Representativeness of the European social partner organisations: Sport and active leisure industry

  • National Contribution:

  • Observatory: EurWORK
  • Topic:
  • Collective bargaining,
  • Industrial action,
  • Social partners,
  • Participation at work,
  • Representativeness,
  • Industrijski odnosi,
  • Date of Publication: 13 lipnja 2013



About
Author:
Institution:

  [ pdf version size 2424 kb ]  - see also the Executive Summary  [ pdf version size 41.25 kb ]

This study sets out to provide the necessary information for analysing the representativeness of European social partner organisations in the sport and active leisure sector. The report identifies the relevant national organisations on both sides of industry and then analyses the sector’s relevant European organisations. Following a brief summary of the sector’s economic background, the study describes the social partner organisations in all of the EU Member States, and then goes on to look at the relevant European organisations, focusing in particular on membership levels and capacity to negotiate. The impetus for these EIRO series of studies on representativeness arises from the European Commission’s goal of recognising the representative social partner organisations to be consulted under the provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

The study was compiled on the basis of individual national reports submitted by the EIRO correspondents. The text of each of these national reports is available below. The national reports were drawn up in response to a questionnaire and should be read in conjunction with it.


Objectives of study

The aim of this representativeness study is to identify the relevant national and supranational associational actors – that is the trade unions and employer organisations – in the field of industrial relations in the sport and active leisure sector, and show how these actors relate to the sector’s European interest associations of labour and business. The impetus for this study, and for similar studies in other sectors, arises from the aim of the European Commission to identify the representative social partner associations to be consulted under the provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (1.41 Mb PDF). Hence, this study seeks to provide basic information needed to set up sectoral social dialogue. The effectiveness of European social dialogue depends on whether its participants are sufficiently representative in terms of the sector’s relevant national actors across the EU Member States. Hence, only European associations which meet this precondition will be admitted to the European social dialogue.

Against this background, the study will first identify the relevant national social partner organisations in the sport and active leisure sector, subsequently analysing the structure of the sector’s relevant European organisations, in particular their membership composition. This involves clarifying the unit of analysis at both the national and European level of interest representation. The study includes only organisations whose membership domain is ‘sector-related’ (see Table 1).

Table 1: Determining the ‘sector relatedness’ of an organisation

Scope

Question in the standardised questionnaire to all correspondents

Possible answers

Notes and explanations

Domain of the organisation within the sector

Does the union’s/employer organisation’s domain embrace potentially all employees in the sport and active leisure sector?

Yes/No

This question has not been asked directly in the questionnaire, but is considered to be ‘yes’ if all of the five following sub-questions are ‘yes’. It is considered to be ‘no’, if at least one of the following sub-questions is answered with ‘no’.

...cover 'basically all' groups of employees (min.: blue collar, white collar) in the sport and active leisure sector?

Yes/No

This question refers to the organisation’s scope of the sector with regard to different types of employment contracts etc. As the contractual forms are rather heterogeneous, the minimum requirement to answer this question with ‘yes’ would be the fact that both blue-collar and white-collar workers are potentially covered by the organisation’s domain.

...cover the 'whole' sport and active leisure sectorin terms of economic activities, (i.e. including all sub-activities)

Yes/No

This question refers to the economic sub- activities of the NACE code chosen. In the spreadsheet part of the questionnaire, correspondents have been provided a detailed breakdown of sub-activities down to the four-digit level.

… cover employees in all types of companies (all types of ownership: private, public…) in the sport and active leisure sector?

Yes/No

This question refers to ownership. Some organisations might limit for instance their domain to domestically owned, or to public sector companies/employees only.

… cover employees in enterprises of all sizes in the sport and active leisure sector?

Yes/No

Often, organisations limit their domain to enterprises by size class (e.g. SMEs only).

...cover all occupations in the sport and active leisure sector?

Yes/No

Some organisations (notably trade unions) delimit their domain to certain occupations only. This sub-question intends to identify these occupational organisations.

Domain of the organisation outside the sector

Does the union also represent members outside the sport and active leisure sector?

Yes/No

This question, again, is put directly to the correspondents.

Source: Standardised Excel-based questionnaire, sent to EIRO National correspondents.

At both national and European levels, there are many associations in the sector but they are not considered to be social partner organisations as they do not deal with industrial relations. Thus, there is a need for clear-cut criteria to differentiate the social partner organisations from other associations.

