State of Play Report
Background & Methodology
Evolution of the ESM debate
Conclusion
Annex
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
The European Sport Model (hereinafter "ESM") has been understood as a defining framework for how sport is organised, governed, and experienced across Europe. Apart from its associations with facilitating grassroots to elite-level sport with financial solidarity mechanisms and the principle of promotion and relegation in open competitions, it has been instrumental in establishing sport as a values-based activity and a critical instrument of social and public infrastructure. However, the main observation underpinning this research is that the ‘European Sports Model’ (hereinafter “ESM”) does not fully capture how the majority of sports are organised and how Europeans engage with physical activity.
This observation is not novel and has not gone unrecognised at the highest level of European policymaking; as early as 1998, the same year and in the same report that the term “European Sport Model is first used, the European Commission recognises many grassroots and elite stakeholders felt unrepresented by the sports federations that claimed to speak on their behalf (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998b, Section 3.1). As early as the 2007 White Paper on Sport, the European Commission acknowledged that defining a single organisational model for sport in Europe was unrealistic given the complexity and diversity of national structures (Commission of the European Communities, 2007a, p. 12) Sports organisations, often self-identifying as the "sports movement," have effectively combatted these critiques, and the result is an ESM that protects their monopoly-like position that serves their dual interests as regulators and commercial entities (Council of Europe, 1992) Unsurprisingly, this dynamic has spurred growing concerns and the research question guiding our inquiry: “To what extent does the ESM reflect the diversity of the organisation of and participation in sporting activity in Europe?”
This research builds on existing critiques not to raise new alarms, but to provide robust evidence to concerns that have persisted throughout the fifty-year debate from 1975 through 2024 Our primary objectives are to outline the debates concerning the European Sport Model, including defining the key principles and tracing their evolution over time; to identify the scholarship that has assessed these concepts using scientific approaches; and to outline an evidence-based shift that may better reflect multiple stakeholders and ultimately serve European citizens by reflecting their habits and needs.
With these materials, we hope to provide a basis for the continued consultation of stakeholders outside of sport governing bodies, who have become a driving force for change as they have been consulted more regularly over the last 15 years; and continue to collaborate with public authorities on designing sport policies that are responsive to all forms of sports practice, including selforganised sport, and adapt the range of sports on offer to recent lifestyle trends and new expectations among the population (Council of the European Union, 2024a, p. 11). Most importantly, this report invites all stakeholders to engage in shaping a European Sport Model that is as inclusive and representative as the continent it aims to serve.
ABOUT THIS REPORT
This report specifically covers the ‘state of play’ of the debates concerning the European Sport Model (ESM), the first task of the research-focussed work package for “The Real European Sport Model” project, co-funded by the Erasmus+ Sport Programme. To do so, this research implements a multimethod research design including gathering scientific and grey literature on the topic from experts; conducting a focus group with experts; compiling a timeline of critical policy documents from European institutions in the fifty-year period from 1975 through 2024; and a qualitative analysis of inductively identified concepts and topics for consistency throughout this same period.
Future research aims to build upon this report by assessing the European Sport Model and then further identifying critical areas that remain underdeveloped or overlooked in the ESM. Future research tasks including Task 2, mapping of organizational structures providing sport and physical activity offers across Europe, and Task 3, describing financial flows of sport participation in Europe, will incorporate additional methods, including but not limited to a scoping review of the scientific literature, analysis of grey literature from research task no.1 outlined above, case studies, and stakeholder mapping and interviews. Together, these methodologies enable a comprehensive understanding of both the principles underlying the ESM and the status of how they have been tested in practice.
Chapter 2
BACKGROUND & METHODOLOGY
This Chapter seeks to trace the evolution and consistency of the debates surrounding the “European Sport Model” (hereinafter, “ESM”) over time.
Although the discussion of a framework is cited as beginning as early as 1974, the “European Model of Sport” was first used in 1998 (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998b). The call to cooperate towards a model was based on realisation that the problems arising in achieving ‘sport for all’ – the term used to describe the principles outlined in the 1975/76 European Sport for All Charter – “cannot be satisfactorily solved within a purely national framework” (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998b). This intervention by public authorities was meant to be balanced by the “reciprocal cooperation with the sports movement,” or sport governing bodies and sports organisations (Council of Europe, 1992).
Other developments similarly signalled a need for cooperation between public authorities and the sports movement including “the rapid development of sport, especially professional sport” (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998a, p. 3); the noted economic influence of sport, which constituted “3% of world trade”; the development of commercial television (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998a, p. 7, 1998b, p. 2); and recent instances of public intervention in sport, including the 1995 European Court of Justice ruling on the Jean-Marc Bosman case, famously known as the “Bosman ruling,” which proclaimed the restriction of the freedom of movement of football players to be illegal, setting a precedent for the role of public authorities in influencing the regulation of sport (European Court of Justice, 1995).
These motivations may explain the beginnings of the European Sport Model, but they do not clarify how the debates have evolved over time. This Chapter explores consistent concepts and topics discussed in the broader debate of the ESM by tracing their evolution through policy documents from European institutions in the fifty-year period from 1975 through 2024.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This research implements a multi-method research design. The initial process to identify relevant literature and deduce key themes in the debate of the European Sport Model included
- (1) Asking research partners1 in January 2025 to provide references for both scientific and grey literature relevant to debates of the ESM, based on the assumption that these partners are considered experts and have experience in the field with access to and knowledge of information to propose;
- (2) Consulting two documents for an initial review of the ESM as presented by two primary stakeholders in the ESM debate not represented in the research partners, namely public authorities and international sport governing bodies (Commission of the European Communities, 2007b; International Olympic Committee, 2020); and
- (3) Conducting a focus group with the research partners on 4 March 2025 using humancentred design to inductively identify keywords related to the ESM.
This report builds upon this initial process and implements additional research tasks. As is relevant to the State of Play report, the following research tasks were undertaken:
- (4) Compiling a timeline of authoritative policy documents published and/or commissioned by European institutions from 1975 through 2024; and
- (5) Assessing the consistency of concepts and topics throughout the selected policy documents.
Building upon the initial process (tasks 1-3), research task no.4 compiled a Timeline (Annex A) of key policy documents concerning the ESM from 1975 through 2024 to trace the authoritative understanding or interpretation of various concepts and topics. The Timeline is comprised of 26 policy documents published and/or commissioned by European institutions and bodies and their representatives, including
• Council of Europe
• Council of European Union
• European Commissionand its predecessor, the Commission of the European Communities
• European Committee of the Regions
• European Court of Justice
• EU Ministers of Sport
• European Parliament
• European Union
1 Please see the end of this report for a full list under “Partners.”
Understandings and interpretations of these concepts and topics are assumed to representative of the debate across the broader region of the European Union in line with the assumption that a certain level of interconnectedness and communication between and amongst European institutions and bodies exists.2 Alongside strictly policy documents, studies commissioned by these same bodies, which were used in consultation for policymaking, are also included where relevant. The Timeline and related documents were shared and confirmed with the research partners.3
Using these documents as the basis for the content analysis, each document was reviewed to inductively identify key themes and concepts that repeatedly appear in policy concerning the ESM. The following concepts and topics were identified through the content analysis of the policy documents found in the Timeline (Annex A):
• “European Sport Model”
• Sport and physical activity
• Autonomy, Governance and Independence
• Open competition
• Pyramid
• Solidarity
• Values
• Volunteerism
• Culture and identity
• Diversity, inclusion and accessibility
• Health and well-being
Please note this list is organised to reflect the review process, which included 1) reviewing the term, “European Sport Model,” and its variations, which inductively led to a specific section on sport and physical activity; 2) then by the “key features” of the European Sports Model in alphabetical order, including autonomy, governance and independence; open competition; pyramid; solidarity; values; and volunteerism; and 3) concepts and topics (in alphabetical order) that were inductively identified as being consistently mentioned or referenced but are not “key features” of the ESM, including culture and identity; diversity, inclusion, and accessibility; and health and well-being.
2 Based on direct mention in previous reporting, such as the 1991 report from the Commission of the European Communities, “The Commission has been attentive to the Council of Europe work on sport: much has been done there at meetings of Ministers for Sport and of the Sports Development Committee” (Commission of the European Communities, 1991, p. 6)
3 Please see the end of this report for a full list under “Partners.”
Once a concept was identified, it was traced across each document in the Timeline to identify mentions of the concept. Please note that due to the inductive nature of the review, every mention of these concepts across the analysed documents may not be incorporated into this report.
In research task no.5, each mention was analysed and then assessed against a rating system that sought to trace the consistency of the concept over time. The following qualitative scale was determined and colour coded in line with a traditional traffic light4 as follows and as shown in Figure 1:
• A rating of ‘1’ was used for original mentions of a concept and then again when the concept was the “same” as the original, meaning it expressed the exact same concept or same features of the concept A ‘1’ is colour coded dark blue.
• A rating of ‘2’ was used when a mention was “similar” to the original concept in that it retained the original meaning expressed but implements a variation, either through different or clarified wording, without diverging from the original concept A ‘2’ is colour coded green.
• A rating of ‘3’ was used when a mention was “divergent” from the original concept in some way, meaning that although some original wording or understanding of the concept was maintained, the new mention introduces an element or feature that is distinct from previous mentions. A ‘3’ is colour coded yellow.
• A rating of ‘4’ was used when a mention showcased the original concept had “changed” noticeably, reflecting a significant shift in the understanding or use of the concept. A ‘4’ is colour coded red.
Please note that certain concepts and topics were assigned more specific understandings to the ratings assigned as the distinction within that concept became clearer as inductive associations were assigned throughout the course of the content analysis.
4 Please note that while the colours of a traditional traffic light indicate “Go” (green), “Caution” (yellow) and “Stop” (red), the use of these colours is not mean to associate a negative connotation to the evolution of any given concept. The colour coding is this respect is applied to express the severity of distancing from the original concept without commenting that this severity is a positive or negative development.
Figure 1: Qualitative assessment and colour code
1 = Same
2 = Similar
3 = Divergent
4 = Changed
The visualisations seen throughout this report seek to capture the evolution of these concepts over time by plotting the colour-coded qualitative assessment on a clockwise structure in chronological order. While this analysis did not assign or attribute differences in ratings to specific events, crises, people, or other factors (e.g. causality), future research could seek to explore and analyse potential explanations.
Chapter 3
EVOLUTION OF THE ESM DEBATE
This section contains results across each individual concept or topic as inductively identified through the content analysis, implementing the qualitative assessment and then visualised as described For the purposes of clarity, the results are ordered to reflect the conceptual understanding that led the review:
• “European Sport Model”
• Sport and physical activity
• Autonomy, Governance and Independence
• Open competition
• Pyramid
• Solidarity
• Values
• Volunteerism
• Culture and identity
• Diversity, inclusion and accessibility
• Health and well-being
“EUROPEAN SPORT MODEL”
This section considers the specific mentions of the “European Sport Model” or alluding to a ‘model’ or ‘framework’ to organise sport in Europe. Within Annex B, see “‘European Sport Model’,” for a complete list of citations extracted from the Timeline (Annex A) documentation as relevant to each qualitative assessment.
Figure 2: Consistency of concept of the “European Sport Model” over time
Consistency of "European Sport Model" over time
1 = Same
2 = Similar
3 = Divergent
4 = Changed
Jul/24
May/24
The first mention of any sort of “framework” occurred in 1992 when the Council of Europe outlined the necessity of “a common European framework for sports development in Europe, based on the notions of pluralist democracy, the rule of law and human rights” and ethical principles (Council of Europe, 1992, p. 2) However, in 1998, documents emphasised a protectionist approach over a focus on development; moved away from a “common” framework (Council of Europe, 1992, p. 2) based on values towards a public-private nature of sport; and began to define key features of a “Pyramid model,” (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998b, p. 7) including promotion and relegation and a commitment to national identity (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998b, p. 7), rather than a framework. Although not included in the tracing exercise as there is no mention of the “European Sport Model” or a framework, the 1999 Helsinki Report does set up the future conceptualisation of a framework by stating, “There are many common features in the ways in which sport is practised and organised in the Union, in spite of certain differences between the Member States, and there is therefore possible to talk of a European approach to sport based on common concepts and principles” (Commission of the European Communities, 1999, p. 3)
From 2007 through 2011, the concept stabilised in its return to referring to a “common” set of principles without explicitly naming model, in line with the logic that, “in view of the diversity and complexities of European sport structures it considers, however, that it is unrealistic to try to define a unified model of organisation of sport in Europe” (Commission of the European Communities, 2007a, p. 12) However, the European Commission “can help to develop a common set of principles for good governance in sport, such as transparency, democracy, accountability and representation of stakeholders (associations, federations, players, clubs, leagues, supporters, etc.)”(Commission of the European Communities, 2007a, p. 12), which leads to the development of a “European dimension of sport” (European Commission, 2011, p. 10; European Union, 2008b) that is based on values of governance, including “autonomy within the limits of the law, democracy, transparency and accountability in decision-making, and inclusiveness in the representation of interested stakeholders” and good governance is shared (European Union, 2008b). Another feature of particular focus includes open competition (Council of the European Union, 2020, p. 5; European Union, 2008b)
In August 2013, several features from the 2007 White Paper on Sport appear under the umbrella term, “European model of sport”: “whereas the European model of sport is based on a federation for each sports discipline, and whereas mechanisms for sports and financial solidarity, such as the principle of promotion and relegation and open competitions involving both clubs and national teams, are organised on an autonomous, democratic and territorial basis and in a pyramid structure, as the result of a longstanding democratic tradition” (European Parliament, 2013, p. 50)
2021 sees a continuation of this new understanding of the ESM. In October 2021, the Council of Europe presents several features of “framework for European sport” (Council of Europe, 2021, p. 3) and a “single reference standard” (Council of Europe, 2021, p. 3), refuting the 2007 White Paper’s claim that no unified model is realistic: “Although due to the diversity of European sport structures there is no common definition of European Model of Sport, some key features make it recognizable. Such features include pyramidal structure, open system of promotion and relegation, the grassroots approach and solidarity, role in national identity, structures based on voluntary activity and its social and educational function” (Council of Europe, 2021, p. 1) One month later, however, the European Parliament diverges significantly in the principles attributed to a specific “European sport model,” citing “the principles of solidarity, sustainability, inclusiveness for all, open competition, sporting merit and fairness, and accordingly strongly opposes breakaway competitions that undermine such principles and endanger the stability of the overall sports ecosystem” (European Parliament, 2021, p. 5)
In December, the Council of the European Union seems to straddle these opinions, referencing “values-based” sport with some similar features5 but attributes them specifically to a “common” “European sport model” (Council of the European Union, 2021, p. 2).
From 2022 through 2024 (Council of the European Union, 2024b, p. 3, 2024c; European Committee of the Regions, 2024, pp. 6–7), the ESM is fortified. The 2022 Revised European Sports Charter, in recognising its goals to “agree on a common European framework for the development of sport in Europe” and the “combination of standards on sports development and on sports ethics into one single reference standard,” states it “highlights the common features of a framework for European sport and its organisation, understood by the sports movement as the European sport model, and provides general guidance to the Council of Europe’s member States to refine existing legislation or other policies and to develop a comprehensive framework for sport” (Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport, Council of Europe, 2022).
More recent documents present a comprehensive interpretation by including all previously mentioned concepts under the ESM umbrella term (European Committee of the Regions, 2024, pp. 6–7)
5 These features include “organisation of sport in an autonomous, democratic and territorial basis with a pyramidal structure, encompassing all levels of sport from grassroots to professional sport, comprising both club and national team competitions and including mechanisms to ensure financial solidarity, fairness and openness in competitions, such as the principle of promotion and relegation” (Council of the European Union, 2021, p. 2)
SPORT AND PHYSICAL ACTIVITY
This section considers the use and meaning of the word ‘sport’ as it is a critical term in understanding the scope of the “European Sport Model.” This review included the words “sport” and “physical activity” and their variations to trace how sport is defined and understood over time. Within Annex B, see “Sport,” for a complete list of citations extracted from the Timeline (Annex A) documentation as relevant to each qualitative assessment.
Figure 3: Consistency of concept of Sport and Physical activity over time
Consistency of Sport and Physical activity over time
1 = Same
2 = Similar
3 = Divergent
4 = Changed
Sport shared a common definition for nearly 45 years, encompassing the range of physical activity from recreational and leisure-time physical activity to competitive play. In expanding upon the 1975/76 original mention, a 1992 definition positions sport as “All forms of physical activity which, through casual or organised participation, aim at expressing or improving physical fitness and mental well-being, forming social relationships or obtaining results in competition at all levels” (Council of Europe, 1992, Article 2(a)). This definition is referenced and reinforced several times (Commission of the European Communities, 2007b; Council of Europe, 2021, Article 2(1); Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport, Council of Europe, 2022, p. 12; European Commission, DirectorateGeneral X, 1998a, p. 2) and even reverts to “active leisure” being included in “elite and grassroots sport” in November 2021 (European Parliament, 2021, p. 4)
However, in December 2021, sport is specified as “values-based” and “organised,” recalling features attributed to the European Sport Model rather than to ‘sport’ itself (Council of the European Union, 2021, p. 6). In 2023, “grassroots sport” – and not sport generically – is specifically characterised as a physical leisure activity with health and social cohesion benefits and education (Council of the European Union, 2023, p. 1), with calls to “[develop] new types of grasssroots sport, e.g., nontraditional sports” (Council of the European Union, 2023, p. 5). In 2024, the term “self-organised sport” appears, which “make[s] up a significant proportion of residents’ sporting activity” (European Committee of the Regions, 2024, p. 7) and is positioned as distinct from “organised sport” (Council of the European Union, 2024a, p. 3). “Self-organised sport” echoes the first definitions of ‘sport’ in that it includes “all forms of physical activity,” but has a specific emphasis on “informal settings” and “leisure time.” Health-enhancing physical activity is further distinguished alongside participation (Council of the European Union, 2024c, p. 5), and the sports movement is positioned as not inherent to these activities or goals (Council of the European Union, 2024a, p. 11).
