on policy priorities for EU action. While almost all areas were ranked highly, replies to questions 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 15, 18, 27, 33, 34 and 36 received the highest scores (see section 3 below). A considerable number of respondents referred to the fact that there were a number of tasks that the EU could do in relation to the social and educational functions of sport. Support and promotion of sport as a health-enhancing activity ranked particularly high in the replies and was also frequently mentioned in the position papers.

Great demand for action at EU level relating to social inclusion was also manifested at the EU Sport Forum. The need to support accessibility and to work on education and prevention of exclusion was also mentioned. According to stakeholders, special attention should be paid to activities at local level. Attention was called to the difference between integration through sport and integration in sport. Stakeholders agreed that a higher level of integration in sport was needed to achieve real integration through sport.

Volunteering represented another topic that received strong support in the framework of the consultation. Replies to the online questionnaire highlighted the need for better recognition of voluntary activity in sport and the elimination of obstacles to volunteering.

To sum up, the consultation served as an important source of information to identify areas that can be considered as representing key challenges for sport in Europe from the perspective of stakeholders and the general public, and notably the following:

- Availability of sport and physical activity at all levels of education;

- Insufficient recognition of voluntary activity in sport;

- Doping as a major threat to fairness in sporting competitions;

- Lack of stable funding for grassroots sport;

- Lack of attention for the societal value of sport as compared to its commercial aspects;

- Commercial pressure endangering the original spirit of sport based on fair play.

The online questionnaire also gave useful indications regarding priority areas for possible future incentive measures. Most areas that received high scores in the structured questionnaire were also reflected in the written contributions and at the various meetings. The areas receiving the highest degree of funding priority from the general public and stakeholders were:

- Promotion of the social and educational functions of sport, including health-enhancing physical activity, participation levels in sport, quality training for sport professionals, integration of sport in education policies, sport for all and sport in relation to social integration and social inclusion;

- Recognition of and support for volunteering in sport and the promotion of public and private financing of sport, as a means to support sport structures at grassroots level;

- Protection of the physical and moral integrity of sportspeople, in particular the fight against doping and the protection of minors in sport;

- Promotion of fairness and openness in sporting competitions as well as of the ethical and social values of sport, including the fight against discrimination, racism, xenophobia and violence in sport and the fight against financial crime in sport.

Horizontal priorities that were identified included:

- Support for knowledge-based decision-making in the field of sport;

- Promotion of networking and exchange of best practices;

- Support for strengthened dialogue with sport organisations and for EU guidance on the application of EU law to sport.

2.2 Member States

Consultation with the Member States took place mainly at the following meetings:

- Informal meeting of EU Sport Directors (Barcelona, 25-26 February 2010);

- Informal meeting of Ministers responsible for sport (Madrid, 20-21 April 2010);

- First formal meeting of Ministers responsible for sport in the Council (Brussels, 10 May 2010), preceded and prepared by the first meeting of the Council Working Party on Sport (Brussels, 6 April 2010);

- Meetings of the informal EU Working Groups in the field of sport:

- Member State Working Group on the White Paper on Sport (3 February 2010)
- EU Working Group on Sport and Health (30 June 2010)
- EU Working Group on Anti-Doping (14 January and 27 May 2010)
- EU Working Group on Sport and Economics (10-11 June 2010)
- EU Working Group on Non-Profit Sport Organisations (17 February 2010)
- EU Working Group on Education and Training in Sport (19-10 May 2010)
- EU Working Group on Social Integration and Gender Equality in Sport (8 July)

Generally, Member States have expressed support for developing the EU dimension in the field of sport and no Member State has opposed new EU action in the field of sport to support policies at national levels. There was broad consensus on the need to address the issue of health-enhancing physical activity as well as topics in the area of education and training (dual careers, sport in schools etc.).

The fight against doping was emphasized at most of the meetings, usually linked with a demand for exchange of best practices.

A number of Member States stressed the importance of sport for social inclusion and social cohesion while highlighting the need to help people with disabilities and the importance of working together towards gender equality. Several Member States referred to the integration of minorities.

Regarding possible incentive measures, Member States identified several priority areas where incentive measure at EU level would be desirable. The following areas were singled out both at the informal meeting of Ministers in Madrid and at the first formal meeting of Ministers in Brussels:

- Health, including reference to previous work of the Commission on Physical Activity Guidelines;

- Education and training, including the issue of dual careers;

- The fight against doping;

- The financing of grassroots sport;

- Good governance and structured dialogue.

2.3 Group of Independent Sport Experts

In addition to consultations with institutional stakeholders and the general public, the Commission decided to seek the views of a number of independent experts with proven experience in the area of sport and EU integration. A Group of Independent Sport Experts (hereinafter: "the Group") was set up in order to provide independent added value to the overall consultation process. The Group included the following participants: Mr Manolis Mavrommatis, Ms Raija Mattila, Ms Lydia la Rivière-Zijdel, Mr Thierry Zintz, Mr Richard Parrish, Mr Stefan Szymanski, Ms Claudia Bokel, Ms Theresa Zabell, Mr Jean-Michel Oppert, Mr Pietro Paolo Mennea.

The Group met in April and June 2010. The experts agreed that Mr Manolis Mavrommatis would be the Group's rapporteur. The Group's final report is available on the Sport Unit's website.

The Group highlighted the great potential of sport and physical activity to enhance public health. The Group also raised the importance of strengthening the role of education, training and qualifications in sport and taking advantage of the opportunities created by EQF and ECVET.

The Group observed that the definition of “migrants” should include both migrants from outside the EU, where the focus should be on social inclusion, and migrants coming from other Member States, who may face problems in participating in amateur sport due to restrictions based on nationality.

The Group recommended that promotion of volunteering should be a priority at EU level, with a focus on (de)regulatory measures and research. Good practices, such as employers allowing their employees time for voluntary activities, should be disseminated and promoted.

Research and better knowledge should be, according to the Group, a priority for the Commission in order to better understand the phenomenon of doping and how to combat it.