As for the national-level associations, classification as a sector-related social partner organisation in the context of this study implies fulfilling one of two criteria. The associations must be:

  • a party to ‘sector-related’ collective bargaining;
  • or a member of a ‘sector-related’ European association of business or labour that is on the Commission’s list of European social partner organisations consulted under Article 154 of the TFEU, and/or which participates in the sector-related European social dialogue.

The criterion that a national association can be a social partner if it is affiliated to a European social partner implies that such an association may not be involved at all in industrial relations in its own country. This criterion may seem odd, but a national association does become involved in industrial relations through its membership of such a European organisation.

Furthermore, it is important to assess whether the national affiliates to the European social partner organisations are engaged in industrial relations in their respective countries. Affiliation to a European social partner organisation or involvement in national collective bargaining is of utmost importance to European social dialogue, since it can systematically connect the national and European levels.

In terms of the selection criteria for the European organisations, this report includes those sector-related European social partner organisations that are either on the Commission’s list of consultation or participating in sector-related (still informal) European social dialogue. In addition, this study considers any other European association with sector-related national social partner organisations – as defined above – under its umbrella. Thus, the aim to identify the sector-related national and European social partner organisations applies both a ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ approach.

Definitions

For the purpose of this study, the sport and active leisure sector is defined in terms of the Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the European Community (NACE), to ensure the cross-national comparability of the findings. More specifically, the sport and active leisure sector is defined as embracing NACE (Rev.2) 93, except for activities of amusement parks and theme parks according to NACE (Rev.2) 93.21, as shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Sectoral coverage according to NACE Rev.2 classification
NACE Rev. 2 Covered
93.1 Sports activities

93.11 Operation of sports facilities

Yes

93.12 Activities of sports clubs

Yes

93.13 Fitness facilities

Yes

93.19 Other sports activities

Yes

93.2 Amusement and recreation activities

93.21 Activities of amusement parks and theme parks

No

93.29 Other amusement and recreation activities

Yes

The domains of the trade unions and employer organisations and scope of the relevant collective agreements are likely to vary from this precise NACE demarcation. The study therefore includes all trade unions, employer organisations and multi-employer collective agreements which are ‘sector-related’ in terms of any of the following four aspects or patterns:

  • congruence – the domain of the organisation or scope of the collective agreement must be identical to the NACE demarcation, as specified above;
  • sectionalism – the domain or scope covers only a certain part of the sector, as defined by the aforementioned NACE demarcation, while no group outside the sector is covered;
  • overlap – the domain or scope covers the entire sector along with parts of one or more other sectors. However, it is important to note that the study does not include general associations which do not deal with sector-specific matters;

sectional overlap – the domain or scope covers part of the sector plus (parts of) one or more other sectors.

Figure 1: Sector-relatedness of social partner organisations: domain patterns

Figure 1: Sector-relatedness of social partner organisations: domain patterns

Table 3: Domain pattern and scope of the organisation’s domain
Domain pattern Domain of organisation within the sector Domain of organisation outside the sector
 

Does the union's/employer organisation’s domain embrace potentially all employees in the sport and active leisure sector?

Does the union/employer organisation also represent members outside the sport and active leisure sector?

Congruence (C)

Yes

No

Sectionalism (S)

No

No

Overlap (O)

Yes

Yes

Sectional overlap (SO)

No

Yes

Note: The domain pattern results from the answers to the questions on the scope of the domain derived in Table 1.

At European level, the European Commission has set up a Sectoral Social Dialogue Committee for the professional football sector in 2008. It has not yet established a Sectoral Social Dialogue Committee for the sport and active leisure sector in addition to the existing professional football Committee.

As for the professional football sector, the International Federation of Professional Footballers’ Associations (FIFPro) worked towards a European social dialogue from 2002 onwards. The Association of European Professional Football Leagues (EPFL) was formalised in 2004 when it also received the mandate to act as an employers' organisation in European social dialogue. The employers’ side was complemented by the European Club Association (ECA) as acknowledged by the Commission in a letter on 25 July 2008. In addition, the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) has been invited by EU social partners to become an associate member to the Sectoral Social Dialogue Committee which was formally established on 2 July 2008.

Taking into account diverse requests from sport or active leisure organisations, the European Commission has been considering the establishment of formal sectoral social dialogue structures for this sector for several years, as seen in the European Commission’s White Paper on Sport) in addition to the existing structures for the professional football sector. On 17 June 2011, the European Association of Sport Employers (EASE) and the Union Network International (UNI)-Europa Sport signed a joint statement affirming the importance of establishing a European Social Dialogue Committee, proposing an operational structure of such a future committee (namely not-for-profit sport, professional sport and active leisure) and including a first work programme for each of the three Standing Committees. Since then, further progress has been made in view of the reinforcement of the representativeness of EU social partner organisations. The Commission therefore announced the launch of a test phase of a new European Sectoral Social Dialogue Committee for Sport and active leisure to be initiated on 11 and 12 December 2012. A test phase means that no decision is taken as regards the setting up of a Sectoral Social Dialogue Committee, but that a specific support is provided for a limited duration (for example, two years) to help the European social partner organisations in the sector prepare a possible Sectoral Social Dialogue Committee.

