² J. Goldstein and R. Keohane, ‘Ideas and Foreign Policy: An Analytical Framework’, in J. Goldstein and R. Keohane (eds), Ideas and Foreign Policy, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press, 1993, p. 9.Google Scholar

³ Ibid.Google Scholar

⁴ H. Heclo, Modern Social Politics in Britain and Sweden, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1974, p. 305.Google Scholar

⁵ Weatherill, S., ‘ “Fair Play Please!”: Recent Developments in the Application of EC Law to Sport’, Common Market Law Review, 40 (2003), pp. 51–93.Google Scholar

⁶ For an overview see R. Parrish, Sports Law and Policy in the European Union, Manchester, Manchester University Press, 2003, ch. 5.Google Scholar

⁷ M. Blyth, Great Transformations, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2002.Google Scholar

⁸ K. Sikkink, Ideas and Institutions, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press, 1991.Google Scholar

⁹ Hansen, R. and King, D., ‘Eugenic Ideas, Political Interests and Policy Variance: Immigration and Sterilization Policy in Britain and the U.S.’, World Politics, 53 (January 2001), p. 238;CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

¹⁰ See, for example, M. Finnemore, National Interests in International Society, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press, 1996; S. Berman, The Social Democratic Moment, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1998.Google Scholar

¹¹ J. March and J. Olsen, Rediscovering Institutions, New York, Free Press, 1989.Google Scholar

¹² Prior to the Bosman ruling they were not allowed to switch clubs freely even after the end of their contract.Google Scholar

¹³ Articles 48, 49 and 59 of the Treaty.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Added emphasis.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Case 36/74, Judgment of 12 December 1974, Walrave and Koch/Association Union Cycliste Internationale and others, European Court Reports (1974). See also Parrish, Sports Law, pp. 85–7.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Case 13/76, Judgment of 14 July 1976, Dona/Mantero, European Court Reports (1976); Case 222/86, Judgment of 15 October 1987, Unectef/Heylens, European Court Reports (1987), 4097.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Case 13/76, paras. 12, 14, added emphasis.Google Scholar

¹⁸ K. Van Miert, Le Marché et le Pouvoir, Brussels, Racine, 2000, p. 131.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Interview with European Commission official, 19 September 2001. This was part of a broader ‘policy of tolerance’ according to (former) Commissioner Karel Van Miert, Le Marché et le Pouvoir, p. 130.Google Scholar

²⁰ Parrish, R., ‘The Politics of Sports Regulation in the European Union’, Journal of European Public Policy, 10 (2003), p. 250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²¹ See Parrish, Sports Law, p. 176. A similar Declaration has also been appended to the Treaty of Nice.Google Scholar

²² Case C-415/93, Judgment of 15 December 1995, Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football association and others/Bosman and others, European Court Reports (1995).Google Scholar

²³ Thus, the ECJ vindicated the Commission officials who had attempted to raise the issue on the same legal basis during Jacques Delors' first term as Commission president.Google Scholar

²⁴ The first indication of change was the letter of warning issued to UEFA and FIFA in January 1996 on Commissioner Van Miert's instructions with regard to the compatibility of the ‘three plus two rule’ and the provisions of the Treaty.Google Scholar

²⁵ The British Prime Minister Tony Blair and the German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder openly supported this approach. Bundesregierung der BRD (2000) Der Bundeskanzler teilt mit: Gemeinsame Erklärung von Bundeskanzler Schröder und Premierminister Blair zum Transfersystem im Profi-Fußball. Pressemitteilung Nr. 425/00, 10 September 2000. Also, the Swedish Prime Minister Göran Persson made a number of telephone calls to European Commission President Romano Prodi supporting the same view (interview with European Commission official, 19 September 2001). These calls reflected a rather demagogic attitude that was based on the football fans' ignorance of (1) the fact that the Commission simply followed the ECJ's Bosman ruling and (2) important legal developments at the national level. Indeed, a senior Commission official highlighted the fact that Gerhard Schröder's public discourse, interestingly, did not allude to the fact that the Federal Employment Court had ruled that the previous system of transfer regulations was unconstitutional. Interview with European Commission official, 12 September 2001. Further, these public statements were presented as an attempt to protect football from the unnecessary and unwelcome intervention of the Commission (a vague argument that was received sympathetically by the uninformed and misinformed football fans) but, in essence, were overt pressures on the Commission to be more sympathetic to the views of powerful football clubs. Ministers representing smaller member states were supportive to the Commission. Interviews, European Commission, 18 September 2001.Google Scholar

²⁶ The French presidency of the EU also promoted the idea of the ‘exemption sportive européenne’, Le Monde, 4 June 1999.Google Scholar