The understanding of ‘sport’ has evolved from a holistic approach to physical activity to a distinction between formal (organised) settings, which focus on performance and competition; and informal (self-organised) settings, which are a form of leisure and recreation with benefits related to health and social cohesion. This distinction appears to have been made to more explicitly support EU goals to promote the accessibility of physical activity and therefore increase broader participation “in order to promote an active and environmentally-friendly lifestyle, social cohesion and active citizenship” (Council of the European Union, 2024c, pp. 5–6) This evolving definition, however, poses a difficult question to the ‘European Sport Model’ given that ‘sport’ in this sense is now recognised as “organised” and competitive play: how can the ESM, as a model limited to this updated understanding of ‘sport', represent the reality of organisation – which, in the broad sense, includes both self-organisation formal organisation – and participation in Europe?
AUTONOMY, GOVERNANCE AND INDEPENDENCE
The inductive content analysis of policymaking documents produced by European institutions revealed repeated references to the themes of autonomy, governance, and independence. These three words speak to the autonomy or independence of sports governance as a distinct concept “specific” to sport.6 Within Annex B, see “Autonomy, Governance and Independence,” for a complete list of citations extracted from the Timeline (Annex A) documentation as relevant to each qualitative assessment.
Figure 4: Consistency of concepts of Autonomy, Governance, and Independence over time
Consistency of Autonomy, Governance and Independence over time
1 = Same
2 = Similar
3 = Divergent
4 = Changed
The independence of sport in the eyes of the EU law and jurisprudence is first established with the assertion that sport is “an ideal area” for the application of the principle of subsidiarity, meaning EU intervention is only necessary when sports governing bodies are unable to effectively manage their area(s) of responsibility (Commission of the European Communities, 1991, p. 2) In line with this logic, the efficacy of government policy is positively referenced amidst a reinforcement of the right of voluntary sports organisations “to establish autonomous decision-making processes within the law” and the need for governments and sports organisations to mutually respect each other’s decisions” (Council of Europe, 1992, p. 3).
6 As we will explore, the “specificity of sport” is a recognised principle that falls within this broader concept (Commission of the European Communities, 2007b, p. 13)
This approach to recognising the independence and autonomy of sport alongside asserting the role of the EU and public authorities in regulating economic activity continues (Commission of the European Communities, 2007b) and is further clarified with the mention of the dual function of sport federations as both regulatory and commercial entities (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998b, Section 3.1) Although the rhetoric returns to solely asserting the independence and freedom of association of sports in organisations “through appropriate structures” (European Council, 2000). A significant shift in the discussion of autonomy and independence begins with the promotion of good governance as a non-mandatory strategy to strengthen autonomy by improving respect and trust between sport governing bodies and public authorities (Council of Europe, 2005). However, the recommendation only invites other stakeholders to (public authorities) to adopt policies that implement minimum requirements.
This shift towards good governance, however, temporarily disappears in 2007 and 2008, where a return to the autonomous nature of sport is entrenched by the Treaty of Lisbon (European Union, 2007, Article 124) and the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (European Union, 2008b), both of which draw from the 2007 White Paper on Sport, which introduce the “specific nature of sport,” otherwise known as the “specificity of sport,” and recognises “the autonomy and diversity of sport organisations” (Commission of the European Communities, 2007b, p. 13). The European Commission emphasises – without officially mandating – the importance of dialogue, the necessity for self-regulation to abide by EU law, and the EU’s readiness “to play a facilitating role or take action if necessary” (Commission of the European Communities, 2007b, p. 13) These bases provide a substantial foundation for the future referencing of sporting autonomy and specificity, where the “specificity of sport” is further entrenched (European Parliament, 2013, p. 48) with an explicit distinction that sport federations “do not as commercial companies, and whereas a distinction must be made between sporting and commercial interests” (European Parliament, 2013, p. 50) and in 2020 (Council of the European Union, 2020, p. 2)
Despite this, the trend of emphasising good governance does not disappear for long. In 2011, the Commission does not relent in emphasising its role in sport despite sporting autonomy (European Commission, 2011, p. 3), and the “autonomy of sport” is made conditional upon good governance of sports organisations.7 In 2018, EU member states are recommended to implement monitoring and compliance regarding good governance in sport (Council of Europe, 2018)
7 “Good governance in sport is a condition for the autonomy and self-regulation of sport organisations Good governance in sport is a condition for addressing challenges regarding sport and the EU legal framework.” (European Commission, 2011, p. 10)
In October 2021, although cooperation between public authorities and the sports movement is encouraged (Council of Europe, 2021, p. 2), good governance is reinforced by reiterating the responsibility of public authorities to manage regulation mechanisms external to sport (Council of Europe, 2021, Article 3(1)) In December 2021, a more dramatic shift occurs when sport federations are specified as playing a central role in specifically reconciling stakeholders, rather than being authoritative regulatory figures in their own right. This is compounded by the introduction of good governance as a mandatory “prerequisite” to autonomy, with a call to sports organisations to “raise their standards” of good governance (Council of the European Union, 2021, p. 2) The 2022 Revised European Sports Charter further recognises autonomous decision-making based on the freedom of association, but simultaneously describes the sports movement as “the main partner of public authorities” and reinforces the need for good governance (Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport, Council of Europe, 2022).
The mandatory nature of good governance appears to continue into February 2024, citing increased transparency, inclusion, and the protection of human rights as “necessary in order to safeguard the autonomy of sports federations and ensure respect for the values of the European Sport Model” (European Committee of the Regions, 2024, p. 12) Although “universal autonomy” is retained (European Committee of the Regions, 2024, p. 7), the sports movement is now referred to only as “largely independent” and national federations “shall base their operation on the principles and practices of transparency, good governance, inclusivity and diversity and accountability” (European Committee of the Regions, 2024, p. 2)
OPEN COMPETITION
The concepts of “open competition” and its counterpart, “closed competition,” surfaced as key reference points in discussions on the structure of sport in Europe. Frequently mentioned alongside the principle of “promotion and relegation,” these references speak to the organisation of competitive frameworks in European sport. Within Annex B, see “Open competition,” for a complete list of citations extracted from the Timeline (Annex A) documentation as relevant to each qualitative assessment.
Consistency of Open competition over time
1 = Same
2 = Similar
3 = Divergent
4 = Changed
May/24
Dec/21
Open competition based on the principle of promotion and relegation has been hailed as “one of the key features of the European model of sport” since 1998, positioned in contrast to “closed championships” observed in the United States (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998b, p. 4) The only difference observed in the discussion of open competitions over time concerns the argumentation supporting the openness of competitions. While the original mention cites open competitions “are more interesting than closed competitions” (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998b, p. 4) and underpin “the commitment to national identity” (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998b, p. 7), future mentions appeal to several other arguments.
Figure 5: Consistency of concept of Open Competition over time
One category reinforces the “interdependence” (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998b, p. 7) between open competitions and other principles of the ESM, including “a pyramid structure of competitions from grassroots to elite level” (Commission of the European Communities, 2007b, p. 13); “solidarity,”(European Parliament, 2021, p. 5) threatening that the consequence of a “fundamental change in the sport qualifying processes usually based on sporting merit” (Council of the European Union, 2021, p. 3) – all of which “endanger the stability of the overall sports ecosystem (European Parliament, 2021, p. 5).
Interestingly, these arguments were then used in November 2021 by the European Parliament to rationalise a positioning to “strongly oppos[e] breakaway competitions that undermine such principles,” which is a significant deviation from previous assertions focussed primarily on open competition (European Parliament, 2021, p. 5).
PYRAMID
The notion of a “pyramid” structure is repeatedly invoked in the policymaking discourse around European sport and was identified through the inductive content analysis. It refers to vertically integrated model of governance and competition, from grassroots to elite levels. Within Annex B, see “Pyramid,” for a complete list of citations extracted from the Timeline (Annex A) documentation as relevant to each qualitative assessment.
Consistency of Pyramid over time
1 = Same
2 = Similar
3 = Divergent
4 = Changed
The wide sweeping concept of the “Pyramid model of sport” is introduced in 1998, instituting a federation-based model and structural hierarchy in sport organisation from the top-level, consisting of “European sport federations,” to the most local level of “grassroots clubs/federations” (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998b, p. 2) In between exists regional sports federations and one national federation per country. The national-level federation is then associated with national identity and promotion and relegation in competitions.
Figure 6: Consistency of concept of Pyramid over time
This is directly contrasted to 1999, where the pyramid is justified only in relation to “national championships and the selection of national athletes and national teams for international competitions often require the existence of one umbrella organisation bringing together all the sports associations and competitors of one discipline,” where the relationship between competitive and amateur sport is backed by financial mechanisms (Commission of the European Communities, 1999, p. 9).
In 2000, the pyramid concept was expanded in using the term “recreational” to refer to the lowest level of sporting practice, citing that the solidarity between this level and “top-level sport” constitute a “social function,” that then is used to justify the “special responsibilities for federations and provide the basis for the recognition of their competence in organising competitions” (European Council, 2000).
The concept, however, begins to shift over time away from accounting for all levels of sport and sporting activity. In November 2021, “the links between grassroots and elite sport” are noted, “in particular,” as requiring enhancement and protection (European Parliament, 2021, p. 5), signalling a questioning of the pyramid’s assertion of interdependence between the levels of sporting practice. In 2021, the pyramid is limited to “organised sport” and does not claim recreational or grassroots activities (Council of the European Union, 2021, p. 2), and further justifies this structure not based on social function but on the “coherent development of sport and international solidarity” (Council of Europe, 2021, p. 2) The 2022 Revised European Sports limits the concept of the pyramid, without mentioning the ‘pyramid’ directly, to “competitive sport,” stating that this “is mainly based on a national configuration with competitions at regional, national, continental and global levels, and which respects the regulatory role of international governing bodies” (Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport, Council of Europe, 2022, p. 9).
Most notably, the latest mention in February 2024 returns to the original understanding that the pyramid covers the extent of sporting activity, “where national sports federations play the main role, in charge of organising and drawing up the specific rules at professional, recreational and amateur level” (European Committee of the Regions, 2024, p. 1)
SOLIDARITY
This section considers the specific mention of the term “solidarity” in European policy documents, with references ranging from its framing as a value to its articulation as a mechanism of financial redistribution. This section considers the specific mentions of “solidarity” as concerns sport in Europe. Within Annex B, see “Solidarity,” for a complete list of citations extracted from the Timeline (Annex A) documentation as relevant to each qualitative assessment.
Figure 7: Consistency of concept of Solidarity over time
Consistency of Solidarity over time
1 = Same
2 = Similar
3 = Divergent
4 = Changed
Dec/21 2022 Feb/24
The concept of solidarity has evolved from evoking an understanding of solidarity as a value to solidarity as being redistribution of finances from the profit-making levels of professional sport to amateur levels of sport.
The first mention of “solidarity” in 1992 is amidst the outlined risk of overcommercialisation, which “could break the solidarity which exists between professional and amateur sport and between different sports and might even lead to the disappearance of sports seen as unprofitable” (Council of Europe, 1992, p. 8). While it occurs amidst an economic concern, the expressed risk evokes a values-based argument of solidarity, as it does not mention the sharing of this profit to be gained through commercialisation at the professional levels of sport. With this understanding, this original mention and its ranking of 1 interprets “solidarity” as being a value.
The 1997 mention of solidarity distinctly aligns with financial redistribution, building upon the idea that interrelated “solidarity and redistribution mechanisms” will train and develop amateur players, tying this to a values-based argument regarding inclusion of “players from disadvantaged backgrounds” (Pack & Committee on Culture, Youth, Education and the Media, 1997) This suggests that rather than deter the previous concern of overcommercialisation, solidarity has been positioned so commercialisation can continue, as it will not pose a risk to the “disappearance of sports” and can promote values.
In 1998, the meaning of “solidarity” teeters between referencing values between people, now distinguished as “social” solidarity, and a “solidarity system” which provides grassroots members “with money earned by the federation” (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998b, p. 8) A solidarity system run by UEFA is also referenced, which concerns “the distribution of Champions League revenues” and “serves to maintain a competitive and financial balance among the clubs and to promote football in general” (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998b, p. 9) This discussion of financing appears to address the understanding that “the income received from the sale of broadcasting rights is transforming the sports world and widening the gulf between amateurs and professionals and between the top and bottom of sport in Europe” (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998b, p. 9). This continues into the 1999 Helsinki Report on Sport, which although largely focussed on financial solidarity as a knock-on effect of the commercial success of sport, nonetheless recalls the original connection between “the promotion of amateur and professional sport… [and] financial mechanisms of internal solidarity and the structural and solidarity-based relationship between competitive sport and amateur sport” (Commission of the European Communities, 1999, p. 9)
This reverts in 2000 and 2007, where the European Council emphasises solidarity as “ties… binding the practice of sports at every level,”(European Council, 2000) encompassing “various levels of sporting practice, from recreational to top-level sport” (European Council, 2000), and the European Commission stresses solidarity as a “strategic objective[e]” of the EU alongside prosperity (Commission of the European Communities, 2007b, p. 2), associating it with values like “fair-play, compliance with the rules of the game, respect for others, solidarity and discipline” (Commission of the European Communities, 2007b, p. 6).
Solidarity explicitly refers to “financial solidarity” as associated with the redistribution of profits from the professional level, with no mention of the promotion of values (Council of Europe, 2021, Article 4(4)) The mentions that follow, however, return to tying financial solidarity to values (European Parliament, 2021, p. 6), to the extent of claiming,
“Financial solidarity is a key feature of values-based organised sport. It can help to establish, maintain and reinforce the link between professional and grassroots sport, co-financing of commercially less attractive competitions as well as training of volunteers, athletes, coaches, officials, etc. Furthermore, support should also be given to activities endorsing the respect of values in sport, such as fundamental and human rights, democracy, solidarity, social integration, gender equality, development of youth, rights of the child and education through sport” (Council of the European Union, 2021, p. 2).
Subsequent mentions vary in maintain this connection between financial solidarity and values –while some do not mention values and instead focus on commercial success as the underlying impetus for financial solidarity (Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport, Council of Europe, 2022, p. 15), others emphasise redistribution as providing “equal opportunities, starting from the lower levels of sport” (European Committee of the Regions, 2024, p. 2).
It is critical to mention that mentions of financial solidarity extend to an assessment of the reality. The efficacy of financial solidarity has been criticised, with grassroots members claiming the solidarity system “does not work properly” (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998b, p. 8) and smaller clubs related to UEFA’s model “complain[ing] that more money should go to the lower levels of the pyramid” (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998b, p. 9).
VALUES
Mentions of “values,” and related variants, emerged as a prominent thematic pattern in European policy documents concerning sport. This section reflects an inductively identified cluster of references framing sport as a vehicle for promoting “values” and other shared principles. Within Annex B, see “Values,” for a complete list of citations extracted from the Timeline (Annex A) documentation as relevant to each qualitative assessment.
Figure 8: Consistency of concept of Values over time
Consistency of Values over time
1 = Same
2 = Similar
3 = Divergent
4 = Changed
After the mentions of “values” were collected, the qualitative assessment sought to distinguish between a generic approach to moral and ethics, as not being inherent to sport nor Europe but as sport being based on them (rating of 1); a slightly extended approach to sport being based on or effective in fostering certain values (rating of 2); a divergence in sport being presented as having inherent sporting values (rating of 3); and a shift towards the ESM or sports organisation in Europe as displaying inherent values (rating of 4).
The original mention in 1992 does not explicitly mention “values” but rather the “moral and ethical bases of sport,” which connotes that sport is based on these principles but is not inherently moral or ethical (Council of Europe, 1992, Article I) This establishes an understanding that reappears frequently, where sport is conceptualised as being able to “foster positive values,” “act as a catalyst
for negative values” (Pack & Committee on Culture, Youth, Education and the Media, 1997), “instil moral values” (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998b, p. 6), “giv[e] a true view of some values in life” (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998b, p. 18), and “rest[s] on fundamental social, educational and cultural values” (European Council, 2000) It returns again in 2007, May 2021, and November 2021, with respective mentions of sport’s ability to convey values (Commission of the European Communities, 2007b, p. 5), promote “common European values” (European Parliament and Council of the European Union, 2021, p. 4), among broader values (European Parliament, 2021, p. 3)
Debates appear to occur in a back-and-forth pattern in 1999, 2005, August 2013, 2020, and October 2021 across three different European bodies, respectively the Council of Europe, European Parliament (2013 and 2021), and the Council of the European Union. This shift sees the slow establishment of sport as having inherent values itself, embodied in the mentions of “preserving the traditional values of sport” in “a changing economic and legal environment” (Commission of the European Communities, 1999, p. 7), the “core values of sport” (Council of Europe, 2005), sport as “mak[ing] a huge contribution to positive values” (European Parliament, 2013, p. 49), “sport values” (Council of the European Union, 2020), “values-based sport” (Council of Europe, 2021, p. 5; Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport, Council of Europe, 2022, p. 12), “sports ethics” (Council of Europe, 2021, Article 7(1); Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport, Council of Europe, 2022, p. 18) and “sport integrity” (Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport, Council of Europe, 2022, p. 19) In two of these cases, sporting values are distinguished from “EU values” (Council of the European Union, 2020) and the values underpinning the Council of Europe (Council of Europe, 2021, p. 3), further entrenching the idea that sport has values in its own right. This trend is entrenched in October 2021 when the term “value-based sport” is introduced, with features including human rights, education in values through sport ethics, integrity and sustainability; and components of “sport for all” include the right to sport, building foundations for the practice of sport, developing participation, imporiving performance and supporting top-level and professional sport (Council of Europe, 2021)
In December 2021, the presentation of the organisation of sport in Europe as being “based on” values (Council of the European Union, 2021, p. 1) with European sport itself claims to have “certain values and traditions” leads to the assertion that “values-based organised sport” is a key feature of the ESM (Council of the European Union, 2021, p. 3) The application of values further becomes associated with sports governance itself (Council of the European Union, 2021, p. 3) The last mention of values in February 2024 not only promotes the “values of sport” (European Committee of the Regions, 2024, p. 2), but then advocates for a “values-based, bottom-up European sports model” which has the “same values and principles” as the EU (European Committee of the Regions, 2024, p. 9).