Several European-level organisations have been considering setting up a European Social Dialogue Committee in the sport and active leisure sector. The associations involved are UNI -Europa – Section Sport, with its professional sport-related affiliate EU Athletes, on the employee side, and the European Confederation of Outdoor Employers (EC-OE) as well as EASE and the European Health and Fitness Association (EHFA), on the employer side ( EHFA was an associate member of EASE up to 2011). None of these organisations is on the list of European social partner organisations to be consulted under Article 154 of the TFEU. Nevertheless, all of these European social partner organisations are involved in informal sector-related social dialogue. EASE and UNI Europa emphasise that only these two organisations have initially launched an informal social dialogue within the sport and active leisure sector. Therefore, affiliation to one of these European organisations is a sufficient criterion for classifying a national association as a relevant interest organisation for the purpose of this study. However, it should be noted that the constituent criterion is one of sector-related membership. This is important, in particular, in the case of UNI-Europa, due to its multi-sectoral domain. Thus, the study will include only those UNI-Europa affiliates whose domain relates to the sport and active leisure sector (which are thus affiliated to the sport and leisure sections of UNI-Europa), as defined earlier.

As there is a formal European Sectoral Social Dialogue Committee for the professional football sector, the study will also analyse the European organisations and their national affiliates active in this Committee.

Collection of data

The collection of quantitative data, such as those on membership, is essential for investigating the representativeness of the social partner organisations. Unless cited otherwise, this study draws on the country studies provided by the EIRO national centres. The EIRO correspondents were provided with standardised questionnaires by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound), which they completed through contacting the sector-related social partner organisations in their countries. The contact is generally made via telephone interviews, but might also – in certain cases – be established via email. In case of non-availability of any representative, the national correspondents are asked to fill out the relevant questionnaire based on secondary sources, such as information given on the social partner’s website, or derived from previous research studies.

It is often difficult to find precise quantitative data. In such cases, the EIRO national centres are requested to provide rough estimates rather than leaving a question blank, given the practical and political relevance of this study. However, if there is any doubt over the reliability of an estimate, this is noted.

In principle, quantitative data may stem from three sources:

  • official statistics and representative survey studies;
  • administrative data, such as membership figures provided by the respective organisations, which are then used for calculating the density rate on the basis of available statistical figures on the potential membership of the organisation;
  • personal estimates made by representatives of the respective organisations.

While the data sources of the economic figures cited in the report are generally official statistics, (mainly from EUROSTAT or national statistical offices) the figures for the organisations are usually either administrative data or estimates. Furthermore, it should be noted that several country studies also present data on trade unions and business associations that do not meet the above definition of a sector-related social partner organisation, in order to give a complete picture of the sector’s associational ‘landscape’. For the above substantive reasons, as well as for methodological reasons of cross-national comparability, such trade unions and business associations will not be considered in this overview report. Yet, these organisations can still be found in the national contributions, which will be published together with the overview report.

Quality assurance

In order to assure the quality of the information gathered, several verification procedures have been put in place.

  • Eurofound staff, together with the author of this report, checked the figures provided for consistency, and ensured the organisations listed met the criteria for the scope of this study (see above).
  • Eurofound sent the national contributions to national members of its governing board, as well as to the European-level sector-related social partner organisations. The peak-level organisations then asked their affiliates to verify the information. Feedback received from the sector-related organisations was then taken into account, if it was in line with the methodology of the study.
  • The complete study was finally evaluated by the European-level sectoral social partners and Eurofound’s Advisory Committee on Industrial Relations, which consists of representatives from both sides of industry, governments and the European Commission.

Structure of report

The study consists of three main parts, beginning with a brief summary of the sector’s economic background. The report then analyses the relevant social partner organisations in all 27 EU Member States. The representative associations at European level are analysed in the third part of the report.

Part two and three will contain a brief introduction explaining the concept of representativeness in greater detail, followed by the study findings. As representativeness is a complex issue, it requires separate consideration at national and European level for two reasons. Firstly, the method applied by national regulations and practices to capture representativeness has to be taken into account. Secondly, the national and European organisations differ in their tasks and scope of activities. The concept of representativeness must therefore be suited to this difference.