The Group put forward a proposal for establishing the European Capitals of Sport as an EU initiative in the future, which would be managed in a similar way as the European Capitals of Culture. The initiative should promote sport-minded cities that have a sustainable, citizen-friendly and effective way of promoting and offering sports and that can be communicated as role models. The Group noted that the exchange of good practices in the abovementioned areas is essential and should be supported among the Member States.

Regarding possible incentive measures, the Group recommended that the Commission should focus on the following areas:

- Health-enhancing physical activity: support for the assessment and dissemination of good practice and examples of physical activity promotion for health throughout the life span, and to help develop a multi-sectoral approach of physical activity promotion.

- Social inclusion through sport, including disabled people, gender equality, migrants, discrimination and violence.

- Education and training: support for exchange of best practices in the areas of sport and physical activity at school, dual careers and qualifications for the labour market in the area of sport (vocational education and training).

- Research, particularly as regards health-enhancing physical activity, anti-doping, good governance and volunteering.

- Promotion of the physical and moral integrity of sportspeople, including the fight against doping and preventive measures to protect the health of athletes, in particular the youngest ones.

The Group noted that in all areas, EU grants should be awarded on the basis of objective criteria following transparent and competitive calls for proposals.

10.Results of the online questionnaire

Assessment points conversion table
Field value	Corresponding relative value
Strongly agree	3
Agree	2
Tend to agree	1
Don't know	0
Tend to disagree	-1
Disagree	-2
Strongly disagree	-3

Item/Question	Weighted Average Relative Value
Individuals	Organisations
PART I. ADDRESSING KEY CHALLENGES FOR SPORT IN EUROPE
Social and educational function of sport
Q1	The practice of sport and physical activity is not sufficiently supported by public authorities.	1,58	1,36
Q2	The practice of sport and physical activity is not sufficiently supported by sport organisations.	0,30	- 0,18
Q3	Sport organisations concentrate too much on competitive sports at the expense of non-competitive activities and health-enhancing physical activity.	0,97	0,77
Q4	There is not enough sport and physical activity in primary and secondary education.	2,12	2,16
Q5	There is not enough sport and physical activity in higher education.	2,06	1,97
Q6	Too many obstacles (e.g. physical obstacles, availability, expenses) exist to accessing sporting activities and facilities.	1,30	1,40
Q7	There are unequal possibilities to access sporting activities and facilities between different socio-economic groups.	1,42	1,55
Q8	The potential of sport in relation to social inclusion is not sufficiently exploited.	1,64	1,82
Q9	Access to sporting activities and facilities is more difficult for women than for men.	- 0,55	- 0,40
Q10	Women are underrepresented in sports, notably in management and leadership positions.	0,97	0,97
Q11	With the exception of some professional sports, cross-border mobility of people involved in sports is weak.	1,19	1,14
Q12	The quality of training for coaches, trainers and other sport professionals dealing with children and young people is insufficient.	0,65	0,73
Q13	There are important obstacles to practising a sports profession in another Member State than the one where the qualification for this profession was acquired.	0,67	0,72
Q14	It is difficult for an athlete to combine a sporting career with studies or with an alternative professional career.	1,21	1,07
Q15	There is not enough comparable data on the economic and social impact of sport in EU Member States.	1,47	1,61

Volunteering in sport
Q16	Voluntary activity in sport is not sufficiently recognised as a valuable contribution to society and to personal development.	1,86	2,01
Q17	Voluntary activity in sport is hindered by legal obstacles such as disadvantageous fiscal practices, employment laws and inadequate insurance schemes.	1,36	1,48
Q18	There are not enough incentives for voluntary activities in sport.	1,69	1,75
Q19	Opportunities to take part in voluntary activities in sport are unequal for people from different socio-economic groups.	0,75	0,73
Physical and moral integrity of sportspeople
Q20	Sportsmen and sportswomen, especially the youngest ones, are not sufficiently protected from doping.	0,84	0,58
Q21	Sportsmen and sportswomen, especially the youngest ones, are not sufficiently protected from overtraining and other harmful practices (e.g. unhealthy diets).	1,18	0,88
Q22	Under-age sportsmen and sportswomen are not sufficiently protected from exploitation.	0,60	0,34
Q23	There are not enough preventive measures against injuries and accidents in sport.	0,72	0,63
Q24	Fairness in sporting competitions is endangered by the use of doping substances.	2,17	1,88
Q25	Doping substances and methods are extensively used among high-level athletes.	0,85	0,45
Q26	The use of doping substances and methods is wide-spread among recreational users (e.g. in gyms, fitness centres, amateur sport clubs).	0,47	0,16
Q27	It is easy to obtain doping substances.	0,95	0,75
Governance of sport
Q28	There is not enough communication among different EU Member States regarding different approaches they have in relation to sport and sport policy.	1,44	1,61
Q29	There is not enough communication and cooperation among sport organisations that work on the same topics.	1,39	1,45
Q30	Public authorities do not respect the autonomy of sport organisations to regulate their own sports.	0,30	0,17
Q31	Sport organisations often consider themselves above the law.	0,42	- 0,20
Q32	Sport organisations are not sufficiently transparent and democratic in their functioning.	0,99	0,31
Q33	Sport organisations do not involve relevant actors in decision-making processes to a sufficient degree.	1,06	0,56
Q34	Sport events and activities often have a negative impact on the environment.	- 0,64	- 0,96
Q35	Professional sport does not provide enough funding for grassroots sport.	1,53	1,48
Q36	Public funding for grassroots sports is not sufficiently stable.	1,64	1,81
Q37	Too much public funding is allocated to high-level sport.	0,53	0,45
Specificity of sport
Q38	There are not enough opportunities to engage in dialogue with European authorities on the specific nature of sport.	1,25	1,50
Q39	The societal values of sport are not sufficiently taken into account compared to its commercial aspects.	1,91	1,96
Q40	The rights of athletes are not sufficiently respected by sport organisations.	0,50	0,05