VOLUNTEERISM
This section considers recurring references to the terms “voluntary” and “volunteers” and their variations in the context of sport, which are used to describe a wide spectrum of meanings, from voluntary participation deriving from the freedom of association and choice to the structural reliance of sport organisations on unpaid labour. Their consistent appearance across documents highlights the central role of volunteerism in the ESM and, more broadly, the organisation and delivery of sport in Europe. Within Annex B, see “Volunteerism,” for a complete list of citations extracted from the Timeline (Annex A) documentation as relevant to each qualitative assessment.
9: Consistency of concept of Volunteerism over time
1 = Same
2 = Similar
3 = Divergent
4 = Changed
Feb/24 Consistency of Volunteerism over time
The first reference to “voluntary” in 1992 refers to the nature of spirts organisations (Council of Europe, 1992, p. 3) and as related to the “voluntary choice” to participate (Council of Europe, 1992, p. 1) However, this notion largely disappears from European policy documents8 and is instead replaced by an understanding of “volunteerism” as related to the unpaid labour of volunteers, which forms a critical structural support to the organisation of sport in Europe.
8 With the exception of a October 2021 mention that returns to the original mention of “voluntary choice” as related to participation (Council of Europe, 2021, p. 2), and a 2022 mention Rating of 2 as the mentions evoke the “voluntary choice” of sport participation (Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport, Council of Europe, 2022, p. 8) alongside encouraging the “voluntary ethos” in the form of volunteers (Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport, Council of Europe, 2022, p. 15)
Figure
Although the shift to understanding the “voluntary” nature of sport to mean unpaid labour is significant, several mentions tie volunteerism back to values and education Voluntary work in 1998 is presented “as an expression of social solidarity” (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998b, p. 6) associated with “combating social exclusion” (European Commission, DirectorateGeneral X, 1998b, p. 3), as connected to accessibility and inclusion in August 2013 (European Parliament, 2013, p. 49), and a February 2024 mention connects volunteers – as a structural component of the organisation of sport – to the abstract “promotion of the values of sport” (European Committee of the Regions, 2024, p. 2) Future mentions connect volunteering to employment and education, positioning volunteering as “occasions for non-formal education which need to be recognised and enhanced” (Commission of the European Communities, 2007b, p. 6), which can “contribute to employability, social inclusion as well as higher civic participation, especially among young people” (European Commission, 2011, p. 4). Volunteering can further provide an opportunity for the development of “transversal skills” through non-formal learning (Council of the European Union, 2023, p. 4) and the achievement of qualifications (European Parliament, 2021, p. 10)
The most divergent understanding from the original mention of “voluntary” participation occurs when volunteerism is firmly recognised as a structural necessity to the organisation of sport in Europe, without acknowledging any benefit to volunteers or overall promotion of values. Volunteers are regularly recognised by European policy as “play[ing] a crucial role in the management of sports organisations and competitions” (European Committee of the Regions, 2024, p. 2) The entrenchment of volunteers as a structural component manifests in mentions of the “voluntary services” and “volunteer-driven structures” (European Council, 2000) even to the extent of grouping volunteers with paid employees under the broad heading of “sport staff” (European Parliament and Council of the European Union, 2021, p. 14) This structural reliance appears throughout several documents, where public authorities stress “the maintenance of “framework conditions that favour the active involvement of volunteers in sport” (Council of Europe, 2021, Article 4(2))
CULTURE AND IDENTITY
Several policymaking documents referenced variations of the words “culture” and “identity” and their connection to sport and the “European Sport Model.” Within Annex B, see “Culture and identity,” for a complete list of citations extracted from the Timeline (Annex A) documentation as relevant to each qualitative assessment.
Figure 10: Consistency of concepts of culture and identity over time
Consistency of Culture and Identity over time
1 = Same
2 = Similar
3 = Divergent
4 = Changed
The qualitative assessment of concepts related to “culture” and “identity” considered how these concepts were understood as related to sport and the ESM at either a national level or European level. Given the original mention in the 1975/76 Sport for All Charter mentions “pursuing common objectives designed to protect and promote European culture,” (Council of Europe, 1976, p. 1) the default understanding and rating of “1” refers to generic sport as an aspect of European culture. The 1992 mention advances the understanding that sport “encourages contacts between European countries and citizens reinforcing the bonds between peoples and developing awareness of a European cultural identity” (Council of Europe, 1992, p. 1) This same understanding is more or less expressed in the May 2021 mention of sports participation as part of “strengthening European identity” (European Parliament and Council of the European Union, 2021, p. 5), the October 2021 and 2022 reinforcement of the 1992 Charter (Council of Europe, 2021, p. 2; Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport, Council of Europe, 2022, p. 8) and November 2021’s mention connecting sport to “European cultural heritage and regional identity” (European Parliament, 2021, p. 11)
There is a complete return to the original meaning in and May 2024 with a reiteration of traditional sport as a part of European culture (Council of the European Union, 2024c, p. 19)
Significant deviations are marked by mentions of national identity or culture, along with any association beyond generic sport. This occurs when sport is associated with forging national identity alongside a regional identity (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998b, p. 4) and “the commitment to national identity” is claimed as a “key feature of the European model” (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998b, p. 7); and again in December 2021, when national team competitions are associated with national identity alongside other key features of the ESM, like solidarity and values (Council of the European Union, 2021, p. 3). A February 2024 mention connects the ESM to an EU identity, stating, “the EU bases its identity on the same values and principles that are currently shaping a European Sport Model” (European Committee of the Regions, 2024, p. 9).
DIVERSITY, INCLUSION, AND ACCESSIBILITY
Themes related to diversity, inclusion, and accessibility, along with other variations including equality and anti-discrimination, were identified through the inductive content analysis A sample of concepts attributable to these concepts have been grouped under this heading to represent mentions that evoked the pursuit of “a society that is more open and tolerant” (European Commission, DirectorateGeneral X, 1998b, Section 11) as related to sport in Europe. This section does not claim to comprehensively represent all mentions of these mentions (see Table 5 in this report), but rather to provide an overview of content related to these ideas. Within Annex B, see “Autonomy, Governance and Independence,” for a complete list of citations extracted from the Timeline (Annex A) documentation as relevant to each qualitative assessment.
Figure 11: Consistency of concept of Diversity, Inclusion, and Accessibility over time
Consistency of Diversity, Inclusion, and Accessibility over time
1 = Same
2 = Similar
3 = Divergent
4 = Changed
After compiling distinct mentions of concepts and topics that relate to diversity, inclusion, and accessibility in their shared contribution to a “more open and tolerant” society (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998b, Section 11), the qualitative assessment was conducted based on the alignment with the original mention in 1997, which stated the contribution of “appropriate activities in the field of sport, to social integration and to the campaign against racism” (Pack & Committee on Culture, Youth, Education and the Media, 1997)
Further mentions position sport as “a particularly effective weapon in the fight against intolerance, racism...” (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998b, p. 6), the opportunity to “make use of sport in combating exclusion, inequalities, racism and xenophobia” (Commission of the European Communities, 1999, p. 5), and the integration of immigrants and a “shared sense of belonging” (Commission of the European Communities, 2007b, p. 7) A slight variation of this approach to cohesion features an economic component on two occasions, first in 2007 (Commission of the European Communities, 2007b, p. 7) and then again in February 2024, where “the economic dimension of sport should not be separated from a real social cohesion dimension” (European Committee of the Regions, 2024, p. 8).
Anti-discrimination also becomes a key feature, with the “the right to sport” dictating that “No discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, language, religion, gender or sexual orientation, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status, shall be permitted in the access to sports facilities or to sports activities” (Council of Europe, 2021, p. 6; Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport, Council of Europe, 2022, p. 22). The last mention in May 2024 emphasises sport in line with anti-discrimination rhetoric as sport being a “safe and accessible” environment (Council of the European Union, 2024a, p. 5)
The largest divergence is linked to the application of diversity, inclusion, and accessibility principles to sport governing bodies themselves. While other mentions emphasise the ability of sport to be effective in these areas with the understanding that “sport in the EU represents an important social sphere by the representation of social and ethnic diversity in both, amateur and professional level” (European Committee of the Regions, 2024, p. 8), representation in sports governance begins to be called into question in August 2013 (European Parliament, 2013, p. 52) Other mentions (Council of the European Union, 2020, p. 5) “urge international, European and national sports governing bodies and stakeholders to implement measures on diversity and inclusion, in particular to address the low numbers of women and ethnic minorities in leadership positions and on boards” (European Parliament, 2021, p. 6).
HEALTH AND WELL-BEING
An inductive reading of relevant European policy documents revealed consistent references to health and well-being, often appearing interchangeably or in overlapping contexts. While sport and physical activity have been established to be evolving concepts, the consistent association of health and well-being with these terms justified their treatment as a distinct thematic cluster in this research. Within Annex B, see “Health and Well-being,” for a complete list of citations extracted from the Timeline (Annex A) documentation as relevant to each qualitative assessment.
Figure 12: Consistency of concepts of Health and Well-being over time
Consistency of Health and Well-being over time
1 = Same
2 = Similar
3 = Divergent
4 = Changed
The biggest divergence in how sport and physical activity are discussed centers around the focus on health and well-being. As previously noted, the direct association between “sport” and “physical activity” has evolved and changed over time. However, whether or not these concepts were one in the same did not impact their agreement on their shared benefits related to health and well-being, which encompasses not only physical and mental health, but also social cohesion as a concept related to well-being. The qualitative analysis thus assesses a rating of “1” to be aligned with the original mention of the benefits of sport – which, at this time, was synonymous with physical activity – to personal and social development, health, and well-being as emphasised in the 1975/76 Sport for All Charter and 1992 European Sports Charter (Council of Europe, 1976, 1992)
This understanding is shared and slightly expanded with the incorporation of social cohesion and integration as a concept related to well-being (Commission of the European Communities, 1999, p. 10; Council of Europe, 2021, p. 6; Council of the European Union, 2023, p. 1, 2024a, p. 3; Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport, Council of Europe, 2022, p. 8; European Commission, DirectorateGeneral X, 1998b, pp. 3, 5; European Parliament, 2013, p. 51; Pack & Committee on Culture, Youth, Education and the Media, 1997, p. 5).
On the other end of the spectrum lies a distinction where sport is not directly associated with health but is rather a “social movement” (Commission of the European Communities, 2007b, p. 3) with “the ability to bring people together and speaks a universal language” (European Committee of the Regions, 2024, p. 9) to be leveraged “as a tool for health-enhancing physical activity” (Commission of the European Communities, 2007b, p. 3). Sport also becomes a tool for the promotion of values, like “inclusion, anti-discrimination or fair play… to prevent prejudice and social stigma” (European Committee of the Regions, 2024, p. 4) Physical activity is then associated more directly with the more traditional health benefits specific to physical and mental well-being (Council of the European Union, 2013, p. 1).
Chapter 4
CONCLUSION
This report explored the evolution of the debates surrounding the European Sport Model through the lens of policy documents from European institutions for the fifty-year period from 1975 through 2024
Figure 13: Heatmap of ratings of all concepts and themes (1975-2024)
The conclusion that can be gleaned from Figure 13 is that the “European Sport Model” displays very little consistency. Nearly all concepts and topics have changed significantly over time, and not in any discernible pattern or interrelated shifts. The current ESM largely diverges from the original ideas underpinning the development of sport in Europe, particularly in the concepts of the “European Sport Model” as an inclusive term; of autonomy, independence, and governance; of solidarity; of volunteerism; and of sport, which have all moved permanently away from their original meanings Based on Table 1 below, the concepts with the most consistency include diversity, inclusion, and accessibility; open competition; and health and well-being.
The concepts with the least consistency include the European Sport Model and several key features, including solidarity, volunteerism, values, pyramid, and autonomy, governance and independence.
Table 1: Average ratings per concept
Nonetheless, each of these individual concepts and topics has a history of volatility. This finding is critical as it brings into question the utility of the framing of the “European Sport Model,” particularly in consideration of the evidence that the ‘model’ does not represent a universal understanding of its features and principles.
A NEW CATEGORISATION
Based on the policy documents, it seems we can understand all of these concepts and topics by their association with the three words comprising the name of the ESM: “European,” “Sport,” and “Model.” The first considers the concept of a “European” culture and/or identity associated with sport generally and/or with the “European Sport Model” specifically:
• Culture and identity
The second considers the concepts and topics directly associated with the notion of a ‘Model,’ including key features of the ESM. This second categorisation contains the following concepts and topics:
• “European Sport Model”
• Autonomy, Governance and Independence
• Open competition
• Pyramid
• Solidarity
• Volunteerism
The third categorisation considers the ‘Sport’ element of the ESM and the concepts and topics associated with sport and physical activity. These may or may not be outlined as a key feature of ESM, as in all cases, the topic is derived directly from its association with sport and physical activity, and not necessarily from the ‘Model’:
• Sport and physical activity
• Health and well-being
• Values
• Diversity, inclusion and accessibility
This distinction between these topics allows future research to investigate how these separate categories further validate concepts and topics to be considered for a ‘real’ ESM.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
This methodology and the resulting visualisations are a useful way to understand how concepts and topics, when mentioned, are used and interpreted. It is worth noting, however, that the inductive approach that led to these results means it does not comprehensively reflect omissions of a concept or topic The omission of certain concepts or topics in certain documents by specific bodies are findings in themselves, speaking to agreement or disagreement with the concept or topic, or a deliberate attempt to not crystallise or enshrine a given concept or topic. For example, most notably, the “European Sport Model” as captured in Figure 2 cannot capture the critical omissions of the ESM in landmark documents and decisions by EU bodies, including but not limited to Article 165 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (European Union, 2008b) and the Court of European Justice’s decision on the Superleague case (Judgment of the Court in Case C-333.21 | European Superleague Company, 2023) Future research could return to the tracing of concepts with the specific goal to note and trace omissions.
Further, this report does not capture all frequently mentioned concepts and topics relevant and mentioned across the 26 Timeline documents. For example, “participation” is mentioned 358 times across the documents; however, given its intertwinement with ESM features like open competition and the pyramid, and overlap with already covered debates like sport and physical activity, this specific word was not traced. Similarly, variants of “citizen” were also frequent with 189 mentions; however, given the perceived overlap with democracy and culture and identity, it was not individually traced. Other topics were inductively identified but were ultimately excluded given they have never been mentioned or connected to key features of the ESM, such as sustainability and sustainable development, which is nonetheless mentioned 205 times Future research based on this report will seek to fill in gaps left by this type of omission, along with introduce the scientific literature on these same concepts and topics to not only define the ESM, but to test its reality.
Annex
ANNEX A: TIMELINE
• 1975/76: European Sport for All Charter (Council of Europe, 1976)
• 1991: Communication from the Commission of the European Communities to the Council and the European Parliament, “The European community and Sport” (Commission of the European Communities, 1991)
• 1992: European Sports Charter (Council of Europe, 1992)
• 1997: Report to European Parliament, “Report on the Role of the European Union in the Field of Sport” (Pack & Committee on Culture, Youth, Education and the Media, 1997)
• 1998: Commission Staff Working Paper, “Development and Prospects for Community Action in the Field of Sport” (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998a); Consultation document of DG X, prepared for 1999 European Conference on Sport (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998b)
• 1999: Helsinki Report on Sport
• 2000: Nice Declaration (European Council, 2000)
• 2005: Recommendation of Committee of Ministers on principles of good governance in sport (Council of Europe, 2005)
• 2007: White Paper on Sport(Commission of the European Communities, 2007a); Treaty of Lisbon (European Union, 2007, Article 124)
• 2008: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which outlines the competences and actions relevant to the European Union in sport (European Union, 2008a, 2008b)
• 2011: European Commission communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions (European Commission, 2011)
• August 2013: European Parliament passes resolution (2011/2087(INI)) from 2 February 2012 on the European dimension of sport (European Parliament, 2013)
• November 2013: Council of European Union recommendation on health-enhancing physical activity (Council of the European Union, 2013)
• 2018: Recommendation CM/Rec(2018)12 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the promotion of good governance in sport (Council of Europe, 2018)
• 2020: EU Work Plan for Sport (2021-2024) released (Council of the European Union, 2020)
• May 2021: European Parliament and Council of the EU establish Erasmus+ programme with Chapter IV on Sport (European Parliament and Council of the European Union, 2021)
• October 2021: Recommendation of the Ministers on revisions (Council of Europe, 2021)
• November 2021: Resolution from European Parliament referencing the June study (European Parliament, 2021)
• December 2021: EU releases resolution on key features (Council of the European Union, 2021)
• 2022: Revised European Sports Charter (Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport, Council of Europe, 2022)
• 2023: Council Conclusions on grassroots sport (Council of the European Union, 2023)
• February 2024: Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions shared, “Building a values-based, bottom-up European sports model: a vehicle for encouraging inclusion and social wellbeing among young Europeans” (European Committee of the Regions, 2024)
• May 2024: EU Council conclusions (Council of the European Union, 2024a); EU Work Plan for Sport (2024-2027)(Council of the European Union, 2024c)
• July 2024: Draft conclusions from Hungarian presidency on MSEs (Council of the European Union, 2024b)
ANNEX B: EVOLUTION OF DEBATES
The following sections provide the complete overview of the citations from Timeline (Annex A) documents that were considered in the qualitative assessment of each concept.
• “European Sport Model”
• Autonomy, Governance and Independence
• Open competition
• Pyramid
• Solidarity
• Volunteerism
• Sport and physical activity
• Health and well-being
• Culture and identity
• Values
• Diversity, inclusion and accessibility
The following Figure 14 plots all concepts against the years of each document in the Timeline.