Finally, it is important to note the difference between the research and political aspects of this study. While providing data on the representativeness of the organisations under consideration, the report does not reach any definite conclusion on whether the representativeness of the European social partner organisations and their national affiliates is sufficient for admission to the European social dialogue. The reason for this is that defining criteria for adequate representativeness is a matter for political decision rather than an issue of research analysis.



Economic background

Roughly speaking, the European sport and active leisure sector covers three main segments:

  • not-for-profit sport;
  • professional sport;
  • active leisure.

These segments widely differ in terms of organisation, the legal nature of their businesses, their financing, occupations, employment status and industrial relations. Despite these differences across the sub-sectors as well as countries, it is noticeable for the overall sector that it increased markedly in terms of both business volume and employment during at least three decades to the most recent recession (see the European Commission’s White Paper on Sport). Despite a lack of reliable data on the sector, there is no doubt that sport and active leisure has been a dynamic and fast-growing activity for many years. This trend can be traced back to a further diversification of sport activities, the developing leisure industry as well as the further globalisation, professionalisation and commercialisation of sport (ibid.). As for sport alone (without active leisure), employment within this sub-sector tripled in the period from 1980 to the mid-2000s. In 2004, the sport sector alone as defined by NACE (Rev. 1.1) 92.6 covered some 800,000 jobs in the EU 25 (EASE: Vocasport report 2004). For the second quarter of 2011 (the latest available figure provided by Eurostat, Labour Force Survey), the entire sport and active leisure sector – according to NACE (Rev. 2) 93 (thus including activities of amusement parks and theme parks) – employed about 1.44 million people. However, according to the European Commission’s White Paper on Sport, the sport industry suffers from a persistent underestimation of its macro-economic impact, since it has traditionally been defined in a very narrow way – the numerous volunteers within the sector, for example, tend to be invisible in official labour statistics related to the sector.

In contrast to most other sectors, it appears that the economic crisis had only minor repercussions on the sector’s labour market. Comparing the corresponding quarters of each of the years 2008 to 2011 with each other, employment largely remained stable over this period. Slight decreases in employment can be found only in 2008–2009, which, however, are largely compensated for by the employment growth recorded in 2010 and the first half of 2011 (in this context, however, it is important to note that Eurostat provides data only on the whole NACE [Rev.2] code 93). Nevertheless, in some respects, the most recent crisis has left its mark on this sector. Despite the diverse income sources of sport (such as club fees, ticket sales, advertising and sponsorship, TV and media rights, merchandising, and public support), part of the sector has been affected by:

  • the decline in overall purchasing power;
  • the public authorities’ tightened austerity policy;
  • shrinking funds spent by private companies for sponsoring and advertising purposes.

For instance, in several countries, such as Austria, Bulgaria, France, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Slovenia and Sweden, professional sport, in particular football, there have been cutbacks in private sponsoring since 2008, while a significant decline in government funding for sport has been reported from countries such as Hungary and Ireland.

In terms of industrial relations actors, the sector is characterised by a high associational fragmentation on both sides of industry at both national and European level. This is because different sports activities are traditionally based on very diverse organisational structures. Moreover, national social partner organisations within the sector, where they exist, tend to record relatively low levels of organisation (see below). This is because the sport movement is rooted in non-profit organisations and in volunteering, which has often hindered the emergence of national social partners in the sport sector (see the European Commission’s White Paper on Sport). However, increasing professionalisation has enhanced the need for formalised industrial relations structures and thus for the emergence of social partners (see the European Commission’s Communication Developing the European Dimension in Sport, adopted in January 2011).

Employment characteristics

According to the Vocasport study of 2004, employment in the sport sub-sector (no data are available for active leisure) is characterised by relatively high rates of part-time work and self-employment and relatively low levels of qualification. Moreover, the high incidence of unpaid workers (volunteers) and the seasonal nature of many sport-related activities underscore the study’s finding that employment tends to be rather insecure within the sector. The fairly high incidence of atypical forms of employment coincides with a relatively low degree of professionalisation on aggregate – a situation which applies, in particular, to the not-for-profit sport segment. Male employees prevail in the European sport and active leisure sector (according to the whole NACE [Rev.2] code 93), with a share of about 57% among the sector’s workforce in the EU-27. However, the distribution of the sexes within the sector widely varies from one country to the other. For instance, while in Malta male employment stands at about 90% of the sector’s total employment, Finland shows a slight prevalence of female employment within the sector.

