Meet the speakers: “Sport is too important to be poorly governed”

What is your personal motivation for researching what the EU can do to reform sport? 

I care about sports and football, in particular. Not just the play on the pitch, but the deep cultural, political, and economic impact it has on our societies. I have found it troubling to see how the game has come to deviate ever more from the values many of us embrace. Democracy, human rights, and gender equality are trampled on. Core principles like sporting merit, competitive balance, and fan engagement are increasingly sidelined. It is time for change, and I hope to make a modest contribution to that. 

How would you describe the most important results of your research? 

There can be a degree of resignation when you advocate for reform in sports governance. Changes come slowly, and few of them are for the better. Federations, leagues, and other actors in the sports world have been adept at deflecting responsibility or adopting measures that look good on paper but ultimately remain ineffective. My key argument is that we can do something to improve the present state of affairs, and the EU is a central piece of the puzzle. 

Why does sport need to be reformed by the EU? 

In short, because no one else can do it. Some national governments have taken on the task of regulating sports, but they face two sets of problems. Often, their attempts fail due to pressure from sports organisations, which can threaten to exclude a country from its tournaments, structures, and funding schemes. Even where they succeed, this success is geographically limited. However, modern sport operates across borders.  

International solutions would be an alternative, yet they come with their own set of issues. Reaching an agreement on a meaningful set of requirements among a meaningful number of countries is difficult. The current geopolitical climate does, of course, not help. What further complicates things is that obligations from international treaties can be broken with relative ease, which creates implementation gaps. 

The EU is in a strategically better position here. It has established mechanisms for political cooperation, underpinned by a legal framework that is enforced by national and European courts. 

The EU is big and economically strong enough not to be pressured into submission by federations as easily as individual countries. It is a transnational organisation that at present includes 27 states. And although these are still a minority from a global perspective, EU rules have been shown to be capable of influencing the behaviour of individuals, companies, and lawmakers outside its borders through the so-called “Brussels effect”. 

Which reforms of sport should the EU prioritise most? 

Governance reforms must be the starting point. To quote Jens Sejer Andersen, even though good governance ‘will not solve all the problems’ in sport, ‘none of the problems will be solved’ without it. Decision-making bodies need to be democratic, accountable, transparent, and strive to ensure that all relevant stakeholders are represented. This includes women, athletes, and fans. 

Other areas are important, too. Sport has a social responsibility. It must do better at protecting human rights, something which could be achieved by establishing due diligence obligations akin to the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.  

Safeguards for fans are needed. As are safeguards to ensure that sporting competitions remain open. Finally, athletes should receive better care and stronger rights. There is much to do. 

What methods would you recommend that the EU use to reform sport? 

The EU is most famous for sports litigation – landmark judgments rendered by the European Court of Justice. Decisions like Bosman or, more recently, European Superleague and Diarra have affected change in a variety of areas. They impose legally binding principles with which sport organisations must comply. However, litigation is slow, costly, and unpredictable. Therefore, it is of limited use only as a tool for regulating sport.  

The EU has also engaged in some soft policy cooperation in this field. There has, for instance, been an agreement with UEFA since 2014. It contains a lot of beautiful rhetoric about human rights, environmental protection and gender equality, but little concrete action. There are no hard obligations or benchmarks, which render the instrument ineffective.  

Legislation is the most promising forward, but has, so far, remained unexplored by the EU as a regulatory tool in the sports context. 

Why do you point to legislation as the most promising way forward rather than litigation and cooperation? 

Ostensibly, because it combines the benefits of litigation and cooperation without many of their drawbacks. Legislation in the form of a European Sports Act would allow the EU to lay down a set of rules for the sector which are coherent, predictable, and legally binding. 

These would ideally be enforced by a dedicated sports agency. No more having to wait for a suitable court case to force reforms. No more hoping for sports federations to deliver on the promises they have made.

This is not just a more efficient regulatory technique – it would come with tangible benefits for athletes, clubs, and fans. We would no longer have to idly watch if a federation president exceeds their term limits, sports organisations violate human rights, or sportspeople are denied basic protections like maternity leave. We could actually do something about it. 

What are the possible downsides of a European Sports Act – and for whom? 

I suspect sports federations may find the idea of having EU sports legislation unsettling at first. But there should be no reason for that, really. The act would not require them to do anything that is not part of their mission statement anyway. All major sports governing bodies have committed to the principles of good governance, vowed to promote human rights, and profess their belief in athlete welfare, social responsibility, and so on. Let’s help them achieve that.  

Some sports fans, too, may be hesitant to entrust the task of sports regulation to the EU. In many corners, decisions like Bosman are seen catalysts for the hyper-commercialisation and commodification of modern sports. It is crucial to build advocacy groups here that will convincingly communicate what the EU could do for fans: strengthen their rights, give them back control over the games they love, and improve how sport is run.

One final point: there may be reluctance to commit EU resources to a project like sports reform right now. With the extraordinary number of crises facing Europe and the globe, it might be tempting to dismiss the need to spend political and financial capital on what may seem a light, perhaps even trivial, cause. 

Yet, sport matters socially, politically, and financially. Where it thrives, sport can contribute to social cohesion, public health, and economic prosperity. Where it fails, the negative effects are felt not only by those directly involved in it but also by local and, increasingly, international communities. Sport is too important to be poorly governed.