Figure 14: Consistency of all concepts and topics over time
Consistency of all concepts and topics over time
European Sport Model
Autonomy, Governance and Independence
Pyramid
Values
Culture and identity
Health and well-being
Sport and Physical activity
Open competition
Solidarity
Volunteerism
Diversity, inclusion and accessibility
“EUROPEAN SPORT MODEL”
1992: Rating of 1 as is original mention. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “12. Considering that it is necessary to agree on a common European framework for sports development in Europe, based on the notions of pluralist democracy, the rule of law and human rights, and the ethical principles set out in Recommendation No R(92)14 on the Code of Sports Ethics;” (Council of Europe, 1992, p. 2)
1998: Rating of 4 as the framework emphasises a protectionist approach over a focus on development; moves away from a “common” framework (Council of Europe, 1992, p. 2) based on values towards a public-private nature of sport; and begins to define key features of a “model” (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998b, p. 7),rather than a framework. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “The development of commercial television in Europe, the birth of specialised channels and the arrival of pay-TV have put the final touches to the new framework for European sport, a framework which will need monitoring to ensure that it does not endanger existing structures” (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998b, p. 7).
• “THE EUROPEAN MODEL OF SPORT: From the end of World War II until the mid 80s two different models of sport existed in Europe, namely the East and the West European model. The former was more or less ideologically oriented; sport was a part of propaganda. In western countries European sport developed a mixed model, in which actions performed by governmental and non-governmental organisations existed side by side. It is also important to underline that sport has grown in parallel with television, basically in an environment of exclusively public television. Western European sport is thus the result of private and public activity. In the northern countries, the state does not regulate, whereas in the southern countries, the states play a regulatory role in sport” (European Commission, DirectorateGeneral X, 1998b, p. 2)
• “European model of sport” as being “The Pyramid Model” (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998b, p. 3) with “key feature” of promotion and relegation. Another “key feature” listed as the “commitment to national identity” (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998b, p. 7)
2007: Rating of 2 as a formal model is not mentioned, citing difficulties in unity across European sport structures It returns to the original logic that a “common” set of principles can be established that represent similar values to the ones expressed in 1992, albeit now those values are focussed on sport governance rather than development. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “The political debate on sport in Europe often attributes considerable importance to the so called ‘European Sport Model’. The Commission considers that certain values and traditions of European sport should be promoted. In view of the diversity and complexities of European sport structures it considers, however, that it is unrealistic to try to define a unified model of organisation of sport in Europe. Moreover, economic and social developments that are common to the majority of the Member States (increasing commercialisation, challenges to public spending, increasing numbers of participants and stagnation in the number of voluntary workers) have resulted in new challenges for the organisation of sport in Europe... The Commission can play a role in encouraging the sharing of best practice in sport governance. It can also help to develop a common set of principles for good governance in sport, such as transparency, democracy, accountability and representation of stakeholders (associations, federations, players, clubs, leagues, supporters, etc.)” (Commission of the European Communities, 2007a, p. 12).
2008: Rating of 2 as reinforces governance values without mentioning a model. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “2. Union action shall be aimed at: developing the European dimension in sport, by promoting fairness and openness in sporting competitions and cooperation between bodies responsible for sports, and by protecting the physical and moral integrity of sportsmen and sportswomen, especially the youngest sportsmen and sportswomen” (European Union, 2008b).
2011: Rating of 2 as continues the emphasis on a “European dimension” related to values of governance but not a formal model. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “While it is not possible to define a single model of governance in European sport across different disciplines and in view of various national differences, the Commission considers that there are inter-linked principles that underpin sport governance at European level, such as autonomy within the limits of the law, democracy, transparency and accountability in decision-making, and inclusiveness in the representation of interested stakeholders. Good governance in sport is a condition for addressing challenges regarding sport and the EU legal framework” (European Commission, 2011, p. 10).
2020: Rating of 2 as continues association with open competitions and evokes the distinct roles of the EU and sports bodies in mentioning the specificity of sport, which underpins previous mentions of EU-related governance. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “European Model of Sport” key topic in the work plan is associated with “Impact of closed sport competitions on the system of organised sport, taking into account the specificity of sport[.] Possible challenges faced by European sport organisations and federations (working title)” (Council of the European Union, 2020, p. 5).
Oct 2021: Rating of 3 as refers to a “framework” (Council of Europe, 2021, p. 3) and a “single reference standard” (Council of Europe, 2021, p. 3) without adopting the term, ESM, but then establishes the key features in a footnote. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “2. This Charter highlights the common features of a framework for European sport and its organisation, understood by the sports movement as the European sport model, and provides general guidance to the Council of Europe’s member States to refine existing legislation or other policies and to develop a comprehensive framework for sport. It has been specified and complemented by legally binding standards addressing critical issues in the field of sport, such as: a. the European Convention on Spectator Violence and Misbehaviour at Sports Events and in particular at Football Matches (ETS No. 120); b. the Anti-Doping Convention (ETS No. 135); c. the Council of Europe Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions (CETS No. 215); and d. the Council of Europe Convention on an Integrated Safety, Security and Service Approach at Football Matches and Other Sports Events (CETS No. 218)” (Council of Europe, 2021, p. 3)
• “(2) The promotion of sport development and sports ethics through one single reference standard on sports policies would be more effective;” (Council of Europe, 2021, p. 3).
• The features attributed to “values-based sport” include human rights, education in values through sport ethics, integrity and sustainability; and components of “sport for all” include the right to sport, building foundations for the practice of sport, developing participation, imporiving performance and supporting top-level and professional sport (Council of Europe, 2021)
• “Although due to the diversity of European sport structures there is no common definition of European Model of Sport, some key features make it recognizable. Such features include pyramidal structure, open system of promotion and relegation, the grassroots approach and solidarity, role in national identity, structures based on voluntary activity and its social and educational function” (Council of Europe, 2021, p. 1)
Nov 2021: Rating of 4 as diverges significantly in the principles attributed to a specific “European sport model.” The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “13. Calls for a European sports model that recognises the need for a strong commitment to integrating the principles of solidarity, sustainability, inclusiveness for all, open competition, sporting merit and fairness, and accordingly strongly opposes breakaway competitions that undermine such principles and endanger the stability of the overall sports ecosystem; stresses that these principles should be encouraged by all sports stakeholders and national authorities;”(European Parliament, 2021, p. 5)
Dec 2021: Rating of 3 as references “values-based” sport with similar features, but attributes them specifically to a “common” “European sport model.” The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “2. This Charter highlights the common features of a framework for European sport and its organisation, understood by the sports movement as the European sport model, and provides general guidance to the Council of Europe’s member States to refine existing legislation or other policies and to develop a comprehensive framework for sport” (Council of the European Union, 2021, p. 3)
• “8. The key features for most of the values-based organised sport in Europe represent an organisation of sport in an autonomous, democratic and territorial basis with a pyramidal structure, encompassing all levels of sport from grassroots to professional sport, comprising both club and national team competitions and including mechanisms to ensure financial solidarity, fairness and openness in competitions, such as the principle of promotion and relegation” (Council of the European Union, 2021, p. 2)
June 2022: Rating of 4 as, in recognising its goals to “agree on a common European framework for the development of sport in Europe” and the “combination of standards on sports development and on sports ethics into one single reference standard,” the Revised European Sport Charter states it “highlights the common features of a framework for European sport and its organisation, understood by the sports movement as the European sport model, and provides general guidance to the Council of Europe’s member States to refine existing legislation or other policies and to develop a comprehensive framework for sport” (Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport, Council of Europe, 2022) The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “Bearing in mind that it is necessary to agree on a common European framework for the development of sport in Europe, based on the principles of pluralist democracy, the rule of law and human rights;” (Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport, Council of Europe, 2022, p. 7).
• “the combination of standards on sports development and on sports ethics into one single reference standard on sports policies would be more effective;” (Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport, Council of Europe, 2022, p. 9).
• “The aim of this Charter is to guide governments in the design and implementation of legal and policy frameworks for sport which highlight its multiple individual and social benefits (in particular for health, inclusion and education) and abide by and promote the values of human rights, democracy and the rule of law, as enshrined in the Council of Europe’s applicable standards” (Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport, Council of Europe, 2022, p. 11)
• “2. This Charter highlights the common features of a framework for European sport and its organisation, understood by the sports movement as the European sport model, and provides general guidance to the Council of Europe’s member States to refine existing legislation or other policies and to develop a comprehensive framework for sport” (Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport, Council of Europe, 2022, p. 12)
Feb 2024: Rating of 4 as provides the most comprehensive interpretation, which encompasses all previously mentioned concepts under the ESM banner. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “2. also recalls that the Work Plan for Sport (2021–2024) provides, in its thematic priorities, for the adoption and implementation of a European Sport Model making it possible and a more attractive option for the various national sports federations (including, in Italy, associated sports disciplines and sports promotion bodies) to operate within the sports organisation system, taking into account the autonomy and specificity of sport. The model should also take account of the involvement of municipalities and regions, which enable a huge proportion of the self-organised sports that, in turn, make up a significant proportion of residents’ sporting activity. Sport has therefore been recognised as a public policy instrument whose social aspect and economic and employment importance were considered decisive features in shaping it, on the basis of a set of principles and key characteristics: a pyramid structure for sports organisations and competitions, where national sports federations play the main role, in charge of organising and drawing up the specific rules at professional, recreational and amateur level, and consolidating their work with European and international federations; promotion of a financial solidarity mechanism between various sector operators in order to have the funds available for amateur sport and provide equal opportunities, starting from the lower levels of sport. the redistribution of income is considered essential for financial survival and development at all levels of every sport; creating a sports movement that is largely independent and capable of developing partnerships with public authorities, in line with the autonomy and specificity of sport.
National sports federations that have the power to self-regulate shall base their operation on the principles and practices of transparency, good governance, inclusivity and diversity and accountability; structures based on the promotion of the values of sport and the recognition of volunteering, which play a crucial role in the management of sports organisations and competitions; the introduction of practical provisions and measures aimed at encouraging equality, inclusion, diversity and anti-discrimination in compliance with human rights and upholding European values (for example, democracy, workers’ rights, gender equality, free movement, the equalisation of pay, safe sport, etc.). The EU has identified local and regional entities as drivers of inclusion and social cohesion. These entities are able to identify the good practices and public policies that can be most effective in fostering a vision of sport as essential social infrastructure;” (European Committee of the Regions, 2024, pp. 6–7)
May 2024: Rating of 4 as reinforces concept of ESM as maintaining same key features. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “Support, further explore and continue on-going discussions on the key features of a European Sport Model” (Council of the European Union, 2024c, p. 6).
• “26. Develop a new long-term strategic document on the future of EU sport policy, including on promoting the key features of a European Sport Model and on sport mainstreaming into other EU policies, by the end of 2026” (Council of the European Union, 2024c, p. 11)
•
• Theme listed under “European Sport Model”: “Openness of competitions, sporting merit, integrity, solidarity and values in sport” (Council of the European Union, 2024c, p. 20).
July 2024: Rating of 4 as features of ESM are reinforced. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “The resolution of the Council on the key features of a European Sport Model which recognises that, among others, the key features for most of the values-based organised sport in Europe represent an organisation of sport in an autonomous, democratic and territorial basis with a pyramidal structure, encompassing all levels of sport from grassroots to professional sport, comprising both club and national team competitions and including mechanisms to ensure financial solidarity, fairness and openness in competitions, such as the principle of promotion and relegation” (Council of the European Union, 2024b, p. 3)
SPORT AND PHYSICAL ACTIVITY
1975/76: Rating of 1 as is original mention. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “Having been originally defined in the Council of Europe Sport for All Chater (1975/76), “which embraces sport in many different forms, from recreational physical activity to high level competition” (Council of Europe, 1976, Issue 6).
1992: Rating of 2 as reinforces original understanding with additional information. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “All forms of physical activity which, through casual or organised participation, aim at expressing or improving physical fitness and mental well-being, forming social relationships or obtaining results in competition at all levels” (Council of Europe, 1992, Article 2(a)).
1998: Rating of 2 as reinforces 1992 definition. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “The only official definition of sport is to be found in Article 2 of the Council of Europe’s European Sports Charter, which defines sport as ‘all forms of physical activity which, through casual or organised participation, aim at expressing or improving physical fitness and mental well-being, forming social relationships or obtaining results in competition at all levels’” (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998a, p. 5)
2007: Rating of 2 as reinforces 1992 definition The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “For the sake of clarity and simplicity, this White Paper will use the definition of "sport" established by the Council of Europe: "all forms of physical activity which, through casual or organised participation, aim at expressing or improving physical fitness and mental wellbeing, forming social relationships or obtaining results in competition at all levels" (Commission of the European Communities, 2007b, p. 2)
Oct 2021: Rating of 2 as reinforces 1992 definition. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “For the purpose of this Charter, “sport” means all forms of physical activity which, through casual or organised participation, are aimed at maintaining or improving physical fitness and mental well-being, forming social relationships or obtaining results in competition at all levels” (Council of Europe, 2021, Article 2(1))
Nov 2021: Rating of 1 as returns to active leisure as being included in sport. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “H. whereas EU sports policy must support both elite and grassroots sports, including forms of active leisure;” (European Parliament, 2021, p. 4)
Dec 2021: Rating of 3 as sport is specified as “values-based” and “organised,” recalling features attributed to the European Sport Model rather than to ‘sport’ itself. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “For the purpose of this Resolution: Values-based organised sport in Europe: Values-based organised sport is based on freedom of association and values, such as good governance, safety, integrity, solidarity, including financial solidarity, the health and safety of athletes, respect of fundamental and human rights and gender equality as well as voluntary activity. It is usually structured on a national basis and in principle organised by one sport federation per sport, allowing for a comprehensive approach to rules, regulations, and standards as well as to competition calendars and qualification for competitions” (Council of the European Union, 2021, p. 6)
2022: Rating of 2 as returns to the definition provided by the 1992 European Sports Charter. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “1. For the purpose of this Charter, ‘sport’ means all forms of physical activity which, through casual or organised participation, are aimed at maintaining or improving physical fitness and mental well-being, forming social relationships or obtaining results in competition at all levels.”
2023: Rating of 3 as “grassroots sport” is specifically characterised as a physical leisure activity with health and social cohesion benefits (Council of the European Union, 2023, p. 1) and education (Council of the European Union, 2023, p. 1), with calls to “[develop] new types of grasssroots sport, e.g., non-traditional sports” (Council of the European Union, 2023, p. 5). The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “Participation in grassroots sport (5), while first and foremost a physical leisure activity, also brings additional added-value with regard to a healthier and generally more inclusive and sustainable society in Europe. It may develop positive social attitudes and values, as well as individuals' skills and competences, including transversal skills (6) such as the ability to think critically, take initiatives, problem solve and work collaboratively (7)” (Council of the European Union, 2023, p. 1).
• “7.With regard to the contribution of sport to transversal skills development, there is untapped potential, especially for young people, since skills gained via nonformal (8) and informal learning (9) are valuable for personal and professional development, including on the labour market and in lifelong learning (10)” (Council of the European Union, 2023, p. 2)
• “36. Exchanging best practice on how to foster and diversify the grassroots sports movement, and exchanging good practice with regard to developing new types of grassroots sport, e.g. non-traditional sports” (Council of the European Union, 2023, p. 5)
Feb 2024: Rating of 4 as references “self-organised sport.” The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “The model should also take account of the involvement of municipalities and regions, which enable a huge proportion of the self-organised sports that, in turn, make up a significant proportion of residents’ sporting activity” (European Committee of the Regions, 2024, p. 7)
May 2024: Rating of 4 as a distinction between “self-organised sport” and “organised sport” is established (Council of the European Union, 2024a, p. 3), with the former echoing the first definitions of ‘sport’ being “all forms of physical activity,” but with a specific mention of “informal settings” and “leisure time” (Council of the European Union, 2024a, p. 3). Health-enhancing physical activity is further distinguished alongside participation (Council of the European Union, 2024c, p. 5) and the sports movement is positioned as not inherent to these activities or goals. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “7. For the purposes of these conclusions, self-organised sport is considered to be all forms of physical activity that can occur in informal settings, generally during leisure time, that do not follow strict formal sporting rules, and that do not necessarily involve a competitive format. These activities can take place in local and informal settings, such as parks and neighbourhoods, but also in sport infrastructures, either individually or collectively, such as with friends, colleagues and family members” (Council of the European Union, 2024a, p. 3).
• “12. That self-organised sport, along with organised sport, can also play a positive role in increasing sports practice and health-enhancing physical activity in order to promote an active, healthy and sustainable lifestyle, as well as social cohesion and active citizenship” (Council of the European Union, 2024a, p. 3)
• “20. As regards sports practice, a) support policy initiatives, measures and public campaigns that promote the benefits and accessibility of sport and physical activity, including in informal settings, among the population, at national, regional and local level; b) where appropriate, produce and disseminate guidelines, in collaboration with the sport movement, on ways to engage in self-organised sport, for example on training and safety routines; c) promote the development, where possible, of tools that allow individuals who practise a self-organised
sport to easily find guidance and identify qualified staff, particularly coaches, who have undergone certified training; d) promote and support community-based initiatives that encourage participation in sport in informal settings in collaboration with education and training institutions, youth organisations, sports clubs, fitness clubs, associations for elderly people and neighbourhood associations; e) where appropriate, cooperate with the sport movement to develop or expand the range of recreational physical activities offered within sport clubs;” (Council of the European Union, 2024a, p. 7).
• “INVITE THE SPORTS MOVEMENT AND OTHER RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS TO: 29. Further cooperate on ways to share resources (facilities and equipment) with non-members of sports clubs, in order to promote participation in sport and physical activity in informal settings” (Council of the European Union, 2024a, p. 11)
• “INVITE THE SPORTS MOVEMENT AND OTHER RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS TO: 32. Foster the development of a range of recreational sport activities within sports clubs in order to diversify their activities and attract new participants” (Council of the European Union, 2024a, p. 11).
• “14. The EU Work Plan focuses on the following priority areas: Integrity and values in sport[;] Socio-economic and sustainable dimensions of sport[; and] Participation in sport and healthenhancing physical activity” (Council of the European Union, 2024c, p. 5).
