European Court of Justice ruling on sports grants

quidnunc · January 30, 2008, 10:18:51 AM

I'm just after reading yesterday's Irish News, and I thought the following revelation about a Belgian judoka (judo competitor) was hugely significant -

"Following a case taken to the European Court of Justice by Christelle Deliege, the Court ruled in December 2005 that since Mme Deliege received money, including some from her own judo federation as grants to improve her sporting performance...as a result of taking part in judo, her sporting activity actually constitutes an economic activity and therefore enjoys the full protection of Community law."

Surely this shatters any notion that the proposed grants scheme for GAA inter-county players is not pay-for-play.

I shudder to think of the consequences - Bosman ruling, etc etc - if this is allowed to go ahead.

tayto · January 30, 2008, 10:20:11 AM

interesting .... $:-\$

AZOffaly · January 30, 2008, 10:21:49 AM

Hardly surprising. No matter how it is couched, an outsider looking in would ask these questions.

1. Can you get this money if you do not play inter county GAA? - No.
2. Does the grant stop if you are dropped from the panel? - Yes.
3. Do you get more money for better performance? - Yes.

Ergo, it is a 'payment' directly related and dependant on 'playing' the games. This judgement on the Belgian judo player is perfectly sensible as well I'd say.

Of course the key, the vital thing, in terms of the GAA grants is that it is not GAA money. This case is a salient warning if the GAA get their hands dirty in the way this money is put aside, or distributed.

Quoteincluding some from her own judo federation as grants to improve her sporting performance.

his holiness nb · January 30, 2008, 10:25:54 AM

When you say "some" was from her own federation.
Do we know where the rest came from?
I'd be interested to see if its from the government.

AZOffaly · January 30, 2008, 10:32:48 AM

Doesn't matter hnb. If some of it clearly came from her own federation, then they become de facto employers, or part employers. If it's from the government then the government can deal with the legals. The fact that her own federation paid her money means that they now carry responsibilities there as well. That's what the GAA needs to be very careful about.

irunthev · January 30, 2008, 10:34:02 AM

Good post Quidnunc.

I have mention the potential LONG TERM scenarios that will lead from these grants on several occasions in the past and have received nothing but abuse from people saying I was talking shite and that it was more anti-GPA propaganda. I'm glad to see that others are now seeing into what will happen in the future. It's not just about the €1500 that the players may receive this year, in fact the money is almost irrelevant, at the end of the day, €1500 isn't exactly a fortune, but it has the potential to become something completely different over the next ten years and that's the concerning part.. The principles it eradicates and the empowerment it gives players is the scarey bit and the GAA seem to be prepared to turn a blind eye to it. Remember when Bertie was asked a few years ago about the long term effect of some piece of legislation that was being out through and he was caught on tape saying that it didn't bother him because he would be gone by then. Maybe Nicky and the boys have the same idea. Avert a strike now and who gives a shit what happens in the future, they'll still be guaranteed their 20 All Ireland tickets and their name on the honours board. Short term solution to what will inevitably turn out to be a very long term problem for the GAA.

AZOffaly · January 30, 2008, 10:40:51 AM

Quote from: irunthev on January 30, 2008, 10:34:02 AM
Good post Quidnunc.

I have mention the potential LONG TERM scenarios that will lead from these grants on several occasions in the past and have received nothing but abuse from people saying I was talking shite and that it was more anti-GPA propaganda. I'm glad to see that others are now seeing into what will happen in the future. It's not just about the €1500 that the players may receive this year, in fact the money is almost irrelevant, at the end of the day, €1500 isn't exactly a fortune, but it has the potential to become something completely different over the next ten years and that's the concerning part.. The principles it eradicates and the empowerment it gives players is the scarey bit and the GAA seem to be prepared to turn a blind eye to it. Remember when Bertie was asked a few years ago about the long term effect of some piece of legislation that was being out through and he was caught on tape saying that it didn't bother him because he would be gone by then. Maybe Nicky and the boys have the same idea. Avert a strike now and who gives a shit what happens in the future, they'll still be guaranteed their 20 All Ireland tickets and their name on the honours board. Short term solution to what will inevitably turn out to be a very long term problem for the GAA.

That's a bit melodramatic irunthev. There are plenty, plenty of people who cited various long term impacts or possible impacts to players receiving anything other than valid expenses. This argument was kicked around in probably 20 different threads at least, and phrases like 'thin end of the wedge', 'GPA's long term aims' etc were used fairly often by many people, Bud, Hardy, Lone Shark and myself included.

You're not on your own in this worry, especially if the GAA become involved in the distribution of this money at any sort of detailed level.

irunthev · January 30, 2008, 10:53:12 AM

Point taken Offaly

Hardy · January 30, 2008, 11:02:35 AM

Thanks for finding that quidnunc. It's a very significant ruling indeed and I hope Croke Park is taking a very long, careful look at it.