Fairness and openness of sporting competitions
Q41	Strong commercial pressure and requirements of the media endanger the original spirit of sport based on fair play.	1,89	1,42
Q42	Media and sponsors influence the decision-making of sport organisations too much.	1,90	1,37
Q43	The increasing commercialisation and mediatisation of sport has benefited only professional sports, not the grassroots level of sport.	1,54	1,28
Q44	Sport exacerbates nationalist attitudes.	0,33	0,07
Q45	There are not enough preventive measures to tackle the problem of violence at sporting events.	0,83	0,75
Q46	Not enough preventive measures are in place in order to tackle problems related to discrimination, racism, homophobia and xenophobia in sport.	0,79	0,74
Q47	Financial crime in sports is spreading.	1,16	0,76

PART II. IDENTIFIYING POLICY PRIORITIES FOR EU ACTION
Social and educational function of sport
A1	Support the role of sport in enhancing public health through physical activity.	2,52	2,57
A2	Promote sport and physical activity as a tool to achieve a more active lifestyle and to fight against obesity.	2,49	2,57
A3	Encourage EU Member States and sport organisations to take action in order to increase participation levels in sport and physical activity.	2,49	2,54
A4	Eliminate obstacles to the practice of sport for EU citizens residing in other Member States than their own.	1,99	1,90
A5	Support and promote the social and educational function of sport.	2,44	2,52
A6	Encourage EU Member States and sport organisations to improve the quality of training for sport professionals who deal with children and young people.	2,23	2,27
A7	Promote better integration of sports issues in education and training policies.	2,33	2,34
A8	Encourage EU Member States and other actors to improve equal access to sport activities and facilities.	2,19	2,20
A9	Promote "sport for all".	2,41	2,47
A10	Support the role of sport in relation to social integration and inclusion (regardless of age, gender, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability etc.).	2,31	2,41
A11	Promote gender equality in sport.	2,01	2,17
A12	Promote the mobility of people active in sports, notably young people.	1,89	1,96
A13	Promote knowledge-based decision-making in the field of sport.	2,12	2,22
A14	Collect and analyse comparable statistical data on the impact of sport in economic and social terms.	2,07	2,20
Volunteering in sport
A15	Promote the recognition of volunteering in sport as a valuable contribution to society and to personal development.	2,30	2,47
A16	Encourage Member States and other actors to remove obstacles to volunteering.	2,25	2,38
Physical and moral integrity of sportspeople
A17	Contribute to the fight against doping.	2,47	2,34
A18	Take action against trade in illegal doping substances.	2,57	2,49
A19	Support co-operation among Member States, sport organisations and other actors in order to prevent injuries and accidents in sport.	2,17	2,16
A20	Contribute to the protection of minors in sport against exploitation.	2,35	2,35
Governance of sport
A21	Foster coordination and cooperation among Member States, sport organisations and other actors in the field of sport.	2,11	2,25
A22	Refrain from taking initiatives in the field of sport.	- 0,91	- 0,96
A23	Promote good governance in the field of sport.	1,97	1,96
A24	Promote dialogue among different actors on the specific characteristics of sport.	1,98	2,02
A25	Promote and support environmentally sustainable planning and execution of sporting activities.	1,94	1,97
A26	Promote sustainable public and private financing of grassroots sports.	2,23	2,31
A27	Support networking and exchange of best practice in sport.	2,21	2,41
Specificity of sport
A28	Strengthen its dialogue with sport organisations to provide guidance on the application of EU law in the sport sector.	2,01	2,14
A29	Pursue a better balance between the societal and commercial dimensions of sport.	2,07	2,06
A30	Pursue a better balance between the objectives of sport organisations and the rights of athletes.	1,87	1,81
Fairness and openness of sporting competitions
A31	Promote EU values, notably human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and the respect for human rights, in sport.	2,33	2,32
A32	Promote and support fairness in European sporting competitions.	2,42	2,33
A33	Promote the ethical and social values of sport.	2,46	2,48
A34	Support the prevention of and the fight against discrimination, racism, xenophobia, homophobia and violence in sport.	2,41	2,42
A35	Actively contribute to the fight against financial crime in sport.	2,37	2,29
A36	Encourage co-operation among national sport organisations, national governing bodies and other actors in order to fight against corruption in sport.	2,41	2,38

11.Position papers received in the framework of the consultation

Date	Organisation
05/01/2010 and 27/05/2010	CCPR
14/01/2010	ENGSO
20/01/2010	Sports Rights Owners Coalition (SROC)
29/01/2010	IOC
18/02/2010 and 29/06/2010	EPFL
04/03/2010	Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sports (NIF)
05/03/2010 and 31/05/2010	EU Athletes
12/03/2010	EOSE
23/03/2010	FIFPro
19/04/2010	EGBA
22/04/2010	Austrian Road Safety Board
23/04/2010	RGA
26/04/2010	New Media Coalition
26/04/2010	EASE
29/04/2010	SportElite Marketing Ltd
03/05/2010	Snowpolis Oy
05/05/2010	PADI Europe
05/05/2010	Federación andaluza de deportes de discapacitados fisicos
10/05/2010	Swim Ireland
12/05/2010	Irish Waterski and Wakeboard Federation
12/05/2010	Técnico de Apoyo a Programas del Consorcio
12/05/2010	Consejo General de los Ilustres Colegios Oficiales de Licenciados en Educación Física y en Ciencias de la Actividad Física y del Deporte de España
17/05/2010	Unione Italiana dei Ciechi e degli Ipovedenti
17/05/2010	British Gliding Association
26/05/2010	European Volunteer Center
27/05/2010	FESI
27/05/2010	NOC and Sports Confederation of Denmark
27/05/2010	ENSSEE
27/05/2010	European Coaching Council
28/05/2010	Dutch Olympic Committee and National Sports Federation (NOC*NSF)
28/05/2010	PGA
31/05/2010	EHFA
01/06/2010	ISCA
01/06/2010	CNOSF
01/06/2010	European Fashion Council
17/06/2010	Supporters Direct
18/06/2010	EEA / EFTA
01/07/2010	European Professional Football Leagues (EPFL)
07/07/2010	Deutscher Olympischer Sport Bund (DOSB)
10/07/2010	English Football Premier League (FAPL)
03/08/2010	Football Association of Ireland
08/09/2010	UEFA
Public Authorities
23/03/2010	The Netherlands (Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport)
29/03/2010	Finland (Ministry of Culture and Sport)
13/04/2010	Belgium (Sportdienst, Stad Herentals)
26/04/2010	Spain (Ministry for Youth and Sports of Extremadura)
26/05/2010	Germany (Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart, Sportamt)
01/06/2010	Spain (Diputación de Barcelona)