• “The GUIDING OBJECTIVES of this European Union Work Plan for Sport (hereinafter, the EU Work Plan) are to: In terms of EU sport policy, […] Increase participation in sport and health-enhancing physical activity at all ages and improve accessibility for vulnerable groups, in order to promote an active and environmentally-friendly lifestyle, social cohesion and active citizenship. Support voluntary-based grassroots sport in order to increase such participation in sport and health-enhancing physical activity” (Council of the European Union, 2024c, pp. 5–6)
AUTONOMY, GOVERNANCE AND INDEPENDENCE
1991: Rating of 1 as is original mention. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• Sport is, indeed, an ideal area in which to apply the principle of subsidiarity both horizontally (respecting the spheres of jurisdiction of the official sporting authorities) and vertically (respecting the spheres of jurisdiction of sports associations)” (Commission of the European Communities, 1991, p. 2)
• In its relations with the world of sport, the Commission has always been concerned ‘to respect the independence of co-ooperative effort in general, and in sport in particular’” (Commission of the European Communities, 1991, p. 2)
1992: Rating of 2 as presents the same understanding of independence but has introduced the role of the European Union. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• The 1975/76 European Sport for All Charter “has provided an essential basis for governmental policies in the field of sport and enabled many individuals to exercise their "right to participate in sport" (Council of Europe, 1992)
• Governments to work “in co-operation with the appropriate sports organisations” (Council of Europe, 1992, p. 3).
• “Voluntary sports organisations have the right to establish autonomous decision-making processes within the law. Both governments and sports organisations shall recognise the need for a mutual respect of their decisions” (Council of Europe, 1992, p. 3).
1997: Rating of 2 as EU recognises independence and autonomy of sport, while still asserting role in regulation of economic activity. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “Emphasizes that the EU must recognise the specific nature of sport and the autonomy of the sports movement, it being understood that the economic activity generated by professional sport cannot be exempt from the provisions of Community law;” (Commission of the European Communities, 2007b)
• “J. whereas the specific nature of sport and the autonomy of the sports movement and of the organizations which give it a structure must be acknowledged where the sporting activity concerned is not primarily a form of economic activity; whereas the economic activity generated by professional sport may not, however, be exempt from the provisions of Community law” (Commission of the European Communities, 2007b).
1998: Rating of 2 as the dual function of sport federations as both regulatory and commercial entities is raised. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “Up to the 1980s sports federations were mainly regulatory bodies. As TV rights grew in importance, they began to negotiate these rights, thus acting like any other commercial company. The question that arises then is whether the federations can be regulatory bodies and private business entities at the same time. The top members of these federations as well as the grassroots members feel that their interests are no longer adequately represented” (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998b, Section 3.1)
2000: Rating of 1 as rhetoric returns to asserting independence and freedom of association. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “The European Council stresses its support for the independence of sports organisations and their right to organise themselves through appropriate associative structures” (European Council, 2000)
2005: Rating of 3 as promotes good governance as a non-mandatory strategy to strengthen autonomy; however, the recommendation invites other stakeholders to (public authorities) to adopt policies that implement minimum requirements.
• “Convinced that the successful implementation by sports non-governmental organisations of effective good governance policies in their organisations would help to strengthen their selfgovernance and autonomy in matters concerning sport and would further strengthen their position in relation to public authorities based on mutual respect and trust” (Council of Europe, 2005)
2007: Rating of 2 as while the Commission officially acknowledges the autonomy of sports, it emphasises (without making mandatory) the importance of dialogue, the necessity for selfregulation to abide by EU law, and the EU’s ability to act. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “The Commission acknowledges the autonomy of sporting organisations and representative structures (such as leagues). Furthermore, it recognises that governance is mainly the responsibility of sports governing bodies and, to some extent, the Member States and social partners. Nonetheless, dialogue with sports organisations has brought a number of areas to the Commission’s attention, which are addressed below. The Commission considers that most challenges can be addressed through self-regulation respectful of good governance principles, provided that EU law is respected, and is ready to play a facilitating role or take action if necessary” (Commission of the European Communities, 2007b, p. 13).
• Introducing the “specificity of sport,” particularly as concerns, “The specificity of the sport structure, including notably the autonomy and diversity of sport organisations, a pyramid structure of competitions from grassroots to elite level and organised solidarity mechanisms between the different levels and operators, the organisation of sport on a national basis, and the principle of a single federation per sport;” (Commission of the European Communities, 2007b, p. 13).
• “124) Article 149 shall be amended as follows: (a) in paragraph 1, the following subparagraph shall be inserted: ‘The Union shall contribute to the promotion of European sporting issues, while taking account of the specific nature of sport, its structures based on voluntary activity and its social and educational function’” (European Union, 2007, Article 124)
2008: Rating of 2 as the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union enshrined the EU’s ability to take action in the realm of sport, whilst still acknowledging the specific nature of sport. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “The Union shall have competence to carry out actions to support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States. The areas of such action shall, at European level, be: (e) education, vocational training, youth and sport” (European Union, 2008a)
• “2. Union action shall be aimed at: developing the European dimension in sport, by promoting fairness and openness in sporting competitions and cooperation between bodies responsible for sports, and by protecting the physical and moral integrity of sportsmen and sportswomen, especially the youngest sportsmen and sportswomen” (European Union, 2008b)
• “The Union shall contribute to the promotion of European sporting issues, while taking account of the specific nature of sport, its structures based on voluntary activity, and its social and educational function” (European Union, 2008b)
2011: Rating of 3 as the Commission does not relent in emphasising its role in sport, and the “autonomy of sport” is made conditional upon good governance of sports organisations. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “The Commission respects the autonomy of sport governing structures as a fundamental principle relating to the organisation of sport. It also respects the competences of the Member States in this area, in line with the principle of subsidiarity. Nonetheless, implementation of the White Paper has confirmed that, in a number of areas, action at EU level can provide significant added value” (European Commission, 2011, p. 3)
• Connection to governance established and autonomy made conditional: “Good governance in sport is a condition for the autonomy and self-regulation of sport organisations… Good
governance in sport is a condition for addressing challenges regarding sport and the EU legal framework” (European Commission, 2011, p. 10)
Aug 2013: Rating of 2 as the “specificity of sport” is further entrenched (European Parliament, 2013, p. 48) with an explicit distinction that sport federations “do not as commercial companies, and whereas a distinction must be made between sporting and commercial interests” (European Parliament, 2013, p. 50). The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “B. whereas the specific nature of sport should take precedence in the judgement of the ECJ and the Commission’s decision on sports matters; C. whereas all stakeholders, including policy makers, must take into account the specific nature of sport, its structures based on voluntary activity and its social and educational functions; D. whereas the specific nature of sport arises from the sum of sport’s individual and essential aspects which make it different from all other sectors of activity, including economic activities; whereas it should however be subjected to European Union law where appropriate and necessary, and on a case-by case basis; E. whereas EU action in the field of sport should always take the specificity of sport into account respecting its social, educational and cultural aspects;” (European Parliament, 2013, p. 48)
• “AA. whereas sport does not behave like a typical economic activity because of its specific characteristics and its organisational structures, underpinned by federations, which do not operate as commercial companies, and whereas a distinction must be made between sporting and commercial interests;” (European Parliament, 2013, p. 50).
2018: Rating of 3 as recommends EU member states to implement monitoring and compliance regarding good governance in sport. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “4. monitor directly or indirectly progress towards the implementation of good governance principles by their national sport movement; 5. consider introducing compliance with good governance principles as criteria for the awarding of public grants to sports organisations and for sports events;” (Council of Europe, 2018)
2020: Rating of 2 as invites balancing of policymaking by public authorities with the principle of subsidiarity. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “13. Consider taking into account the knowledge and outcomes achieved in the implementation of this EU Work Plan when developing sport or other relevant policies at national and sub-national level, while respecting the principle of subsidiarity and the autonomy of sport” (Council of the European Union, 2020, p. 2)
Oct 2021: Rating of 3 as although cooperation between public authorities and the sports movement is encouraged, good governance is reinforced alongside regulation mechanisms external to sport. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “Public authorities should develop reciprocal co-operation with the sports movement, as the essential basis of sport, in order to promote the values and benefits of sport, and in many European States governmental action in sport is taken in order to be complementary to and support the work of this movement (subsidiarity);” (Council of Europe, 2021, p. 2).
• “The role of the public authorities is primarily complementary to the action of the sports movement and corporate sector. Public authorities are responsible for setting framework conditions and, where appropriate, legal requirements which are necessary for the development of sport. In the development and administration of sports policies, public authorities should pursue the aims of this Charter and demonstrate that they place a high priority on respecting the rule of law and the principles of good governance” (Council of Europe, 2021, Article 3(1))
• “The sports movement, which comprises non-governmental, non-profit sports organisations, is the main partner of public authorities for the implementation of sports policies. Its organisations are bound by the requirements and limits imposed on them by legislation in accordance with international standards” (Council of Europe, 2021, Article 4(1)).
• “3. Sports movement organisations fully enjoy the freedom of association enshrined in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. They enjoy autonomous decision-making processes and should choose their leaders democratically in accordance with good governance principles. Both governments and sports organisations should recognise the need for mutual respect for their decisions” (Council of Europe, 2021, Article 4(3)).
Dec 2021: Rating of 4 as sport federations are specified as playing a central role in specifically reconciling stakeholders, rather than being authoritative regulatory figures in their own right. This is compounded by the introduction of good governance as a mandatory prerequisite to autonomy. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “11. Sport federations should have a central role in overseeing the organisation and functioning of their respective sport, and should reconcile in a democratic, balanced and cohesive manner the interests of athletes, clubs and leagues, fans and other stakeholders, and other sport organisations in order for all to contribute to the healthy development of sport” (Council of the European Union, 2021, p. 2)
• “15. Good governance in sport is a prerequisite for the autonomy and self-regulation of sport organisations and federations, in compliance with the principles of democracy, transparency, integrity, solidarity, gender equality, openness, accountability and social responsibility. It is
essential that sport organisations and federations uphold and, where possible, raise their standards of good governance by giving voice to athletes and to fans” (Council of the European Union, 2021, p. 2).
2022: Rating of 4 as while the sports movement is granted autonomous decision-making based on the freedom of association, the sports movement is described as “the main partner of public authorities” and reinforces the need for good governance. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “Public authorities should develop reciprocal co-operation with the sports movement, as the essential basis of sport, in order to promote the values and benefits of sport, and in many European States governmental action in sport is taken in order to be complementary to and support the work of this movement (subsidiarity);” (Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport, Council of Europe, 2022, p. 9)
• “1. The sports movement, which comprises nongovernmental, non-profit sports organisations, is the main partner of public authorities for the implementation of sports policies. Its organisations are bound by the requirements and limits imposed on them by legislation in accordance with international standards” (Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport, Council of Europe, 2022, p. 15).
• “3. Sports movement organisations fully enjoy the freedom of association enshrined in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. They enjoy autonomous decision-making processes and should choose their leaders democratically in accordance with good governance principles. Both governments and sports organisations should recognise the need for mutual respect for their decisions” (Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport, Council of Europe, 2022, p. 15).
Feb 2024: Rating of 4 as the enshrinement of the EU’s role is referenced alongside autonomy whilst the connection between autonomy and good governance is reinforced. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “[Article 165 of the TFEU(European Union, 2008b)] specifically indicates that the sports movement enjoys universal autonomy and distinction in the general legal system, from a regulatory, organisational and judicial point of view. The EU is therefore responsible for developing public policies in this area based on data and good practices, and for promoting sport, fostering cooperation and managing initiatives in support of sport across Europe, recognising that local and regional authorities play a vital role in the promotion and development of sports activities within their communities, and that EU funding opportunities should be tailored to the specific needs and priorities of local and regional authorities (LRAs) in less developed and outermost regions;” (European Committee of the Regions, 2024, p. 7).
• “Creating a sports movement that is largely independent and capable of developing partnerships with public authorities, in line with the autonomy and specificity of sport. National sports federations that have the power to self-regulate shall base their operation on the principles and practices of transparency, good governance, inclusivity and diversity and accountability;” (European Committee of the Regions, 2024, p. 2)
• “In the same vein, transparency in good governance is to be promoted within sports organisations in order to protect the safety and rights of athletes, spectators and workers in the sector and to prevent abuse in the world of sport, especially towards vulnerable groups such as female, LGBTQIA+, disabled, migrant and youth groups. This can be achieved, for example, by making the decision-making processes of sports governing bodies more inclusive and representative as well as through the implementation of touching points where athletes, parents or other stakeholders can anonymously report abusive cases. This is necessary in order to safeguard the autonomy of sports federations and ensure respect for the values of the European Sport Model” (European Committee of the Regions, 2024, p. 12)
OPEN COMPETITION
1998: Rating of 1 as the original mention. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “European sport is traditionally based on a system of national federations, whereby each sport is organised nationally and also has a European body. European competitions have also involved a system of promotion and relegation as well as competitions between the different States” (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998a, p. 7)
• “A System of Promotion and Relegation – The pyramid structure implies interdependence between the levels, not only on the organisational side but also on the competitive side, because competitions are organised on all levels. Thus, a football club playing at a regional level can qualify for championships on a national or even international level (e.g. the UEFA Cup) by winning promotion. On the other hand a club will be relegated if it fails to qualify. Relegation and promotion are standard features of every national championship. Because of the arrival of new competitors the championships are more interesting than closed competitions. This system of promotion and relegation can also be found on a European level. In all disciplines the national federations (i.e. the top of the pyramid) are members of both European and international federations which in their turn organise European and international championships. Qualification for most of these tournaments, however, is usually decided at a national level. This system of promotion and relegation is one of the key features of the European model of sport. The US has developed the model of closed championships and multiple sport federations. The same teams, once in this championship, keep on playing in this league. In Europe, there is a new tendency to try and combine both systems. In a recent proposal by UEFA, clubs would qualify not only by a system of promotion and relegation, but also by fulfilling economic and technical criteria” (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998b, p. 4)
• “If the leading European clubs were to participate in closed competitions, would they be excluded from the national championships? This would mean the end of one key feature of the European model, namely the commitment to national identity. Should this national orientation be retained and if so, what is the best way to safeguard it?” (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998b, p. 7).
1999: Rating of 2 as stresses the “system of promotion and relegation is one of the characteristics of European sport.” The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “In terms of the economic activity that it generates, the sporting sector is subject to the rules of the EC Treaty, like the other sectors of the economy. The application of the Treaty's competition rules to the sporting sector must take account of the specific characteristics of sport, especially the interdependence between sporting activity and the economic activity that it generates, the principle of equal opportunities and the uncertainty of the results” (Commission of the European Communities, 1999, p. 8)
• “The Bosman judgment mentioned above recognised as legitimate the objectives designed to maintain a balance between clubs, while preserving a degree of equality of opportunity and the uncertainty of the result, and to encourage the recruitment and training of young players” (Commission of the European Communities, 1999, p. 8).
• “The system of promotion and relegation is one of the characteristics of European sport. This system gives small or medium-sized clubs a better chance and rewards sporting merit;” (Commission of the European Communities, 1999, p. 10).
2007: Rating of 2 as, without mentioning open competitions, connects the concept of the pyramid to competitions. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “The specificity of the sport structure, including notably the autonomy and diversity of sport organisations, a pyramid structure of competitions from grassroots to elite level and organised solidarity mechanisms between the different levels and operators, the organisation of sport on a national basis, and the principle of a single federation per sport;” (Commission of the European Communities, 2007b, p. 13)
2008: Rating of 2 as connects the “fairness and openness of sporting competitions” to the “European dimension” of sport. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “Developing the European dimension in sport, by promoting fairness and openness in sporting competitions and cooperation between bodies responsible for sports, and by protecting the physical and moral integrity of sportsmen and sportswomen, especially the youngest sportsmen and sportswomen” (European Union, 2008b).
2020: Rating of 1 as evokes the basic original concept that closed competitions impact the system of organised sport. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “Impact of closed sport competitions on the system of organised sport, taking into account the specificity of sport[.] Possible challenges faced by European sport organisations and federations (working title)” (Council of the European Union, 2020, p. 5).
Oct 2021: Rating of 2 as outlines the details of open competitions being based on “sporting merit” in line with previous logic. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “3. The organisation of top-level and professional sports competitions should be in compliance with the principle of openness in sporting competitions, giving priority to sporting merit. Competition organisers should work to reconcile the needs and interests of individual/local team competitions and those of national teams” (Council of Europe, 2021, p. 8).
Nov 2021: Rating of 4 as extends the claim of open competition and sporting merit to breakaway competitions, which risk the “stability of the overall sports system.” The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “13. Calls for a European sports model that recognises the need for a strong commitment to integrating the principles of solidarity, sustainability, inclusiveness for all, open competition, sporting merit and fairness, and accordingly strongly opposes breakaway competitions that undermine such principles and endanger the stability of the overall sports ecosystem; stresses that these principles should be encouraged by all sports stakeholders and national authorities;” (European Parliament, 2021, p. 5)
Dec 2021: Rating of 2 as builds upon the potential impact of closed competition with mentioning the consequences on organised sport. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “28. Draw the attention to the consequences closed sport competitions could have on organised sport in Europe, such as fundamental change in the sport qualifying processes usually based on sporting merit” (Council of the European Union, 2021, p. 3)
May 2024: Rating of 2 as returns to original mention as a key feature of the ESM and solidifies its interconnection to other principles.