As a side issue, I agree that it seems to scotch, once and for all, and officially, the semantic gymnastics in the grants agreement. That's the agreement that defines in detail a payment to GAA players for playing GAA to a certain level, that gets withdrawn when they stop playing or fail to reach the required level and then insists that of course it's not pay for play.

Gaoth Dobhair Abu · January 30, 2008, 11:16:34 AM

The article in full. Makes interesting reading.

Anti-grants group calls for support Gaelic Games
By Seamus Maloney
29/01/08

THE group of GAA members behind the challenge to the introduction of sports grants for inter-county footballers and hurlers have ratcheted up their campaign, and re-iterated their call for fellow members of the Association to join them in opposing the scheme.

The GAA's Disputes Resolution Authority adjourned a case brought by opponents of the grants, pending a number of motions related to the topic set to go before GAA's Annual Congress in April.

Yesterday the 'Of One Belief' group released a "circular" which again voiced their opinion that the GAA's position, as outlined by their solicitors at the DRA hearing, that no binding decision on player grants had yet been made was "a huge turnaround face" by the Association.

It also called on GAA members opposed to grants to bring up the issue in clubs, at county committee level and at the National GAA Club Forum on February 9.

As part of their argument against the GAA's stance that the grants do not impinge on the GAA's amateur status, the group brought up the case of a Belgian judo player.

"Following a case taken to the European Court of Justice by Christelle Deliege, the Court ruled in December 2005 that since Mme Deliege received money, including some from her own judo federation as grants to improve her sporting performance... as a result of taking part in judo, her sporting activity actually constituted an economic activity & and therefore enjoys the full protection of Community law.

"On that basis, if we give money to our players then all our tried-and-tested GAA rules and understandings about registrations, transfers, and even the management of our games immediately go out the window to be replaced by EU work/employment-related rules and regulations about restraint of trade, image rights, access to GAA income, and so on."

The group's circular concluded: "This past week has seen huge progress in the campaign against pay-for-play in the GAA. The DRA has delivered a major result. But we've still work to do."

AZOffaly · January 30, 2008, 11:18:26 AM

Quote"On that basis, if we give money to our players then all our tried-and-tested GAA rules and understandings about registrations, transfers, and even the management of our games immediately go out the window to be replaced by EU work/employment-related rules and regulations about restraint of trade, image rights, access to GAA income, and so on."

But are 'we' giving money to them? I think at the moment the GAA could say they are not, the government is. This is why I'd be very worried about the GAA getting involved in distribution.

DUBSFORSAM1 · January 30, 2008, 11:22:43 AM

Ok a couple of points of fact -

The judo person won their case on the basis that "her federation" was paying her...........Again with the grants it is the Govt that is paying not the GAA so no-one will be an employee of the GAA...

It could be argued that any GAA person who gets paid ie students/coaches (talking players now as coaches) etc could be taken as being employees and have the rights to move as per Bosman etc...

Hardy · January 30, 2008, 11:49:31 AM

"the Court ruled in December 2005 that since Mme Deliege received money, including some from her own judo federation as grants to improve her sporting performance...as a result of taking part in judo, her sporting activity actually constitutes an economic activity and therefore enjoys the full protection of Community law."

I don't know if this is an accurate report of the court decision, but it seems to me that the court is basing its decision on the fact that her sporting activity is an economic activity because she receives money for it. If receiving money for it makes it an economic activity and if being an economic activity is the key point in bringing it under EU law, then it doesn't seem to matter where the money comes from.

Gnevin · January 30, 2008, 12:16:24 PM

Full as in Bosman ruling could apply?

Hound · January 30, 2008, 12:25:44 PM

Quote from: Hardy on January 30, 2008, 11:49:31 AM
"the Court ruled in December 2005 that since Mme Deliege received money, including some from her own judo federation as grants to improve her sporting performance...as a result of taking part in judo, her sporting activity actually constitutes an economic activity and therefore enjoys the full protection of Community law."

I don't know if this is an accurate report of the court decision, but it seems to me that the court is basing its decision on the fact that her sporting activity is an economic activity because she receives money for it. If receiving money for it makes it an economic activity and if being an economic activity is the key point in bringing it under EU law, then it doesn't seem to matter where the money comes from.

Very difficult to interpret someone else's interpretation of a case we haven't seen, so I'd say there might be a 50% chance your interpretation is right Hardy!

On the other hand if we're concerned with getting into "EU work/employment-related rules and regulations about restraint of trade, image rights, access to GAA income" issues, then my guess is (again probably about a 50% chance of being correct!) that it makes all the difference as to whether the grant comes direct from the relevant federation or from a government body.