Annex II: White Paper Implementation table

September 2010

White Paper on Sport
ACTION PLAN "PIERRE DE COUBERTIN"
Overview of progress made (core areas)

Action	Progress
A. The societal role of sport
A.1. Public health and physical activity
- Together with the Member States, develop new physical activity guidelines.	EU Sport Ministers endorsed the EU Physical Activity Guidelines at their informal meeting in Biarritz on 27-28/11/08 and asked for their transmission to the Council. Follow-up to the Guidelines is, for the time being, taking place in the EU Working Group "Sport & Health", which supervised the preparation of the Guidelines. Health-enhancing physical activity (HEPA) is covered by the Preparatory Action for Sport 2009, where half of the co-financed projects (i.e. 9 projects with grants totalling € 2m) are HEPA projects. Further concrete steps will depend on follow-up in the Council and on the availability of funding for European networks.
- Support an EU Health-Enhancing Physical Activity network and, if appropriate, smaller and more focused networks dealing with specific aspects of the topic.	Recommendations regarding the network are part of the EU Physical Activity Guidelines. Good cooperation has been established with the WHO's Rome Office and the HEPA Europe Network (European network on health-enhancing physical activity). At the annual HEPA Europe conference in Olomouc (CZ) in November 2010, the first meeting of an EU Contact Group will take place.
- Mobilise the 7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (RTD), the EU Public Health Programme, the Youth and Citizenship programmes and the Life-Long Learning (LLL) Programme.	A number of sport organisations have obtained grants, in particular from the Public Health, Youth and Citizenship programmes. Their work is regularly presented at meetings of the EU Platform for Action on Nutrition, Health and Physical Activity.
A.2. Fight against doping
- Support partnerships through training courses and networking between training centres for law enforcement officers.	The issue has been discussed at several meetings of the EU Working Group on Anti-Doping in 2009/2010. Further concrete steps will depend, however, on the availability of funding.
- Facilitate a coordinated EU approach in the fight against doping, e.g. by supporting a network of national anti-doping organisations.	The EU Working Group on Anti-Doping is working on such issues as data protection, transportation of samples by air, criminalisation of trade in doping substances, cooperation with the pharmaceutical industry, co-operation between accredited anti-doping laboratories in the EU, and EU-WADA relations. The WG mechanism has been useful in coordinating efforts with the Council of Europe. Further concrete steps will depend, however, on the availability of funding.
A.3. Education and training
- Promote participation in educational opportunities through sport under the Lifelong Learning Programme (Comenius, Erasmus, Leonardo da Vinci, Grundtvig).	Included in LLP priorities for 2008-2010 and part of the agenda of the EU Working Group on Education Training in Sport. Education and training projects with a focus on dual careers are covered by the Preparatory Action for sport 2009.
- Identify projects for the implementation of the European Qualification Framework (EQF) and the European Credit System for Vocational Education and Training (ECVET) in the sport sector.	Good progress is being made. Information on the first 3 projects (EQF for outdoor animators, EQF sports, ECVET for the fitness industry) was presented at a final conference in Dec. 2008. 2 projects (EQF for outdoor animators – phase 2, European accreditation system for the fitness industry) were supported in 2008-2009. Topics relating to qualifications are being discussed in the Working Group "Education and Training in Sport".
- Introduce the award of a European label to schools actively supporting physical activities.	The Member States represented in the informal Working Group "Education and Training in Sport" advised the Commission to take this action point in reconsideration since there is no great interest in such a label in most Member States.
- Complete the analysis of rules requiring that teams include a certain quota of locally trained players.	A detailed analysis completed in spring 2008 resulted in May 2008 in a joint press release by Commissioners Figel' and Špidla endorsing UEFA's rules on "home-grown players". The press release included a rendez-vous clause to re-assess the rule in 2012.
A.4. Volunteering in sport, active citizenship and non-profit sport organisations
- Together with Member States, identify key challenges for non-profit sport organisations and the main characteristics of services provided by these organisations.	The EU Working Group on Non-Profit Sport Organisations has focused its work on financing and volunteering. Topics discussed at recent meetings included the impact of the economic crisis on sport, developments in the field of sports betting and a proposal on sport and competition law.
- Support grassroots sport through the Europe for Citizens Programme.	Operational grants were provided to two sport organisations in 2008 and to three stakeholders in 2010. Three sport projects have been supported by Citizens Panels. One of these projects was coordinated by ENGSO and aimed at collecting views on the EU's future competence on sport (http://www.eusportfuture.eu).
- Encourage young people's volunteering in sport through the Youth in Action Programme.	On-going. A considerable number of Youth in Action projects have a sport component.
- Develop the exchange of information and best practice on volunteering in sport.	Volunteering was one of the Czech Presidency's priorities and resulted in a Memorandum. Financial support has been provided to the organisation of the 10th European Youth Olympic Festival in Tampere and the XVI Mediterranean Games in Pescara in June/July 2009, with special focus on volunteering. The 2010 Preparatory Action in the field of sport includes a Call for proposals on management support for voluntary activity. 29 applications have been received.
- Launch a study on volunteering in sport.	This study was combined with a wider Commission study on volunteering, which includes a sector study on sport. The study was published in early 2010. It illustrates the importance of voluntary activity in the sport sector and identifies trends and challenges in the EU-27.
A.5. Social inclusion in and through sport
- Mobilise the Progress, Lifelong Learning, Youth in Action and Europe for Citizens programmes as well as the European Social Fund, the European Regional Development Fund and the European Integration Fund to support actions promoting social inclusion and integration through sport and combating discrimination in sport.	Some sport-related projects are being supported through these programmes. In particular, projects financed through the ERDF and the ESF are underway in several Member States. As proposed by the Spanish Presidency, an informal Working Group with Member States has been created on Social Integration and Equal Opportunities in and through sport.
- The Action Plan on the European Union Disability Strategy, take into account the importance of sport for disabled people and support Member State actions in this field.	The Commission intends to include port in the next EU Disability Strategy running from 2010 to 2020. The 2009 Preparatory Action for sport covers disability sport. Events organised by Special Olympics are being supported in 2010/2011 (Warsaw/Athens).
- In the framework of the Roadmap for Equality between Women and Men 2006-2010, encourage the mainstreaming of gender issues into sports-related activities, with a specific focus on access to sport for immigrant women and women from ethnic minorities, women's access to decision-making positions in sport and media coverage of women in sport.	The 2009 Preparatory Action covers gender equality in sport management. The intention is to include sport in the next EU Strategy (2010-2015) on gender equality.
A.6. Fight against racism and violence in sport
- As regards racism and xenophobia, promote dialogue and exchange of best practices in the existing cooperation framework.	As a first step, this issue was covered by a DG JLS conference in November 2007. A study on racism in sport has been launched by the EU's Fundamental Rights Agency. The results of the study will be available in 2010. The possible inclusion of anti-discrimination and anti-racism clauses in players' contracts has been discussed at the European Social Dialogue Committee for Professional Football.