• Theme listed under “European Sport Model”: “Openness of competitions, sporting merit, integrity, solidarity and values in sport” (Council of the European Union, 2024c, p. 20)
PYRAMID
1998: Rating of 1 as the original mention. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “In the Member States sport is traditionally organised in a system of national federations. Only the top federations (usually one per country) are linked together in European and international federations. Basically the structure resembles a pyramid with a hierarchy” (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998b, p. 2)
• “A system of national federations” with features like grassroots clubs/federations, regional sports federations, national sports federations, European sport federations
• “European sport is traditionally based on a system of national federations, whereby each sport is organised nationally and also has a European body. European competitions have also involved a system of promotion and relegation as well as competitions between the different States” (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998b, p. 2)
1999: Rating of 4 as the pyramid is justified only in relation to “national championships and the selection of national athletes and national teams for international competitions often require the existence of one umbrella organisation bringing together all the sports associations and competitors of one discipline.” The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “In order to clarify the legal environment of sport, it is also necessary for the federations to make an effort to define their missions and statutes more precisely. The pyramid structure of the organisation of sport in Europe gives sporting federations a practical "monopoly". The existence of several federations in one discipline would risk causing major conflicts. Indeed, the organisation of national championships and the selection of national athletes and national teams for international competitions often require the existence of one umbrella organisation bringing together all the sports associations and competitors of one discipline. The federations should also perform tasks such as the promotion of amateur and professional sport and carry out a role of integration into society (young people, the disabled, etc.). Their statutes should explicitly state these missions. These responsibilities should be translated effectively into practice by financial mechanisms of internal solidarity and the structural and solidarity-based relationship between competitive sport and amateur sport” (Commission of the European Communities, 1999, p. 9)
2000: Rating of 2 as the term “recreational” instead of “grassroots” in naming the “various levels of sporting practice.” The explicit assertion of federation responsibility for organising competitions based on social functions of sport is consistent with the implicit connection made in the original mention. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “It notes that sports federations have a central role in ensuring the essential solidarity between the various levels of sporting practice, from recreational to top-level sport, which coexist there” (European Council, 2000).
• “These social functions entail special responsibilities for federations and provide the basis for the recognition of their competence in organising competitions” (European Council, 2000).
Nov 2021: Rating of 3 as questions the links between grassroots and elite sport purported by the pyramid structure. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “12. Acknowledges the diversity of approaches across sports and countries while considering that the common foundation of European sport needs to be further enhanced and protected, in particular the links between grassroots and elite sport;” (European Parliament, 2021, p. 5).
Dec 2021: Rating of 3 as the pyramid is limited to “organised sport” and does not claim recreational or grassroots activities, and justifies this structure not based on social function but on “coherent development of sport.” The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “The current structure of competitive sport in Europe, which is mainly based on a national configuration with competitions at regional, national, continental and global levels, and which respects the regulatory role of international governing bodies, has delivered benefits in terms of the coherent development of sport and international solidarity” (Council of Europe, 2021, p. 2).
• “The key features for most of the values-based organised sport in Europe represent an organisation of sport in an autonomous, democratic and territorial basis with a pyramidal structure, encompassing all levels of sport from grassroots to professional sport, comprising both club and national team competitions and including mechanisms to ensure financial solidarity, fairness and openness in competitions, such as the principle of promotion and relegation” (Council of the European Union, 2021, p. 2).
2022: Rating of 4 as the application of the pyramid is limited to “competitive sport.” The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “The current structure of competitive sport in Europe, which is mainly based on a national configuration with competitions at regional, national, continental and global levels, and which respects the regulatory role of international governing bodies, has delivered benefits in terms of the coherent development of sport and international solidarity” (Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport, Council of Europe, 2022, p. 9).
Feb 2024: Rating of 1 as the concept returns to a pyramid structure that, under the heading of national sport federations, extends to recreational sporting activity. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “On the basis of a set of principles and key characteristics: a pyramid structure for sports organisations and competitions, where national sports federations play the main role, in charge of organising and drawing up the specific rules at professional, recreational and amateur level, and consolidating their work with European and international federations” (European Committee of the Regions, 2024, p. 1)
SOLIDARITY
1992: Rating of 1 as the original mention. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “They opened the Games to all athletes, removing the distinction between amateurs and professionals, and allowed the Games to be commercially sponsored, opening the door to the general commercialisation of all sport. Overcommercialisation could break the solidarity which exists between professional and amateur sport and between different sports and might even lead to the disappearance of sports seen as unprofitable” (Council of Europe, 1992, Section 3).
1997: Rating of 3 as solidarity is positioned alongside redistribution as related “mechanisms,” aligned in their goals to train and develop amateur players and to ensure “players from disadvantaged backgrounds are not excluded” (Pack & Committee on Culture, Youth, Education and the Media, 1997), which seems to build upon the 1992 mention. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “N. whereas, therefore, as the Court of Justice itself suggested, efficient solidarity and redistribution mechanisms must be guaranteed and developed to ensure that young players are trained and the continued existence of amateur clubs is not jeopardized, and whereas this must be done in such a way that, in practice, players from disadvantaged backgrounds are not excluded…” (Pack & Committee on Culture, Youth, Education and the Media, 1997)
• 6(e) to give active support, with the associations involved, to the introduction of efficient redistribution and solidarity mechanisms so that the training of young players and the continued existence of amateur clubs may be financed by means compatible with Community law…” (Pack & Committee on Culture, Youth, Education and the Media, 1997).
1998: Rating of 3 as the meaning teeters between referencing values between people, now distinguished as “social” solidarity, and a “solidarity system” which provides grassroots members “with money earned by the federation” (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998b, p. 8) A solidarity system run by UEFA is also referenced, which concerns “the distribution of Champions League revenues” and “serves to maintain a competitive and financial balance among the clubs and to promote football in general” (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998b, p. 9) The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “It is therefore particularly affected by the development of voluntary work as an expression of social solidarity. Sport also helps to instil moral values of fair play, solidarity, fair competition, team spirit and a healthy life, which need to be encouraged” (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998a, p. 6).
• “The grassroots members for their part complain that the federations no longer fulfil their ‘public’ task, namely the promotion of sport. They also claim that the solidarity system providing them with money earned by the federation does not work properly” (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998b, p. 8)
• Within Section 3.4, “Finance”: “UEFA has established a solidarity system for the distribution of Champions League revenues. According to UEFA this system serves to maintain a competitive and financial balance among the clubs and to promote football in general. The large football clubs accuse UEFA of not being transparent in financing and distribution. The smaller clubs complain that more money should go to the lower levels of the pyramid” (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998b, p. 9)
1999: Rating of 3 as financial solidarity is tied to commercial success, but then pivots back to connecting financial solidarity mechanisms to a mission related to the promotion of sport. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “A third symptom is the temptation for certain sporting operators and certain large clubs to leave the federations in order to derive the maximum benefit from the economic potential of sport for themselves alone. This tendency may jeopardise the principle of financial solidarity between professional and amateur sport and the system of promotion and relegation common to most federations” (Commission of the European Communities, 1999, p. 4)
• “Any exemptions granted in the case of the joint sale of broadcasting rights must take account of the benefits for consumers and of the proportional nature of the restriction on competition in relation to the legitimate objective pursued. In this context, there is also a need to examine the extent to which a link can be established between the joint sale of rights and financial solidarity between professional and amateur sport, the objectives of the training of young sportsmen and women and those of promoting sporting activities among the population” (Commission of the European Communities, 1999, p. 9)
• “The federations should also perform tasks such as the promotion of amateur and professional sport and carry out a role of integration into society (young people, the disabled, etc.). Their statutes should explicitly state these missions. These responsibilities should be translated effectively into practice by financial mechanisms of internal solidarity and the structural and solidarity-based relationship between competitive sport and amateur sport” (Commission of the European Communities, 1999, p. 9)
2000: Rating of 2 as the meaning pivots back to a similar approach to values. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “2. The European Council hopes in particular that the cohesion and ties of solidarity binding the practice of sports at every level, fair competition and both the moral and material interests and the physical integrity of those involved in the practice of sport, especially minors, may be preserved” (European Council, 2000).
• “It notes that sports federations have a central role in ensuring the essential solidarity between the various levels of sporting practice, from recreational to top-level sport, which coexist there” (European Council, 2000).
2007: Rating of 2 as it reinforces an approach to solidarity as being a value. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “Sport is a growing social and economic phenomenon which makes an important contribution to the European Union's strategic objectives of solidarity and prosperity” (Commission of the European Communities, 2007b, p. 2).
• “It generates important values such as team spirit, solidarity, tolerance and fair play, contributing to personal development and fulfilment” (Commission of the European Communities, 2007b, p. 2).
• “Participation in a team, principles such as fair-play, compliance with the rules of the game, respect for others, solidarity and discipline as well as the organisation of amateur sport based on non-profit clubs and volunteering reinforce active citizenship” (Commission of the European Communities, 2007b, p. 6)
Oct 2021: Rating of 4 as solidarity strictly refers to “financial solidarity” with no mention of the promotion of values (Council of Europe, 2021, Article 4(4)) The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “The current structure of competitive sport in Europe, which is mainly based on a national configuration with competitions at regional, national, continental and global levels, and which respects the regulatory role of international governing bodies, has delivered benefits in terms of the coherent development of sport and international solidarity” (Council of Europe, 2021, p. 2)
• “Sports movement organisations earning revenue from the sports entertainment market should be committed to financial solidarity between high-level sport and grassroots sport, among different sports and across all regions of the world” (Council of Europe, 2021, Article 4(4))
Nov 2021: Rating of 4 as mentions solidarity as a value separately from its discussion of financial solidarity mechanisms The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “11. Acknowledges the importance of a European sports model based on values, voluntary activities and solidarity and looks forward to further developing it in the interests of citizens and stakeholders;” (European Parliament, 2021, p. 5)
• “16. Highlights the need for more targeted and increased solidarity and more financial redistribution, as well as exchanges in skills and know-how, especially between professional and grassroots sport; calls on sports federations to implement a solidarity mechanism based on a fair and binding distribution method that ensures the adequate funding of amateur and grassroots sport;” (European Parliament, 2021, p. 6)
Dec 2021: Rating of 3 as it reinforces the ties between financial solidarity and “values-based” sport. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “8. The key features for most of the values-based organised sport in Europe represent an organisation of sport in an autonomous, democratic and territorial basis with a pyramidal structure, encompassing all levels of sport from grassroots to professional sport, comprising both club and national team competitions and including mechanisms to ensure financial solidarity, fairness and openness in competitions, such as the principle of promotion and relegation. 9. Values-based organised sport in Europe is usually structured on a national basis and in principle organised by one federation per sport, allowing for a comprehensive approach to rules, regulations, and standards as well as respecting competition calendars and qualifications for competitions. These organisations are committed to financial solidarity between professional and grassroots sport as well as to highest levels of good governance, fundamental and human rights, mental and physical health and to the safety of athletes, to the prevention of any form of discrimination and to the promotion of integrity of sport” (Council of the European Union, 2021, p. 2)
• “13. Financial solidarity is a key feature of values-based organised sport. It can help to establish, maintain and reinforce the link between professional and grassroots sport, cofinancing of commercially less attractive competitions as well as training of volunteers, athletes, coaches, officials, etc. Furthermore, support should also be given to activities endorsing the respect of values in sport, such as fundamental and human rights, democracy, solidarity, social integration, gender equality, development of youth, rights of the child and education through sport” (Council of the European Union, 2021, p. 2).
• “17. National team competitions are integral part of organised sport in Europe. (3) They play an essential role not only in terms of promoting national identity and inspiring young athletes to reach their highest potential of sporting performance, but also by promoting solidarity with
grassroots sport and portraying role models for younger generations” (Council of the European Union, 2021, p. 3)
• “40. Respect and align the requirements of the international sporting calendar and to participate in solidarity schemes. 41. Commit to financial solidarity between professional and grassroots sport and to the highest levels of good governance, safety and integrity standards for athletes, staff, officials and spectators” (Council of the European Union, 2021, p. 4).
2022: Rating of 4 as financial solidarity is not associated with values, but with commercial success The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “4. Sports movement organisations earning revenue from the sports entertainment market should be committed to financial solidarity between high-level sport and grassroots sport, among different sports and across all regions of the world” (Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport, Council of Europe, 2022, p. 15)
Feb 2024: Rating of 3 as maintains the connection between financial solidarity and values. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “Promotion of a financial solidarity mechanism between various sector operators in order to have the funds available for amateur sport and provide equal opportunities, starting from the lower levels of sport. the redistribution of income is considered essential for financial survival and development at all levels of every sport;” (European Committee of the Regions, 2024, p. 2).
VALUES
1992: Rating of 1 as the original mention does not explicitly mention “values” but rather the “moral and ethical bases of sport,” which connotes that sport is based on these principles but is not inherently moral or ethical. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• Article I “ii. to protect and develop the moral and ethical bases of sport”(Council of Europe, 1992, Article I)
1997: Rating of 2 as associates sport as being able to “foster” certain values. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “Emphasizing that, while sport can foster positive values such as determination, courage, tolerance, loyalty, friendship and team spirit, it may, in certain cases, and without being the root cause, act as a catalyst for negative values such as intolerance, chauvinism, racism and violence as well as cheating - both of oneself and one's opponents - by resorting to drugs; whereas the positive values must be encouraged and the negative values combated with the utmost vigour…”(Pack & Committee on Culture, Youth, Education and the Media, 1997)
1998: Rating of 2 as sport can “instil moral values,” recognising that sport in itself is not synonymous with these values. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• Sport also helps to instil moral values of fair play, solidarity, fair competition, team spirit and a healthy life, which need to be encouraged” (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998b, p. 6)
• Sport can perform an educational function, in that it is a means of giving a true view of some values in life, such as competitiveness (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998b, p. 18)
1999: Rating of 3 as associates sport with having “traditional values.” The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “This new approach involves preserving the traditional values of sport, while at the same time assimilating a changing economic and legal environment” (Commission of the European Communities, 1999, p. 7)
2000: Rating of 2 as sport is “resting in” and “generating” certain values. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “Sport is a human activity resting on fundamental social, educational and cultural values. It is a factor making for integration, involvement in social life, tolerance, acceptance of differences and playing by the rules” (European Council, 2000)
• “It generates important values such as team spirit, solidarity, tolerance and fair play, contributing to personal development and fulfilment” (European Council, 2000, p. 2)
2005: Rating of 3 as it establishes the “core values of sport.” The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “Considering that good governance in sport is a complex network of policy measures and private regulations used to promote integrity in the management of the core values of sport such as democratic, ethical, efficient and accountable sports activities; and that these measures apply equally to the public administration sector of sport and to the nongovernmental sports sector;” (Council of Europe, 2005).
2007: Rating of 2 as characterises sport as conveying values. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “The values conveyed through sport help develop knowledge, motivation, skills and readiness for personal effort” (Commission of the European Communities, 2007b, p. 5)
Aug 2013: Rating of 3 as associates sport as making a “huge contribution to positive values.” The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “G. whereas sport makes a huge contribution to positive values such as fair play, respect and social inclusion;” (European Parliament, 2013, p. 49)
2020: Rating of 3 as reiterates sport as having its own values in its mention of “sport values” alongside “EU values” (Council of the European Union, 2020), along with recognising a need to protect and strengthen these values in sport (Council of the European Union, 2020) The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• Another mention of ‘sport values’: “Sport as a framework for personal, social and learning skills and promoting tolerance, solidarity, inclusiveness as well as other sport values and EU values” (Council of the European Union, 2020).
• “The GUIDING OBJECTIVES of this European Union Work Plan for Sport (hereinafter, the EU Work Plan) are to: Strengthen an integrity- and values-based sport in the EU” (Council of the European Union, 2020).
• 10. The EU Work Plan deals with the following priority areas: Protect integrity and values in sport;” (Council of the European Union, 2020, p. 2)
May 2021: Rating of 2 as adds that “common European values” can be promoted through sport. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “The Programme should contribute to promoting common European values through sport, good governance and integrity in sport, sustainable development, and education, training and skills in and through sport” (European Parliament and Council of the European Union, 2021, p. 4).
Oct 2021: Rating of 3 as distinguishes between values underpinning the Council of Europe (Council of Europe, 2021, p. 3) and sport, which is now associated with the terms “values-based sport” (Council of Europe, 2021, p. 5) and “sports ethics” (Council of Europe, 2021, Article 7(1)) The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “The aim of this Charter is to guide governments in the design and implementation of legal and policy frameworks for sport which highlight its multiple individual and social benefits (in particular for health, inclusion and education) and abide by and promote the values of human rights, democracy and the rule of law, as enshrined in the Council of Europe’s applicable standards” (Council of Europe, 2021, p. 3)
• “2. protect and develop values-based sport, which is a precondition for maximising the individual and social benefits of sport, and notably ensure that: a. the human rights of those involved in or exposed to sport-related activities are protected; b. sporting activities contribute to strengthening ethical conduct and behaviour among those involved in sport; c. the integrity of sports organisations, sports competitions and those involved in or exposed to sport-related activities is safeguarded; d. sports activities are in line with the principles of sustainable development” (Council of Europe, 2021, p. 3)
• New section, “C. Values-based sport” (Council of Europe, 2021, p. 5)
• “1. ‘Sports ethics’ is a positive concept that guides human behaviour. It is defined as a way of thinking and not just a way of acting. It underpins sports integrity, equality, honesty, excellence, commitment, courage, team spirit, respect for rules and laws, respect for the environment, respect for self and others and a spirit of community, tolerance and solidarity. It also includes respect for human rights and sustainability” (Council of Europe, 2021, Article 7(1)).
Nov 2021: Rating of 2 as mentions sport as promoting values. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “A. whereas sport plays a key role in the social, cultural and educational life of European citizens and promotes values such as democracy, respect, solidarity, diversity and equality;” (European Parliament, 2021, p. 3)
Dec 2021: Rating of 4 as presents the organisation of sport in Europe as being “based on” values (Council of the European Union, 2021, p. 1), where European sport itself claims to have “certain values and traditions” that provide a foundation to assert “values-based organised sport” as a key feature of the ESM (Council of the European Union, 2021, p. 3). The application of values further becomes associated with sports governance itself (Council of the European Union, 2021, p. 3) The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “7. Organisation of sport in Europe is based on the fundamental right of freedom of association. It is also based on values, such as solidarity between different levels in sport, in particular between professional and grassroots sport, fairness, integrity, openness, gender equality and good governance” (Council of the European Union, 2021, p. 1)
• “21. Certain values and traditions of European sport have a positive effect on society and should be promoted while emphasizing the diversity and complexity of European sport structures. This Resolution highlights the key features of a European Sport Model, mainly focusing on values-based organised sport” (Council of the European Union, 2021, p. 3)
• “24. Promote values in sport and sport organisations, governed in compliance with the principles of democracy, transparency, integrity, solidarity, gender equality, openness, accountability, accessibility, social responsibility and respect for fundamental and human rights” (Council of the European Union, 2021, p. 3).
