![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
Interest representation plays a significant role in policy-initiation and policy-making in the European Union (EU). Whether of corporatist or pluralist pattern, European interest activity is evident in all stages of European policy-making. A plethora of organized interests exist in the framework of European institutions with the aim of influencing European officials in the formation of European policy on their behalf. The diversity of interests with a stake at European sport is large. This article examines the emergence and activity of sport-related interest groups in the EU framework in terms of corporatist and pluralist representation. Following European institutional mobilization in the field of sport, various traditional and newly emerged organized sport interests have gained access to the EU policy-making mechanism and perform a variety of lobbying activities. The article argues that in the case of sport-related European policy-making, pluralism and corporatism coexist as patterns of interest representation.
Acknowledgements
The author thanks the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.
Notes
1. The article deals with direct sport interests and not various interests with relevance to sport, such as gambling. For a general mapping of sport-related interests, see Chatzigianni (Citation2010).
2. In general, with the term ‘European interest group’, one refers to a group of people consisted of a significant number of members with specific goals and demands, is active in the framework of European institutions in Brussels, follows specific strategy to achieve its goals and performs lobbying methods and techniques (Chatzigianni Citation2007, Citation2010). It must be noted that in the EU framework, the term is equally used with the term ‘pressure group’ or ‘lobby’ (Chatzigianni Citation2007).
3. According to Bowen, this exchange is defined by the provision of access goods related to the following kinds of information: expert knowledge, ‘the technical knowledge and know-how required from the private sector to understand the market’ (Bouwen Citation2002, p. 369) the ‘Information about the European Encompassing Interest … that relates to the aggregated needs and interests of a sector in the EU internal market’ (Bouwen Citation2002, p. 369) and the ‘Information about the Domestic Encompassing Interest which relates to the aggregated needs and interests of a sector in the domestic market’ (Bouwen Citation2002, p. 370).
4. According to Adler and Haas Citation(1992), the study of the European political process could possibly be relevant to the question of who learns what, why, when and to whose benefit. In this European public policy operational framework, the contribution of policy networks (Peterson Citation1995, Peterson and Bomberg Citation1999), epistemic communities (Adler and Haas Citation1992, Haas Citation1992) and advocacy coalitions (Sabatier Citation1988) is highly evaluated (Richardson Citation2006).
5. See, for example, Berger (Citation1981).
6. Schmitter has earlier stated that, ‘corporatism as interest intermediation and corporatism as policy formation are neither theoretically or empirically synonymous’ (1981, p. 296); Corporatism as policy formation process is also called ‘concertation’. For more details on this issue, see, for example, Schmitter Citation(1981), Molina and Rhodes (Citation2002).
7. For more details on pluralism, see, among others, Dahl (1961), Lowi (1979), Baumgartner and Leech (Citation1998) and Pettit (1997).
8. Streeck and Schmitter came to the conclusion that ‘the evolutionary alternative to neo-liberalism for the European political economy is clearly not neo-corporatism. More likely appears an American-style pattern of ‘disjoint pluralism’ characterized by a profound absence of hierarchy and monopoly among a wide variety of players of different but uncertain status (Streeck and Schmitter Citation1991, p. 227).
9. According to the Commission, the dialogue with the European Sport Movement started in 1991 when the First European Sport Forum was organized in Brussels (European Commission 2007, p. 110). The European Sport Forum met in different forms, and annually from 2000 until 2003, when it was abandoned because its efficiency in terms of direct outcomes was questioned (European Commission, ec.europ.eu/sport/white-paper/swd-follow-uo_en.htm, Accessed 08 January 2012). The Forum started taking place again after the adoption of the WP on Sport (2009 in Biarritz, 2010 in Madrid, 2011 in Budapest).
10. The Olympic movement consists of organizations that are part of the classical Olympic system (Chappelet and Kübler-Mabbott 2008). As ‘established actors’ of the sport world, they enjoy exclusive or privileged rights to commercial activities related to the Olympic Games and the organization of world or continental championships. All these rights bring the organizations major revenues. They are divided into the following five categories: the International Olympic Committee (IOC), the leading actor of the Olympic Movement, which ‘owns the Games’ and holds full legal rights to trademarks related to them; The Organizing Committees of the Olympic Games (OCOGs), responsible for the organization of the Winter and Summer Games under the close supervision of the IOC, which even though not permanent members of the Olympic system, they play significant role in it and are self-financed from the Games; The International Sports Federations (IFs), the world-wide governing bodies of their respective sport and disciplines and their national affiliates, the National Sports Federations (NFs); and the National Olympic Committees (NOCs), the territorial representatives of the IOC.
11. http://www.uefa.com/uefa/aboutuefa/organization/history/index.html, Accessed on 9 January 2012.
12. See, for example, UEFA statement on the European Parliament Report on Sport of 2 February 2012, http://www.uefa.com/uefa/stakeholders/europeanunion/news/newsid=1747335.html, Accessed on 15 January 2012.
13. As expressed by UEFA President Michel Platini after a meeting with the EU Commissioner responsible for Sport in January 2012, http://www.uefa.com/uefa/stakeholders/europeanunion/news/newsid=1591059.html#communication+input+welcomed, Accessed on 14 February 2012. It is important to note that the meeting took place in UEFA headquarters, in Nyon.
14. The IIHF has no continental associations.
15. http://www.europeanteamsports.com/pages/about.html, Accessed on 7 January 2012.
16. According to the Commission, ‘in the light of a growing number of challenges to sport governance, social dialogue at European level can contribute to addressing common concerns of employers and athletes, including agreements on employment relations and working conditions in the sector in accordance with EC Treaty provisions’ and ‘(The Commission) considers that a European social dialogue in the sport sector or in its sub-sectors (e.g. football) is an instrument which would allow social partners to contribute to the shaping of employment relations and working conditions in an active and participative way’. Therefore, ‘(the Commission) … encourages and welcomes all efforts leading to the establishment of European Social Dialogue Committees in the sport sector. It will continue to give support to both employers and employees and it will pursue its open dialogue with all sport organizations on this issue’ (European Commission, http://ec.europa.eu/sport/white-paper/white-paper_en.htm#5_3, Accessed 05 January 2012).
17. http://www.easesport.org, Accessed on 2 May 2011
18. EPFL has succeeded the Association of European Union Premier Professional Football Leagues (EUPPFL).
19. http://www.epfl-europeanleagues.com/conferences.htm, Accessed on 2 February 2012.
20. This does not alter the fact that the hierarchy of European sport governance has been eroded by the EU involvement in the field of sport (Parrish Citation2003a, 2003b, Garcia Citation2009, 2011).
21. Interview with FifPro representative, 2 July 2010.
22. According to UEFA Direct (No. 105-01-02/2011), ‘The commissioner’s visit, the first of its kind, demonstrates the excellent relationship between UEFA and the EU’ http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles, Accessed on 5 February 2012.
23. ‘UEFA and ECA move close to new agreement’. http://www.uefa.com/uefa/stakeholders/clubs/news/newsid=1760798.html, Accessed on 28 February 2012.
24. Since the TFEU, the Council of Ministers has also become a target for sport interests, but as there is no direct sport policy-making so far, related lobbying activity is not established yet.
25. For example, in the WP for Sport consultation process companies such as Cadbury Schweppes, and Sponsorship Associations were represented (European Commission 2007).