- Promote, in accordance with national and EU rules applicable, the exchange of operational information and practical know-how and experience on the prevention of violent and racist incidents between law enforcement services and with sport organisations.	On the basis of Council Decision 2002/348/JHA on security at international football matches, data exchange between National Football Information Points is being developed and should be further reinforced with UEFA. The Commission promotes a wide use of the Handbook for Police Cooperation, adopted in 2006 to prevent and control violence more efficiently. Pan-European training for police officers and safety personnel, financially supported by the Commission, was launched in 2009.
- Analyse possibilities for new legal instruments or EU-wide standards to prevent public disorder at sport events.	The Council adopted in November 2008 a Framework Decision on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law (2008/913/JHA). It contributes to tackling these phenomena also in sport. To develop integrated in-stadia safety and security arrangements, an expert group was set up in 2008. UEFA and the European Committee on Standardisation (CEN) have been associated. National and local governmental authorities should ensure efficient safety certification of stadia and their enforcement.
- Promote a multidisciplinary approach to preventing anti-social behaviour, with a special focus given to socio-educational actions such as fan-coaching (long-term work with supporters to develop a positive and non-violent attitude).	The Commission promotes a multi-disciplinary and multi-agency approach reflected in the conclusions of the high-level conference "Towards an EU strategy against violence in sport" (2007).
- Strengthen regular and structured cooperation among law enforcement services, sport organisations and other stakeholders.	The Work Programme on minimising safety and security risks, adopted by the Council in 2007, has served as a basis for cooperation and coordination initiatives between public authorities and sport organisations. The implementation of the related Action Plan is annually updated by the Police Cooperation Working Group in the Council.
- Encourage the use of the following programmes, to contribute to the prevention of and fight against violence and racism in sport: Youth in Action, Europe for Citizens, DAPHNE III, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship and Prevention and Fight against Crime.	Among financially supported initiatives can be mentioned the project ARIES aiming at the promotion of youth sport to achieve zero tolerance of discrimination and the KROSSS project focused on Kicking Racism out of Sports, Schools and Society.
- Organise a high level conference to discuss measures contributing to prevent and fight violence and racism in sport events with stakeholders.	The conference was organised on 28-29 November 2007 under the auspices of the EU Presidency, Commission, European Parliament and UEFA. It focused on law enforcement cooperation, fan culture, and cooperation with local authorities and judicial cooperation.
B. The economic dimension of sport
B.1. Economic impact of sport
- Together with Member States, develop a European statistical method for measuring the economic impact of sport.	The method of a Sport Satellite Account (SSA) has been agreed and developed by the Commission-led EU Working Group “Sport & Economics” since 2006. At the 4th meeting of the WG in Oct. '07 consensus was reached on a European statistical definition of sport ("Vilnius definition"). Following its 7th meeting in Oct. '09, the WG had prepared an SSA policy paper, methodology paper and a short publication with first data results (Austria, Cyprus, UK), which was presented to EU Sport Ministers and stakeholders in 2010. Four other Member States will finalise their national SSAs in 2011.
- Conduct specific sport-related surveys to provide non-economic information on sport.	A Eurobarometer survey on sport and physical activity was launched in the second half of 2009. Commissioner Vassiliou presented the results at a press conference in March 2010 and at the Sport Forum in April 2010. There was wide coverage in the media in all Member States.
- Launch a study to assess the sport sector’s contribution to the Lisbon Agenda.	A Call for Tender for a study on sport’s contribution to economic growth and employment in the EU-27 was launched in summer 2010. Results can be expected in the first half of 2012.
- Organise the exchange of best practices concerning the organisation of large sport events.	The French Presidency presented a study on the Rugby World Championship in 2008.
B.2. Public support for sport
- Carry out a study on the financing of grassroots sport and sport for all in the Member States from both public and private sources, and on the impact of on-going changes in this area.	A Commission study got under way in October 2009. The study will inter alia look into cross-border obstacles to sport funding. A stakeholder conference took place on 16 February 2010 in Brussels. Study results are expected at the end of 2010.
- Defend the possibilities of reduced VAT rates for sport.	EU legislation on Value-Added Tax (reduced rates) has not changed with regard to the sport sector.
C. The organisation of sport
C.1. Free movement and nationality
- Combat discrimination based on nationality in all sports through political dialogue, recommendations, structured dialogue with stakeholders and infringement procedures when appropriate.	This is a permanent priority and part of the ongoing structured dialogue with sport stakeholders. Repeated contacts with FIFA and other football organisations have taken place about "6+5".
- Launch a study on access to individual sport competitions for non-nationals.	The kick-off meeting for the study took place in January 2010. The results of the study are expected at the end of 2010.
C.2. Players' agents
- Carry out an impact assessment to provide a clear overview of the activities of players’ agents in the EU and an evaluation of whether action at EU level is necessary, which will also analyse the different possible options.	As a first step, an independent study was published on the Sport Unit's website in December 2009.
C.4. Corruption, money-laundering and other financial crime
- Support public-private partnerships representative of sports interests and anticorruption authorities, which would identify vulnerabilities to corruption in the sport sector and assist in the development of effective preventive and repressive strategies to counter such corruption.	The Commission is preparing an updated Report on the implementation of Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA on corruption in the private sector. The report will be part of the anti-corruption package on a comprehensive anti-corruption policy in the EU. Initiatives could also be undertaken through the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) as a follow up to its 2009 study on money laundering in sport.
- Continue to monitor the implementation of EU anti-money laundering legislation in the Member States with regard to the sport sector.	The FATF has carried out a study on money laundering through sport clubs (football in particular). Published in July 2009, the study has relied on the experience and support of the Member States of the FATF, the Commission and the private sector. The report is accompanied by policy recommendations, including on the need to raise awareness of the risk of money laundering in sport.
C.5. Licensing systems
- Starting with football, organise a conference with UEFA, EPFL, Fifpro, national associations and national leagues on existing licensing systems and best practices in this field.	The Conference took place in Brussels on 17-18 September 2009. It gathered representatives of football (federations, leagues, clubs and players) as well as representatives of other team sports with an interest in the issue of licensing systems, in order to facilitate exchange of views and sharing of good practices on this topic. All the documents of the conference (presentations, speeches, list of participants, etc.) have been posted on the Sport Unit's website.