• “For the purpose of this Resolution: Values-based organised sport in Europe: Values-based organised sport is based on freedom of association and values, such as good governance, safety, integrity, solidarity, including financial solidarity, the health and safety of athletes, respect of fundamental and human rights and gender equality as well as voluntary activity. It is usually structured on a national basis and in principle organised by one sport federation per sport, allowing for a comprehensive approach to rules, regulations, and standards as well as to competition calendars and qualification for competitions” (Council of the European Union, 2021, p. 6)
2022: Rating of 3 as reinforces “values-based sport” and further defines specific principles of “sports ethics” and “sport integrity ” The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “2. protect and develop values-based sport, which is a precondition for maximising the individual and social benefits of sport, and notably ensure that: a. the human rights of those involved in or exposed to sport-related activities are protected; b. sporting activities contribute to strengthening ethical conduct and behaviour among those involved in sport; c. the integrity of sports organisations, sports competitions and those involved in or exposed to sport-related activities is safeguarded; d. sports activities are in line with the principles of sustainable development” (Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport, Council of Europe, 2022, p. 12).
• “Values-based sport”… “1. “Sports ethics” is a positive concept that guides human behaviour. It is defined as a way of thinking and not just a way of acting. It underpins sports integrity, equality, honesty, excellence, commitment, courage, team spirit, respect for rules and laws, respect for the environment, respect for self and others and a spirit of community, tolerance and solidarity. It also includes respect for human rights and sustainability” (Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport, Council of Europe, 2022, p. 18).
• “1. “Sport integrity” encompasses the components of personal, competitive and organisational integrity. Threats to sports integrity include criminal offences such as corruption, fraud and coercion, but also violations of statutory and disciplinary regulations and unethical behaviour” (Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport, Council of Europe, 2022, p. 19)
Feb 2024: Rating of 4 as it promotes the “values of sport” (European Committee of the Regions, 2024, p. 2)and then advocates for a “values-based, bottom-up European sports model” which has the “same values and principles” as the EU (European Committee of the Regions, 2024, p. 9). The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “The introduction of practical provisions and measures aimed at encouraging equality, inclusion, diversity and anti-discrimination in compliance with human rights and upholding European values (for example, democracy, workers’ rights, gender equality, free movement, the equalisation of pay, safe sport, etc.). The EU has identified local and regional entities as drivers of inclusion and social cohesion. These entities are able to identify the good practices and public policies that can be most effective in fostering a vision of sport as essential social infrastructure;” (European Committee of the Regions, 2024, p. 2)
• “Structures based on the promotion of the values of sport and the recognition of volunteering, which play a crucial role in the management of sports organisations and competitions;” (European Committee of the Regions, 2024, p. 2)
• “9. recognises the intrinsic value of sports in developing the character and skills of young Europeans, ensuring their preparedness for contemporary professional landscapes. Through sports, they can learn resilience by navigating adversities, comprehend the significance of collaboration and teamwork, acquire a constructive sense of competitiveness, and cultivate leadership abilities essential for the diverse challenges of the modern working environment” (European Committee of the Regions, 2024, p. 9).
• “Building a values-based, bottom-up European sports model: 10. notes that it is high time for sport to be officially recognised as an essential public policy instrument and a driving force for community, whereby the health and social return that it guarantees for territories and their communities is not separate from its economic importance. On the contrary, it is exactly this recognition that should be the distinguishing feature that will shape the establishment of this instrument;”(European Committee of the Regions, 2024, p. 9)
• “[Sport] embodies and teaches according to the values and principles on which society and modern states are founded, such as the internalisation of rules and the sharing of collective emotions. The EU bases its identity on the same values and principles that are currently shaping a European Sport Model and determining a distinctive identity for it;” (European Committee of the Regions, 2024, p. 9)
VOLUNTEERISM
1992: Rating of 1 as the original mention, where “voluntary” refers to the nature of spirts organisations (Council of Europe, 1992, p. 3) and as related to the “voluntary choice” to participate (Council of Europe, 1992, p. 1) The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “2. The development of the voluntary ethos and movement in sport shall be encouraged, particularly through support for the work of voluntary sports organisations” (Council of Europe, 1992, p. 3)
• “Sport is a social and cultural activity based on voluntary choice which encourages contacts between European countries and citizens, and plays a fundamental role in the realisation of the aim of the Council of Europe by reinforcing the bonds between peoples and developing awareness of a European cultural identity;” (Council of Europe, 1992, p. 1).
1998: Rating of 3 as “voluntary” refers to unpaid work that is associated with promoting values. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “Furthermore, sport is an important tool for combating social exclusion and in relation to voluntary work in Europe” (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998b, p. 3)
• “Employed in the correct way, sport is therefore a particularly effective weapon in the fight against intolerance, racism, violence, alcohol and narcotics abuse. It is therefore particularly affected by the development of voluntary work as an expression of social solidarity” (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998b, p. 6).
2000: Rating of 4 as “voluntary services” and “volunteer-driven structures” are not directly associated with values but as a structural component of sport. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “6. The Member States encourage voluntary services in sport, by means of measures providing appropriate protection for and acknowledging the economic and social role of volunteers, with the support, where necessary, of the Community in the framework of its powers in this area” (European Council, 2000)
• “The European institutions have recognised the specificity of the role sport plays in European society, based on volunteer-driven structures, in terms of health, education, social integration, and culture” (European Council, 2000)
2007: Rating of 3 as mentions unpaid work as related to the value of education. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “Volunteering in sport organisations provides many occasions for non-formal education which need to be recognised and enhanced” (Commission of the European Communities, 2007b, p. 6)
2011: Rating of 3 as ties unpaid work to the promotion of values. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “In a number of areas, the White Paper remains an appropriate basis for EU-level activities in the field of sport. These areas include, for example, the promotion of voluntary activity in sport, the protection of minors, and environmental protection” (European Commission, 2011, p. 2).
• “Voluntary activity in sport can contribute to employability, social inclusion as well as higher civic participation, especially among young people” (European Commission, 2011, p. 4)
Aug 2013: Rating of 3 as volunteerism is connected to accessibility and inclusion The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “J. whereas the support and promotion of sport for people with intellectual or physical disabilities should be a priority in the EU considering its important role in delivering social inclusion, public health and volunteerism across borders; K. whereas volunteering is the cornerstone of most amateur sport in Europe;” (European Parliament, 2013, p. 49).
May 2021: Rating of 4 as volunteers are coupled alongside paid employees as “staff” with no mentions of values. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “(10) ‘sport staff’ means a person involved in the instruction, training and management of a sports team or individual sports people, either on a paid basis or on a voluntary basis;” (European Parliament and Council of the European Union, 2021, p. 14).
Oct 2021: Rating of 1 as returns to the original mention of “voluntary choice” related to participation. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “Sport is a social, educational and cultural activity based on voluntary choice which encourages contact between European countries and their citizens, and plays a fundamental role in the realisation of the aim of the Council of Europe by reinforcing the bonds between peoples and developing awareness of a European cultural identity;” (Council of Europe, 2021, p. 2)
Nov 2021: Rating of 3 as again sets unpaid labour alongside values generally and as related to education and personal enrichment. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “11. Acknowledges the importance of a European sports model based on values, voluntary activities and solidarity and looks forward to further developing it in the interests of citizens and stakeholders;” (European Parliament, 2021, p. 5)
• “65. Recognises the valuable contributions that sports volunteers bring to a society and calls on the Commission and the Member States to create a system in line with the EU skills agenda, and building on the European credit transfer and accumulation system (ECTS) and the European credit system for vocational education and training (ECVET), for the recognition of qualifications gained by volunteers, including coaches working as volunteers;” (European Parliament, 2021, p. 10)
Dec 2021: Rating of 4 as coopts the “voluntary ethos” to encourage unpaid labour without mentioning values. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “2. The development of the voluntary ethos and movement in sport should be further encouraged, particularly through support for the work of voluntary sports organisations. To this end, public authorities and the sports movement should maintain framework conditions that favour the active involvement of volunteers in sport” (Council of Europe, 2021, Article 4(2))
• “25. Acknowledge and preserve the specific nature of sport and its structures based on voluntary activity, and the autonomy of the sport governing bodies to organise the sport for which they are responsible while respecting national, international and EU law. Recognise the contribution of volunteers, grassroots sport clubs, families and local communities in the field of sport and support them when appropriate” (Council of the European Union, 2021, p. 3)
2022: Rating of 2 as the mentions evoke the “voluntary choice” of sport participation (Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport, Council of Europe, 2022, p. 8) alongside encouraging the “voluntary ethos” in the form of volunteers (Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport, Council of Europe, 2022, p. 15). The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “Whereas… sport is a social, educational and cultural activity based on voluntary choice which encourages contact between European countries and their citizens, and plays a fundamental role in the realisation of the aim of the Council of Europe by reinforcing the bonds between peoples and developing awareness of a European cultural identity;” (Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport, Council of Europe, 2022, p. 8)
• “2. The development of the voluntary ethos and movement in sport should be further encouraged, particularly through support for the work of voluntary sports organisations. To
this end, public authorities and the sports movement should maintain framework conditions that favour the active involvement of volunteers in sport” (Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport, Council of Europe, 2022, p. 15).
2023: Rating of 3 as connects volunteerism to values and personal enrichment. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “25. Encourage sport volunteering and raising awareness on the value of volunteering in sport, in particular in acquiring transversal skills, recognising volunteering as an important form of non-formal learning and reinforcing national and crossborder mobility of young volunteers.”(Council of the European Union, 2023, p. 4)
Feb 2024: Rating of 3 as connects volunteers as a structural component of the organisation of sport to values, albeit abstractly. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “Structures based on the promotion of the values of sport and the recognition of volunteering, which play a crucial role in the management of sports organisations and competitions;”(European Committee of the Regions, 2024, p. 2)
CULTURE AND IDENTITY
1976: Rating of 1 as the original mention. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “For the purpose of safeguarding and realising the ideals and principles which are their common heritage and of facilitating their economic and social progress, in particular by pursuing common objectives designed to protect and promote European culture” (Council of Europe, 1976, p. 1)
1992: Rating of 2 as progresses to a “European cultural identity.” The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “Sport is a social and cultural activity based on voluntary choice which encourages contacts between European countries and citizens, and plays a fundamental role in the realisation of the aim of the Council of Europe by reinforcing the bonds between peoples and developing awareness of a European cultural identity;” (Council of Europe, 1992, p. 1)
1998: Rating of 4 as diverges to focus on the role of sport in forging national identity alongside a regional identity, going as far as to claim “the commitment to national identity” is a “key feature of the European model” (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998b, p. 7). The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “Emphasise ‘the social significance of sport, in particular its role in forging identity and bringing people together’” (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998b, p. 3).
• “Sport represents and strengthens national or regional identity by giving people a sense of belonging to a group. It unites players and spectators giving the latter the possibility of identifying with their nation. Sport contributes to social stability and is an emblem for culture and identity” (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998b, Section 1.2.2)
• “This would mean the end of one key feature of the European model, namely the commitment to national identity” (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998b, p. 7).
• “Although sport in Europe has been confronted with globalisation, it can be seen as one of the last national passions. The commitment to national identity or even regional identity, therefore, is one of the features of sport in Europe” (European Commission, DirectorateGeneral X, 1998b, p. 4)
May 2021: Rating of 2 as mentions participation in sport as part of strengthening European identity. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “Going abroad to study, learn, train and work or to participate in youth and sport activities contributes to strengthening that European identity in all its diversity. It reinforces the sense of being part of a cultural community and fosters intercultural learning, critical thinking and active citizenship among people of all ages” (European Parliament and Council of the European Union, 2021, p. 5).
Oct 2021: Rating of 2 as reinforces elements from the 1992 Charter. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “Sport is a social, educational and cultural activity based on voluntary choice which encourages contact between European countries and their citizens, and plays a fundamental role in the realisation of the aim of the Council of Europe by reinforcing the bonds between peoples and developing awareness of a European cultural identity;” (Council of Europe, 2021, p. 2).
Nov 2021: Rating of 2 as connects sport to “European cultural heritage and regional identity.” The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “76. Recalls the importance of protecting traditional sports and promoting them with adequate funding as part of European cultural heritage and regional identity;” (European Parliament, 2021, p. 11).
Dec 2021: Rating of 4 as associates national team competitions with national identity and other key features of the ESM. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “17. National team competitions are integral part of organised sport in Europe. (3) They play an essential role not only in terms of promoting national identity and inspiring young athletes to reach their highest potential of sporting performance, but also by promoting solidarity with grassroots sport and portraying role models for younger generations” (Council of the European Union, 2021, p. 3)
2022: Rating of 2 as returns to the 1992 Charter’s description of a “European cultural identity.” The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “Whereas… sport is a social, educational and cultural activity based on voluntary choice which encourages contact between European countries and their citizens, and plays a fundamental role in the realisation of the aim of the Council of Europe by reinforcing the bonds between peoples and developing awareness of a European cultural identity;” (Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport, Council of Europe, 2022, p. 8)
Feb 2024: Rating of 3 as connects an EU identity to the ESM. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “[Sport] embodies and teaches according to the values and principles on which society and modern states are founded, such as the internalisation of rules and the sharing of collective emotions. The EU bases its identity on the same values and principles that are currently shaping a European Sport Model and determining a distinctive identity for it;” (European Committee of the Regions, 2024, p. 9)
May 2024: Rating of 1 as returns to the original understanding of sport as a part of European culture. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “Traditional sports highlight sport’s role as part of Europe’s culture, history and traditions, as well as supporting social cohesion, integration, volunteering, and active citizenship” (Council of the European Union, 2024c, p. 19)
DIVERSITY, INCLUSION, AND ACCESSIBILITY
1997: Rating of 1 as the original mention. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “To contribute, by means of appropriate activities in the field of sport, to social integration and to the campaign against racism” (Pack & Committee on Culture, Youth, Education and the Media, 1997).
1998: Rating of 1 as expresses the same meaning tied to sport and anti-discrimination. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “Employed in the correct way, sport is therefore a particularly effective weapon in the fight against intolerance, racism...”(European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998b, p. 6)
• “Some European initiatives have been launched to combat racism, discrimination and violence. These initiatives, described in the document ‘Sport Society’, can be distinguished by their target groups (such as immigrants, national minorities, women, homosexuals, disabled and socially less privileged people) and countries. It is interesting to note the importance attached to sport as a means of promoting greater involvement of immigrants, for example, in the life of society. These initiatives are designed to help build a society that is more open and tolerant” (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998b, Section 11).
1999: Rating of 1 as elaborates, with the same meaning, a focus on anti-discrimination and related efforts. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “Moreover, the Council of Europe rightly stressed that sport is also ‘an ideal platform for social democracy’ It is therefore important for the existing Community programmes to make use of sport in combating exclusion, inequalities, racism and xenophobia” (Commission of the European Communities, 1999, p. 5)
2007: Rating of 2 as cohesion is placed alongside the economic contribution of sport. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “Sport makes an important contribution to economic and social cohesion and more integrated societies… Sport promotes a shared sense of belonging and participation and may therefore also be an important tool for the integration of immigrants” (Commission of the European Communities, 2007b, p. 7)
Aug 2013: Rating of 3 as the discussion begins to apply to sport governing bodies, and the inclusiveness and accessibility of sport more broadly are also affirmed The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “16. Calls on the Council, the Commission, the Member States and national governing sports bodies to commit to tackling homophobia and transphobia and to implement legislation and anti- discrimination policies especially for lesbian, bi-sexual, gay and transgender athletes properly; 17. Calls on Member States to place greater emphasis on the importance of quality physical education for both genders and suggests that they develop the necessary strategies to address this issue; 18. Emphasises that the composition of sports organisations’ decisionmaking bodies must reflect that of their AGMs as well as the gender balance among their licensed players, thus affording men and women equal access to administrative roles even at transnational level;” (European Parliament, 2013, p. 52).
2020: Rating of 3 as the focus on equality pertains to goals related to equity and equality in sport, rather than sport as a tool for a more open and tolerant society. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “Increasing the share of women, especially among coaches and leadership positions in sports organisations and sports clubs[;] “Equal conditions (including payment) of female and male athletes, coaches, officials, staff, etc.[;] Increasing the media coverage of women’s sport competitions, fight against stereotypes etc. ”(Council of the European Union, 2020, p. 5)
Oct 2021: Rating of 1 as “the right to sport” bars discrimination in its practice. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “Article 10, ‘The right to sport’: 2. No discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, language, religion, gender or sexual orientation, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status, shall be permitted in the access to sports facilities or to sports activities” (Council of the European Union, 2021, p. 6).
Nov 2021: Rating of 3 as the discussion focusses on how sports organisations need to incorporate these principles whilst also reaffirming the inclusiveness and accessibility of sport more broadly. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “Whereas sport must be inclusive and open to all regardless of age, gender, disability or cultural and socioeconomic background;” (European Parliament, 2021, p. 4).