²⁷ They include Real Madrid FC, FC Barcelona, AC Milan, Juventus FC, Manchester United FC, and FC Bayern München.Google Scholar

²⁸ They considered that the proposed changes would enhance the bargaining position of players. Interviews with European Commission officials, 12, 18 and 19 September 2001.Google Scholar

²⁹ Weatherill, ‘ “Fair Play Please!” ’, p. 51.Google Scholar

³⁰ For example, in the summer of 2001 Real Madrid FC paid US$68 million for the transfer of French international Zinedine Zidane.Google Scholar

³¹ For example, in the late 1990s the English National Investment Company (ENIC) controlled four clubs (Glasgow Rangers, Slavia Prague, Vicenza and AEK Athens).Google Scholar

³² The price of the exclusive television rights for the Italian football league increased 58-fold between 1984 and 1998. V. Reding, ‘The European Community and European Sport: From the Economic to the Social Dimension’, speech given at the Ninth Sports Forum of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, Eichholtz, 3 May 2001, p. 11.Google Scholar

³³ Interview with Commission official, 18 September 2001.Google Scholar

³⁴ Libération, 1 September 2000.Google Scholar

³⁵ European Commission officials stressed that the involvement of all interested parties would have a positive impact on the stance of the ECJ as well. Interviews with European Commission officials, 18 September 2001.Google Scholar

³⁶ AFC Ajax Amsterdam, FC Nantes Atlantique and Athletic Club de Bilbao are only a few of the European clubs that operate renowned ‘youth schemes’ or ‘academies’.Google Scholar

³⁷ European Commission, The Helsinki Report on Sport: Report from the Commission to the European Council with a View to Safeguarding Current Sports Structures and Maintaining the Social Function of Sport Within the Community Framework, COM (99) 644 final.Google Scholar

³⁸ Weatherill, ‘ “Fair Play Please!” ’, p. 54.Google Scholar

³⁹ Observatoire Européen de l'Emploi Sportif, Sport et emploi en Europe: Rapport final à l'attention de la Commission Européenne, Brussels, EC, 1999, p. 36.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Typically, it comprises grassroots federations and clubs, and regional, national and European federations. European Commission, ‘The European Model of Sport’, at http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/sport/doc/ecom/doc_consult_en.pdf, 1998, pp. 2–3.Google Scholar

⁴¹ See for example Commissioner Reding's statement to BBC online news, 7 September 2000.Google Scholar

⁴² European Commission, ‘Outcome of the Discussions Between the Commission and FIFA/UEFA on FIFA Regulations on International Football Transfers’, press release IP/01/314, 5 March 2001.Google Scholar

⁴³ The calculation of the compensation fee will be based on an estimate of the training and education costs incurred by clubs. This estimate will be country-specific in the EU, defined by national football associations, and will cover four categories of players.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ In cases of international transfers, the new employer will pay 5% of the total financial compensation to all clubs that have contributed to the player's training up to the age of 23.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Initially, FIFPro objected to the new system. Le Soir, 7 March 2001. This was essentially a tactical move in the players' effort to gain a substantive role in the implementation of the new system.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Interview with European Commission official, 19 September 2001.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Interviews with European Commission officials, 12 and 18 September 2001.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ European Parliament, ‘Verbatim Report of Proceedings’, 13 March 2001, at http://www.europarl.eu.int/cre/pdf/20010313i.pdf, p. 53.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Interview with European Commission official, 19 September 2001.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ International Herald Tribune, 7 March 2001.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Commissioner Reding too has alluded to this possibility. European Parliament, ‘Verbatim Report of Proceedings’, 13 March 2001, p. 53. For an excellent analysis of the the reasons why aspects of the new systems may be incompatible with EC law see Weatherill, ‘ “Fair Play Please!” ’, pp. 70–1. One of the examples that Weatherill highlights is the requirement that up until the age of 28 a player must abide by a contract for at least three years or else suffer suspension. This seems to go ‘beyond the space allowed by the Court's acceptance in Bosmanthat … the aims of maintaining a balance between clubs by preserving a degree of equality and uncertainty as to results … must be accepted as legitimate’, Weatherill, ‘ “Fair Play Please!” ’, p. 70.Google Scholar

⁵² Cited in Weatherill, ‘ “Fair Play Please!” ’, p. 72.Google Scholar

⁵³ Despite the vigorous rhetoric used by many national governments against what they perceived as an unwarranted attack against the autonomy of sport, they implicitly acknowledged that the ECJ's assertion that the Treaty covers the economic facets of sport was correct.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ See, for example, Hansen and King, ‘Eugenic Ideas’; Blyth, Great Transformations.Google Scholar