Annex III: The added value of EU action in relation to Health-Enhancing Physical Activity

Individual and public health depend to a considerable extent on whether citizens have access to regular physical activity (including, but going beyond, sport). Such access in turn depends heavily on policy choices made at national, regional and local levels.

To facilitate regular physical activity among the population, guidelines are needed which define the kind of policy coordination that is needed, both between sectors (public, voluntary, private), policy areas (e.g. health, education, transport, urban planning, sport), and levels of organisation (national, regional, local). The EU Physical Activity Guidelines^⁵³, initially requested by Member State Sport Ministers, were developed with the aim to provide a general framework and to state the most obvious needs in the form of 41 concrete guidelines. They are intended to be elaborated at national level through national physical activity guidelines.

At present, national guidelines do not exist in most Member States, nor does the kind of inter-sectoral cooperation recommended by the EU Guidelines. The question is whether a correlation can be demonstrated between physical activity levels in individual Member States and the existence and implementation of physical activity guidelines.

A considerable number of studies indicate that such correlation does indeed exist. Most recently, dissimilar patterns in citizens' regular participation in sport and physical activity have been evidenced at EU-27 level by Special Eurobarometer 72.3 on Sport and Physical Activity (February 2010).^⁵⁴

The Eurobarometer survey looked at the regularity, venues and personal motivation of exercising and also the attitude of local sport stakeholders. Disparities among Member States in the field of sport and physical activity appear to be very significant and larger than in other socioeconomic areas.

The Eurobarometer survey generated replies regarding five categories of regularity of physical activity ("Regularly", "With some regularity", "Seldom", "Never", "Don't Know"). Combined scores in the two highest categories ("Regularly" + "With some regularity") provide a picture in terms of people's self-perceived realistic opportunities for daily physical activity. This provides the following ranking among the Member States (all figures reflect percentages of respondents):

Sweden: 22 + 50 = 72

Finland: 17 + 55 = 72

Denmark: 15 + 49 = 64

Ireland: 23 + 35 = 58

Netherlands: 5 + 51 = 56

Slovenia: 13 + 39 = 52

Luxembourg: 12 + 39 = 51

Belgium: 16 + 34 = 50

Germany: 9 + 40 = 49

Malta: 17 + 31 = 48

France: 13 + 35 = 48

United Kingdom: 14 + 32 = 46

Cyprus: 16 + 25 = 41

EU 27 average: 9 + 31 = 40

Spain: 12 + 27 = 39

Austria: 5 + 33 = 38

Lithuania: 14 + 22 = 36

Estonia: 7 + 27 = 34

Portugal: 9 + 24 = 33

Slovakia: 5 + 25 = 30

Italy: 3 + 26 = 29

Czech Republic: 5 + 23 = 28

Latvia: 8 + 19 = 27

Poland: 6 + 19 = 25

Hungary: 5 + 18 = 23

Romania: 8 + 13 = 21

Greece: 3 + 15 = 18

Bulgaria: 3 + 10 = 13

While cultural, climatic and financial differences may be expected to influence these scores, it will be noticed that the picture is not one of a clear-cut north/south or east/west split. For example, Finland/Estonia, Cyprus/Greece and Spain/Portugal are pairs of countries displaying larger disparities than might have been expected.

Against the backdrop of such stark intra-EU differences, work related to the EU Physical Guidelines and national guidelines takes on a whole new dimension. The following Member States are currently members of the Working Group on Sport and Health, under whose supervision the EU Guidelines were developed: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Luxemburg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain and the United Kingdom.

The EU Physical Activity Guidelines stress the need for national guidelines to be developed as more comprehensive tools, adding more detail than can be found in a set of standards covering the entire EU. According to information available to the Commission, at least the following Member States have had national guidelines in place for a certain number of years before the EU Physical Activity Guidelines were endorsed at an informal meeting of EU Sport Ministers in 2008^⁵⁵: United Kingdom, France, Luxembourg, Germany, Slovenia and Finland.

