It's that game again
Dr Helen Szamuely
 Yes, it's
football again. Anyone would think I was obsessed with it. (Though I have
noted that the English season started last week. You can't miss these events
if you live opposite a stadium.)
It is clear that there are ramifications to football that most of us had
never suspected, and I do not mean the extra-curricular activity that seems to
have gone on in the FA.
According to the Financial Times a state-aid probe is being
conducted by the Commission into the financial affairs of football teams in
Germany, Italy, Spain, France and the UK. (Why not the others, one asks
oneself.) Tobias Buck reports:
"The European Commission inquiry, which is still at a
preliminary stage, focuses on three issues: property deals and public help in
constructing football stadiums; tax breaks for clubs; and state assistance in
paying social security charges."
There have been various investigations in the past and they came to nothing
either because the cases collapsed or, as in Italy, the law was changed. This
time the Commission seems determined. It is looking into property transactions
connected with Real Madrid and Bayern München, among others. It seems that
various kinds of local government assistance and tax breaks made it possible
for these teams to buy new stadia and new players.
However, it is pertinent to ask on what basis precisely is the Commission
looking into these affairs. A spokesman for Mario Monti, the Competition
Commissioner, said that football was a "core economic activity which causes a
lot of complaints and which we need to pursue". It does cause a lot of
complaints, many of them to do with the referee's ability to see straight but
how does that concern Monti?
The competition Monti is supposed to be dealing with is economic, not
sporting. When he looks at state subsidies or tax breaks or other perks doled
out to favoured companies by embattled governments, he is supposed to be
making sure that there is a level playing field (whatever that may be) between
all the EU competitors and, also, that the consumer is not cheated.
None of this applies to football teams. AC Milan, Real Madrid, Chelsea or
the various Spartacus teams are not in direct competition with each other
economically speaking. Each caters for its own customers or clients. A
supporter of one team is not going to support another one just because of a
better stadium. The games are watched because of the way they come up in the
various competitions not because of the players that happen to have been
bought. Advertising follows popularity.
One could argue, of course, that football teams should finance themselves
(though why should they have no tax breaks when other companies do) but that
is not what the European Commission is saying, as far as one can make out. The
Commission is making out a case for the funding to be at least centrally
controlled and, perhaps, in the fullness of time, centrally disbursed.
This raises an interesting question: will the Commission start
investigating the funding of other institutions within the broad area of sport
and culture? Will Monti or his successor look at opera companies or circuses?
What about the money that is being pumped into the various Olympic bids?
In the EU Constitution the Union extends its sway over sport, having added
the following sentence to the existing Article 149, to create a new
Article III-182:
"The Union shall contribute to the promotion of
European sporting issues, given the social and educational function of
sport."
Unsurprisingly, the EU's contributions are attempts to
control. | 