• “25. Urges the international, European and national sports governing bodies and stakeholders to implement measures on diversity and inclusion, in particular to address the low numbers of women and ethnic minorities in leadership positions and on boards;” (European Parliament, 2021, p. 6)
• “39. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to involve all relevant stakeholders in ensuring that sports policy and legislation support gender equality, with particular attention to tackling all forms of violence and harassment, gender stereotypes, low visibility and media coverage, and disparities in wages, premium pay and awards;”(European Parliament, 2021, p. 8)
• “41. Calls on the Commission to recognise the importance and support the social inclusion of persons with fewer opportunities, refugees, ethnic minorities and the LGBTQI+ community in sport, leaving no one behind;” (European Parliament, 2021, p. 8)
• “43. Urges sports bodies and public authorities to effectively tackle discrimination, violence and hate speech and to guarantee safe, inclusive sport for all athletes, spectators and staff in sports venues and online; 44. Insists on a zero-tolerance approach in terms of racism and violence in sport and urges the Commission, the Member States and sports federations to develop measures to prevent such incidents and to adopt effective penalties and measures to support victims; 45. Calls on the Member States to step up efforts towards the inclusion in sports activities and programmes of persons with mental and physical disabilities, and to increase visibility in the media of competitions involving athletes with disabilities; 46. Stresses the need to increase funding and remove all barriers for people with disabilities through educational and awareness campaigns, specialised training for relevant actors and accessible sports infrastructure that allows attendance at sports events and participation in sports;”(European Parliament, 2021, p. 8)
Dec 2021: Rating of 2 as it remains unclear if the principles are generic to sport or applied to sports organisations. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “42. Work together with all stakeholders, especially with sport governing bodies, to preserve and strengthen fundamental and human rights, particularly the rights of the athletes in all sport-related activities and athletes’ health due to multiplication of sport competitions, as well as gender equality and social inclusion by avoiding all forms of discrimination” (Council of the European Union, 2021, p. 4)
2022: Rating of 1 as diversity, inclusion and accessibility principles are described within “the right to sport.” The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “The aim of this Charter is to guide governments in the design and implementation of legal and policy frameworks for sport which highlight its multiple individual and social benefits (in particular for health, inclusion and education) and abide by and promote the values of human rights, democracy and the rule of law, as enshrined in the Council of Europe’s applicable standards” (Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport, Council of Europe, 2022, p. 11).
• “1. Access to sport for all is considered to be a fundamental right. All human beings have an inalienable right of access to sport in a safe environment, both inside and outside school settings, which is essential for their personal development and instrumental in the exercise of the rights to health, education, culture and participation in the life of the community” (Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport, Council of Europe, 2022, p. 22)
• “2. No discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, language, religion, gender or sexual orientation, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status, shall be permitted in the access to sports facilities or to sports activities” (Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport, Council of Europe, 2022, p. 22).
Feb 2024: Rating of 2 as connects cohesion to economics. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “5. highlights that the economic dimension of sport in the EU is estimated to account for around 1,76 % of GDP and 2,12 % of employment, and these figures are growing steadily. This should not be separated from a real social cohesion dimension, one of the EU’s fundamental values (5) as sport in the EU represents an important social sphere by the representation of social and ethnic diversity in both, amateur and professional level” (European Committee of the Regions, 2024, p. 8).
• “Strengthening the culture of physical activity and providing training and more information to create sport literacy that will convey positive values and principles to young people such as inclusion anti-discrimination or fair play. … Promoting physical activity as a tool for well-being, both individually and collectively, for current and future young generations, is a core mission for the EU and an opportunity to prevent prejudice and social stigma;” (European Committee of the Regions, 2024, p. 4).
• “The introduction of practical provisions and measures aimed at encouraging equality, inclusion, diversity and anti-discrimination in compliance with human rights and upholding European values (for example, democracy, workers’ rights, gender equality, free movement, the equalisation of pay, safe sport, etc.). The EU has identified local and regional entities as drivers of inclusion and social cohesion. These entities are able to identify the good practices and public policies that can be most effective in fostering a vision of sport as essential social infrastructure;” (European Committee of the Regions, 2024, p. 2)
May 2024: Rating of 1 as the emphasises sport as being a safe space. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “16. That the practice of a self-organised sport should be safe and accessible for everyone; it should be an environment where everyone can exercise safely – regardless of gender, age, sexual orientation, physical condition, disability or background” (Council of the European Union, 2024a, p. 5).
HEALTH AND WELL-BEING
1976: Rating of 1 as the original mention, highlighting the benefits of physical activity to personal and social development, health, and well-being. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “3. Aware of the diverse contributions which sport can make to personal and social development through creative activities and recreational pursuits and of man’s need for physical exercise for both his physical and his mental well-being” (Council of Europe, 1976, p. 1).
• “Sport, being an aspect of socio-cultural development, shall be related at local, regional and national levels to other areas of policy-making and planning such as education, health, social service, town and country planning, conservation, the arts and leisure services” (Council of Europe, 1976, p. 2)
• The concept of “sport” defined, as “which embraces sport in many different forms, from recreational physical activity to high level competition… ” (Council of Europe, 1976, p. 6).
1992: Rating of 1 as reemphasises similar benefits of physical exercise. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• Sport defined as “all forms of physical activity which, through casual or organised participation, aim at expressing or improving physical fitness and mental well-being, forming social relationships or obtaining results in competition at all levels” (Council of Europe, 1992, Article 2(a))
• “7. Wishing to promote the diverse contributions which sport can make to personal and social development through creative activities, recreational pursuits and the continuous search for improving sporting performance and bearing in mind that physical exercise helps promote both the physical and the mental well-being of individuals;” (Council of Europe, 1992, p. 1)
1997: Rating of 2 as reemphasises the benefits of sport while also including social integration. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “Whereas education for sport and sports training for young people, in particular, are of fundamental importance for health - especially for combating smoking and alcohol and drug abuse and for preventing cancer and cardio-vascular problems - for physical and mental wellbeing and for social integration; whereas that aspect of social integration is crucial for the most vulnerable social groups…” (Pack & Committee on Culture, Youth, Education and the Media, 1997, p. 5)
1998: Rating of 2 as emphasises similar health benefits and reiterates sport’s social function related to cohesion and integration. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “Community policies and actions: as an activity engaged in by the general public, sport is affected by certain general policies, particularly in connection with public health, education and vocational training for young people and the environment” (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998b, p. 3).
• “The European Parliament has adopted a report on the European Union and sport, underlining the importance of sport as an agent for social integration and a key element in the drawing up of Community policies relating to education, young people or public health” (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998b, p. 5)
• “The Latin tag Mens sana in corpore sano – a healthy mind in a healthy body – is more apposite than ever today. In the information society, where people spends so much of their working and leisure time at the computer, physical activity is more and more important as a means of keeping fit. The link between practising sport and the beneficial effects on health is no longer questioned. Many studies had been carried out showing that practising sport leads to an improved physical condition. Another finding of these studies was that inactivity, being a risk factor for many illnesses, is a major health problem for western societies. Two questions then arise: What form of physical exercise offers most benefits to most people and what is the best policy to encourage the practise of this sport” (European Commission, Directorate-General X, 1998b, Section 13)
1999: Rating of 2 as ties sport to health and social integration The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “The European Union recognises the eminent role played by sport in European society and attaches the greatest importance to the maintenance of its functions of promoting social integration and education and making a contribution to public health and to the general interest function performed by the federations;” (Commission of the European Communities, 1999, p. 10)
2007: Rating of 4 as distinguishes sport as a tool for “health-enhancing physical activity” as a social movement. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “As a tool for health-enhancing physical activity, the sport movement has a greater influence than any other social movement. Sport is attractive to people and has a positive image” (Commission of the European Communities, 2007b, p. 3)
Aug 2013: Rating of 2 as sport associated with health and social integration. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “7. Underlines that sports at all ages is an important area of great potential for increasing the overall health level of Europeans and therefore calls on the EU and on Member States to facilitate engagement in sport and to promote a healthy lifestyle fully exploiting the opportunities of sport, thereby reducing spending on healthcare;” (European Parliament, 2013, p. 51).
• “11. Stresses the great socially-integrating power of sport in many areas, including civic commitment and the conception of democracy, the promotion of good health, urban development, social integration, the job market, employment, skills training and education;” (European Parliament, 2013, p. 52)
Nov 2013: Rating of 4 as continues distinction between sport and physical activity, where the former is soon as a tool and the latter is focussed on health benefits. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “The benefits of physical activity, including regular sporting activity and exercise, across the life course are paramount and include lowered risk of cardiovascular disease and of some types of cancers and diabetes, improvements in musculoskeletal health and body weight control, as well as positive effects on mental health development and cognitive processes” (Council of the European Union, 2013, p. 1)
• “(8) A number of policy areas, in particular sport and health, can contribute to the promotion of physical activity and can provide new opportunities for Union citizens to become physically active. For this potential to be fully exploited, and therefore for physical activity levels to increase, a strategic cross-sectoral approach in the field of HEPA promotion, including involvement at all levels of all relevant Ministries, bodies and organisations, in particular the sport movement, and taking into account existing and on-going policy work, is indispensable” (Council of the European Union, 2013, p. 2).
2020: Rating of 2 as does not distinguish between the benefits of sport and physical activity, attributing both to health and social cohesion. The quote(s) most relevant to thisassessment include:
• “Increase participation in sport and health-enhancing physical activity in order to promote an active and environment-friendly lifestyle, social cohesion and active citizenship” (Council of the European Union, 2020, p. 2).
• “10. The EU Work Plan deals with the following priority areas: Promotion of participation in sport and health-enhancing physical activity” (Council of the European Union, 2020, p. 2)
Oct 2021: Rating of 2 as returns to emphasise the health and social benefits of sport, emphasising its need to be developed. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “Sport can make diverse contributions to personal well-being and social development, and physical exercise in particular helps to promote both physical and mental well-being;” (Council of Europe, 2021, p. 2)
• Article 10, “The right to sport”: “1. Access to sport for all is considered to be a fundamental right. All human beings have an inalienable right of access to sport in a safe environment, both inside and outside school settings, which is essential for their personal development and instrumental in the exercise of the rights to health, education, culture and participation in the life of the community” (Council of Europe, 2021, p. 2)
• “Enable every individual to participate in sport and notably ensure that: a. all young people receive physical education instruction at educational institutions and have access to opportunities to develop physical literacy, physical fitness and acquire fundamental movement skills; b. everyone has the opportunity to take part in sport in a safe, secure and healthy environment; c. the development of sport is inclusive, evaluated and monitored on a regular basis; and d. everyone has the opportunity to improve their standard of performance in sport beyond its practice for recreational purpose and reach levelsof personal achievement and/or levels of excellence in an ethical, fair and responsible way;” (Council of Europe, 2021, p. 3)
Nov 2021: Rating of 2 as sport and physical activity are connected health and well-being in school and other settings of everyday life. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “B. whereas sport serves as a vector for integration, especially for people with fewer opportunities;” (European Parliament, 2021, p. 4).
• “K whereas sport has a positive impact on citizens’ health and wellbeing;” (European Parliament, 2021, p. 4)
• “55. Urges the Member States and public authorities to develop sports infrastructure, especially in remote regions and disadvantaged areas, and to increase the amount of physical education, including daily physical activities, active breaks and extracurricular physical activities in schools, while instigating a change of mentality in the recognition of the importance of sport as a school discipline;” (European Parliament, 2021, p. 9)
• “56. Stresses the need for an integrated approach to active cities which promotes physical activity in the everyday life of European citizens, including at the workplace, and which increases and develops active and sustainable mobility and means of transportation;” (European Parliament, 2021, p. 9)
2022: Rating of 1 as returns to original mention of sport’s connection to well-being and development The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “Sport can make diverse contributions to personal well-being and social development, and physical exercise in particular helps to promote both physical and mental well-being;” (Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport, Council of Europe, 2022, p. 8)
2023: Rating of 2 as grassroots sport is positioned as a “physical leisure activity” and is tied to health, education and inclusion benefits. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “5.Participation in grassroots sport (5), while first and foremost a physical leisure activity, also brings additional added-value with regard to a healthier and generally more inclusive and sustainable society in Europe. It may develop positive social attitudes and values, as well as individuals' skills and competences, including transversal skills (6) such as the ability to think critically, take initiatives, problem solve and work collaboratively (7)” (Council of the European Union, 2023, p. 1)
• “7.With regard to the contribution of sport to transversal skills development, there is untapped potential, especially for young people, since skills gained via nonformal (8) and informal learning (9) are valuable for personal and professional development, including on the labour market and in lifelong learning (10)” (Council of the European Union, 2023, p. 2).
Feb 2024: Rating of 4 as physical activity is associated with health and cohesion, while sport is described as a social movement tied to values. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “Sport, as distinct from mere physical activity and movement, has the ability to bring people together and speaks a universal language. It embodies and teaches according to the values and principles on which society and modern states are founded, such as the internalisation of rules and the sharing of collective emotions” (European Committee of the Regions, 2024, p. 9).
• “Strengthening the culture of physical activity and providing training and more information to create sport literacy that will convey positive values and principles to young people such as inclusion anti-discrimination or fair play. … Promoting physical activity as a tool for well-being, both individually and collectively, for current and future young generations, is a core mission for the EU and an opportunity to prevent prejudice and social stigma ” (European Committee of the Regions, 2024, p. 4).
May 2024: Rating of 2 as sport returns to being associated with benefits related to health, wellbeing, social cohesion, and citizenship. Nonetheless, sport and physical activity vary in their association. The quote(s) most relevant to this assessment include:
• “12. That self-organised sport, along with organised sport, can also play a positive role in increasing sports practice and health-enhancing physical activity in order to promote an active, healthy and sustainable lifestyle, as well as social cohesion and active citizenship” (Council of the European Union, 2024a, p. 3).
• “19. As regards health, well-being and social inclusion, a) promote and support policies that foster the practice of self-organised sport as a means of encouraging lifelong physical activity and sport and promoting their benefits for well-being and for physical and mental health among the population…” (Council of the European Union, 2024a, p. 6)
References
Commission of the European Communities. (1991). The European community and Sport. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. SEC (91) 1438 final, 31 July 1991. Commission of the European Communities. http://aei.pitt.edu/3453/ Commission of the European Communities. (1999). The Helsinki Report on Sport (No. 644).
European Commission.
https://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:1999:0644:FIN:EN:PDF
Commission of the European Communities. (2007a, July 11). White Paper on Sport. https://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52007DC0391&from=EN
Commission of the European Communities. (2007b, July 11). White Paper on Sport. https://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52007DC0391&from=EN
Council of Europe. (1976, September). European Sport for All Charter (1975/76). https://www.europa.clio-online.de/quelle/id/artikel-3932
Council of Europe. (1992). European Sports Charter (1992) [Recommendation No. R (92) 13 Rev]. Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/16804c9dbb
Council of Europe. (2005, April). Recommendation Rec(2005)8 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the principles of good governance in sport. Council of Europe. https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectId=09000016805b017f
Council of Europe. (2018). Recommendation CM/Rec(2018)12 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the promotion of good governance in sport (No. CM/Rec(2018)12).
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. https://search.coe.int/cm?i=09000016809021ad
Council of Europe. (2021). Recommendation CM/Rec(2021)5 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the Revised European Sports Charter [Recommendation]. Council of Europe. https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?Reference=CM/Rec(2021)5
Council of the European Union. (2013, December 4). Council Recommendation of 26 November 2013 on promoting health-enhancing physical activity across sectors. https://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013H1204(01)
Council of the European Union. (2020). European Union Work Plan for Sport (1 January 2021–30 June 2024) [Council Resolution]. Official Journal of the European Union.
Council of the European Union. (2021). Resolution on Key Features of the European Sport Model (Resolution No. C 501/1). Official Journal of the European Union.
Council of the European Union. (2023, November). Council Conclusions on Maximising the Role of Grassroots Sport in Developing Transversal Skills. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:C:2023:408:TOC
Council of the European Union. (2024a). Conclusions on the Contribution of Self-Organised Sport to Supporting Active and Healthy Lifestyles [Council Conclusions]. Council of the European Union.
Council of the European Union. (2024b). Draft Council Conclusions on the Legacy of Major Sporting Events [Draft Council Conclusions]. Hungarian Presidency of the Council of the European Union.
Council of the European Union. (2024c). European Union Work Plan for Sport (1 July 2024 – 31 December 2027) [Council Resolution]. Council of the European Union.
Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport, Council of Europe. (2022). Revised European Sports Charter (No. Recommendation CM/Rec(2021)5). Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/revised-
european-sports-charter-web-a6/1680a7534b (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 13 October 2021 at the 1414th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)
European Commission. (2011). Developing the European Dimension in Sport (Communication No. COM(2011) 12 final). European Commission. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0012
European Commission, Directorate-General X. (1998a). The Development and Prospects for Community Action in the Field of Sport [Commission Staff Working Paper]. European Commission.
European Commission, Directorate-General X. (1998b, September). The European Model of Sport: Consultation Document. European Commission.
European Committee of the Regions. (2024). Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions –Building a values-based, bottom-up European sports model: A vehicle for encouraging inclusion and social wellbeing among young Europeans. Official Journal of the European Union, C/2024/1044.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52023IR2588
European Council. (2000). Declaration on the Specific Characteristics of Sport and its Social Function in Europe (No. 13948/00). European Council. https://ec.europa.eu/assets/eac/sport/library/documents/doc244_en.pdf
European Court of Justice. (1995). European Court Reports 1995 I-04921. https://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A61993CJ0415
European Parliament. (2013). European Parliament resolution of 2 February 2012 on the European dimension in sport (2011/2087(INI)). Official Journal of the European Union, 56(2013/C 239 E/09), 46–60. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:C:2013:239E:FULL
European Parliament. (2021). EU Sports Policy: Assessment and Possible Ways Forward [Resolution]. European Parliament.
European Parliament and Council of the European Union. (2021). Regulation (EU) 2021/817 establishing Erasmus+: The Union Programme for education and training, youth and sport and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013. Official Journal of the European Union, L 189, 1–33. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/817/oj
European Union. (2007). Treaty of Lisbon Amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:C:2007:306:TOC
European Union. (2008a). Article 6 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Official Journal of the European Union, C 115, 52. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A12008E006
European Union. (2008b). Article 165 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Official Journal of the European Union, C 115, 120–121. https://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A12008E165
International Olympic Committee. (2020). The European Sport Model: A Call for the Sports Movement and Public Authorities to Join Forces. International Olympic Committee. https://rm.coe.int/the-european-sport-model-paper-by-the-ioc/1680a1b876
Judgment of the Court in Case C-333.21 | European Superleague Company: Hearing before the European Court of Justice (2023).
Pack, D. & Committee on Culture, Youth, Education and the Media. (1997). Report on the role of the European Union in the field of sport (Nos. A4-0197/1997). European Parliament. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-4-1997-0197_EN.html
PARTNERS
Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA). Neither the European Union nor EACEA can be held responsible for them.