The following table compares the outcome of the Eurobarometer survey with participation of Member States in the informal Working Group on Sport and Health and with the availability and implementation of national physical activity guidelines:

Member State	Eurobarometer score	EU Working Group Sport and Health membership	National physical activity guidelines preceding EU Guidelines
Sweden	72
Finland	72		
Denmark	64
Ireland	58
Netherlands	56		
Slovenia	52		
Luxembourg	51		
Belgium	50	
Germany	49		
Malta	48
France	48		
United Kingdom	46		
Cyprus	41	
EU 27	40
Spain:	39	
Austria	38	
Lithuania	36
Estonia	34
Portugal	33	
Slovakia	30
Italy	29
Czech Republic	28	
Latvia	27
Poland	25	
Hungary	23
Romania	21
Greece	18	
Bulgaria	13

The table shows that most EU Working Group members are concentrated in the higher end of the table. More than half of Working Group members (9), and all countries with national guidelines predating the EU Guidelines are countries with physical activity scores above the EU average.

There is thus clearly a correlation between physical activity levels in individual Member States and the existence and implementation of physical activity guidelines. Exchange of information and good practice already takes place between Member States with higher and lower physical activity scores and several Member States are taking steps to design and adopt national physical activity guidelines (e.g. Spain has recently adopted an ambitious strategy in this field ("Plan A+D")).

By facilitating such exchange among all Member States (in particular those that are not involved in the existing informal structure), for example on the basis of a Council Recommendation and a limited monitoring mechanism, EU action in relation to Health-Enhancing Physical Activity can therefore be expected to have a high added value in terms of individual and public health in the EU overall.

1The Impact Assessment Roadmap providing a first description of the planned Commission initiative was published at http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/planned_ia/roadmaps_2010_en.htm.

2Also the European Parliament, in its “Written Declaration on increased European Union support for grassroots sports”, calls on the Commission and the Member States to promote sport for all and grassroots sport structures; 60 signatories as of 9.9.2010 (ongoing).

3COM(2007) 391, 11.7.2007.

4Sporting activity is an integral part of the daily lives of citizens. The Eurobarometer survey 2009 shows that 65% of EU citizens regularly engage in some form of physical activity. Sport also fulfils important functions within society in terms of public health, with regard to the inclusion of marginal groups, within formal and non-formal education and as a means to reinforce active citizenship. On the economic side the sector, in particular through its professionalised and commercialised segments but also its non-profit structures, generates growth, jobs and investment.

5A "White Paper Implementation Table" illustrating the state of progress in implementing the Action Plan "Pierre de Coubertin" has been annexed to this report.

6Public contract EAC/14/06. Results of the study: http://ec.europa.eu/sport/news/news492_en.htm.

7Public contract EAC/13/08. Results of the study: http://ec.europa.eu/sport/news/news879_en.htm.

8Public contract EACEA/2008/07. Results of the study: http://ec.europa.eu/sport/news/news900_en.htm.

9Public contract MARKT/2009/04/E. Results of the Conference on sustainable funding models for grassroots sports in the Internal Market carried out in the framework of that study have been published: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/top_layer/sport_en.htm.

10Public contract EAC/19/2009: http://ec.europa.eu/sport/news/news792_en.htm . The study should consider the growing number of questions and complaints addressed to the Commission by European citizens, informing it of restrictions on access to sport activities and/or sport competitions in certain Member States and in various sports.

11Public contract to be published end of 2010: Sport is a cross-sectoral sector that shows strong synergies with other economic sectors (e.g. production, retail, infrastructure, tourism, education, media, betting). Through the activities in all these sectors sport directly and indirectly contributes to macroeconomic output. Research and studies to measure the economic importance of sport have been carried out, however, not for the EU-27.

12Eurobarometer on Sport and Physical Activity, published in March 2010.

13Reports from these conferences have been published: http://ec.europa.eu/sport/index_en.htm.

14EU Physical Activity Guidelines, informally endorsed by EU Ministers responsible for sport in 2008.

15Reports from meetings of these Working Groups have been published:
http://ec.europa.eu/sport/library/doc484_en.htm.

16Open calls EAC/21/2009 and EAC/22/2010 have been published:
http://ec.europa.eu/sport/index_en.htm . A budget for the Preparatory Action 2011 has been proposed. In the framework of the 2009 Call for Proposals, the Commission provided financial support to 18 sport-related projects, involving 150 sport organisations in Europe. Number of submitted proposals in 2009 (four areas): 207 applications, in 2010 (three areas): 144 applications.

17Consultations with the general public were carried out in line with the “General principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by the Commission” - COM(2002) 704.

18The 2007 White Paper on Sport included an Action Plan which, however, only committed the Commission.

19Special Eurobarometer 213 "Citizens of the European Union and sport" (November 2004).

20Eurobarometer 334 "Sport and Physical Activity" (March 2010).

21E.g. the EU study ‘Young people's lifestyles and sedentariness’ (2005).

22This has already been done through action in the fields of health and consumer protection, research funding as well as in education and culture. Until now, however, more dedicated political mechanisms as well as dedicated funding have been missing.

23First results of the 2009 Preparatory Action in the field of sport suggest that in view of the variety of practices and actors in different Member States and in respect of the role of the Member States in this field, support for transnational projects and exchange of information and good practices is likely to have a high European added value.

2467% of Europeans are not member of any sport or fitness club (Eurobarometer 2009).

25The European Council in its 2008 Declaration on Sport called on the Commission to address the topic of combined high-level sports training and general education ("dual career").

26For instance, the European Year of Active Citizenship through Volunteering 2011 inter alia aims at lowering the obstacles to volunteering and at empowering voluntary structures.

27COM(2007) 630.

28There are no legal limits on the EU’s right to act in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

29Examples illustrating disparities between Member States with regard to physical activity can be found in Annex III.

30The implementation of the ongoing and planned Preparatory Actions 2009, 2010 and 2011 will however continue until mid-2013, when the implementation of the last projects will be finalised (see section 1.6).

31Account should be taken of the fact that, from the beginning, the White Paper was intended to pave the way for the coming into force of the new sport provisions in the Treaty.

32See section 1.6.

33Positive examples include work carried out in the Working Group “Sport & Economics” aimed at developing a statistical tool to measure the economic impact of sport; or cooperation with the sport movement in order to address the free movement of sportspeople in the Internal Market.

34Examples include progress made in the field of sport and health.

35Likewise, the continuation of the activities launched within the Preparatory Actions 2009-2011 until 2013, despite the advantage linked to networking activities and despite the positive impacts in terms of health, employment and inclusion, cannot be expected to have a sustainable or measurable economic or significant social impact given the small budget and limited number of projects financed (PA 2009: 18 projects for a total amount of € 4m; PA 2010: 13 projects / € 2.5m; PA 2011: Commission proposes € 1m, CULT Committee proposes € 10m).

36On the other hand, the environment can also affect the practice of sport: warmer climate conditions, for instance, can compromise sport activities such as winter sports. Water pollution, air pollution, stratospheric ozon deterioration, habitat loss, toxic waste, pesticide residues, noise, traffic emissions, climate change and indoor air quality constitute threats to the safe practice of sport.

37Several sport events and many sport facilities have already received EMAS certification (e.g. Nürburg Ring race circuit, golf courses, Turin 2006 Winter Olympics, stadiums for the 2008 UEFA European championship in Austria, the Ryder Cup, London Olympics 2012). In the framework of the Preparatory Action 2009, co-funding was provided to the organisation of the 10th European Youth Olympic Festival in Tampere (July '09) including requirements regarding sustainable development.

38Effects are expected based on the knowledge generated from a study commissioned by the Commission, carried out by an EU-wide inter-university consortium and published in January 2005: "Young People's Lifestyle and Sedentariness". This study confirmed that overweight and obesity have risen dramatically in the EU and are linked to unhealthy eating habits on the one hand and insufficient physical activity on the other. The study also revealed that the decrease in daily physical activity has been more dramatic than the increase in energy consumption. Against this backdrop, any measures that will allow Europeans to be more physically active can be expected to reduce overweight and obesity levels, improve individual and public health, and lead to a better quality of life for individual citizens, reduced health costs for public budgets and improved productivity for businesses.

39According to reports from several Member States and sport organisations.

40The negative economic effects of doping on sport disciplines, teams and individual sportspeople are well illustrated in sports such as cycling (e.g. withdrawal of sponsorship).

41See footnote 39.

42A Strategy for Europe on Nutrition, Overweight and Obesity related health issues - COM(2007) 279.

43The Strategy is based on four guiding principles: 1) Shared Health Values, 2) Health is the Greatest Wealth, 3) Health in All Policies (HIAP), 4) Strengthening the EU's Voice in Global Health. By fostering exchange on HEPA, including by mobilising sport and physical activity to contribute to health promotion, the Commission can contribute to the attainment of Principle 1 and, if international contacts are used, Principle 4. In this respect, Europe may have much to share with the rest of the world. Principle 2 represents the realisation that health is not just a cost, but equally an investment and that healthy societies are strong societies. Principle 3 reflects the fact that the objectives set can only be achieved via the integrated cooperation of all sectors, as recommended in the EU Physical Activity Guidelines (2008). Four Objectives have been formulated on the basis of these Principles, of which Objective 1 "Strengthening the EU's Voice on Global Health" and Objective 2 "Protecting Citizens from Health Threats" can be furthered directly through the proposed measures.

44The European Community is a signatory to this Convention, which establishes disability as a human rights issue and matter of law. The core elements of the EU disability strategy – which combines anti-discrimination, equal opportunities and active inclusion measures – are based on the Convention. The rights recognised by the Convention cover almost all policy fields, including sport. Accordingly, implementation of the Convention needs to be part of a strategic approach to disability.

45These cover all activities that are inputs for sport (e.g. sectors necessary for doing sport such as production of equipment, construction of infrastructure, education) and all activities that require sport as an input (e.g. sectors which are related to sport activity such as tourism, TV, health, sport betting, sport food, sport-related R&D).

46"Sport Satellite Accounts – A European Project: First Results", published in April 2010 with support from the European Commission, DG EAC.

47Regarding unpredictable externalities that may impact on the likelihoods and magnitudes, such as the current economic context, the table builds on a realistic scenario according to which, even in the worst case, only a marginal effect could be expected on the cooperation mechanisms proposed. The possible medium and long-term impacts of the current economic context and related challenges that put constraints on national and EU budgets and that imply new strategic policy choices are difficult to predict. Policy making in sport is not an exception. The importance that policy makers at national and European level wish to attach to sport in the upcoming years will partly depend on how the economic situation develops. There are two basic scenarios: The first scenario presumes stagnation and a relatively long period of revitalisation until the effects of the economic crisis disappear. The second scenario would be a positive one, according to which the European economy will overcome the current challenges in a shorter term. Under the first scenario and provided Options B or C were applied, a negative impact could be expected on the timeframe during which the policy objectives can be achieved and, in the worst case, it would lead to a lack of political support for coordinated EU action in the field of sport and less committal initiatives that in turn would be less conducive to promoting sport in Europe. As logic suggests, the second scenario would have the opposite, positive effect on the impacts of the policy options.

48The implementation of an OMC is also likely to raise the administrative burden in the Member States, since the introduction of reporting requirements increases business as usual costs in public administrations.

49Human Resources under Heading 5 of the multiannual financial framework ("Total administrative expenditure").

50See section 1.6.

51"Sport Satellite Accounts – A European Project: First Results", published in April 2010 with support from the European Commission, DG EAC

52The term “organisation” has been used in a wide sense, including sport organisations (e.g. a sport federation), sport-related organisations (e.g. a sports betting provider), public authorities (e.g. a Ministry) or public bodies (e.g. a sport agency), as well as private companies, research centres or universities.

53Brussels, 10 October 2008. EU Physical Activity Guidelines: Recommended Policy Actions in Support of Health-Enhancing Physical Activity.
http://ec.europa.eu/sport/library/doc/c1/pa_guidelines_4th_consolidated_draft_en.pdf

54Eurobarometer 72.3- Sport and Physical Activity.
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_334_en.pdf

55EU Physical Activity Guidelines (op. cit.), p. 4., footnote 1.

EN EN