Long-term trends

Over the past decades, the EU sport and active leisure industry has undergone a process of growth, commercialisation, professionalisation and – at least as far as professional sport is concerned – increasing internationalisation. In the field of active leisure and non-professional sport, this dynamic development can be traced back to a range of factors. The most important of these seem to be:

  • the overall change in health awareness within the European society and thus the reallocation of income to health and leisure activities;
  • the expansion and diversification of the supply of sport and leisure activities in line with the specific needs of the different population groups (for example, young people, elderly people, women, and people with disabilities).

The dynamics of the professional sport segment (such as commercialisation, professionalisation and internationalisation) are indicated by an increased overall volume of sport sponsoring and ticket sales as well as increased prices of broadcasting rights for major sporting events. Moreover, it is expected that further growing demand for sport and leisure facilities, in particular at local level, will require innovative investment in infrastructure related to the sector (see the European Commission’s White Paper on Sport).

Table 4 and Table 5 give an overview of the changes from the late 1990s to the late 2000s (at the onset of the recession), presenting figures on companies, employment and employees in the sector and in relation to the national economy, mainly stemming from national sources. These figures have been collected through the EIRO national centres. In all Member States but one (Italy), for which related data are available (14), the number of companies increased, generally reflecting an expansion of the sector witnessed in these countries.

Table 4: Total employers and employment in sport and active leisure, 1998–1999 and 2008–2009 (approximately)
  Year

No. of

companies

Year Total employment Female employment Male employment Total sectoral employment as % of total employment in economy
AT

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

AT

2008

1,915a

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

BE

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

BE

2009

2,005

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

BG

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

BG

2009

1,232

2009

6,402

2,305

4,097

0.2

CY

2000

527

2000

1,867

403

1,464

0.7

CY

2009

560

2009

2,206

n.a.

n.a.

0.7

CZb

1999

30,654

1999

19,600

9,700

10,000

0.4

CZb

2009

50,365

2009

26,800

8,700

18,100

0.5

DEc

n.a.

n.a.

1999

166,000

85,000

81,000

0.4

DEc

2008

40,179

2009

187,000

90,000

97,000

0.5

DK

2000

1,719

2001

15,161

6,784

8,377

0.5

DK

2008

2,991

2009

21,305

9,857

11,448

0.8

EE

n.a.

n.a.

2005

4,900

n.a.

n.a.

0.8

EE

n.a.

n.a.

2009

4,800

n.a.

n.a.

0.8

ESd

1999

9,255

2001

79,964

23,685

56,279

0.5

ESd

2009

15,592

2009

106,044

41,892

64,152

0.5

FI

1999

1,498

1999

11,290

5,392

5,898

0.5

FI

2009

2,379

2009

14,538

7,489

7,049

0.6

FR

1999

24,500

1999

108,000

38,000

70,000

0.5

FR

2009

30,000

2009

125,000

52,000

73,000

0.5

GR

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

GR

2010

1,377

2010

14,827

6,746

8,081

0.4

HUe

n.a.

n.a.

2000

30,000

n.a.

n.a.

0.8

HUe

2009

15,589

2007

25,000

n.a.

n.a.

0.6

IE

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IE

2009

n.a.

2009

23,225

n.a.

n.a.

1.2

IT

2001

27,068

2001

67,626

25,703

41,923

0.3

IT

2008

25,807

2008

85,037

32,321

52,716

0.3

LT

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

LTa

2009

237

2009

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

LU

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

LU

2009

200

2009

1,500

n.a.

n.a.

0.7

LV

1999

189

1999

3,628

1,596

2,032

0.5

LV

2009

641

2009

4,234

2,070

2,164

0.5

MT

2001

2,442

2000

608

97

511

~0.5

MT

2008

3,753

2008

5,907

593

5,314

~4

NL

1999

5,935

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

NL

2009

5,970

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PL

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PL

2009

39,321

2009

40,664

18,572

22,092

0.3

PT

1998

698

1998

6,678

2,377

4,301

0.3

PT

2008

1,741

2008

13,095

5,548

7,547

0.4

RO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

RO

2008

2,411

2008

6,530

n.a.

n.a.

0.1

SE

1999

4,437

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

SE

2009

6,130

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

SI

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

SI

2009

6,841

2009

2,969

881

2,088

0.4

SK

1999

673

1999

7,900

3,000

4,900

0.4

SK

2009

1,001

2009

8,000

3,400

4,600

0.4

UK

1999

17,535

1999

298,800

141,400

157,400

1.1

UK

2010

24,385

2010

403,000

175,200

227,800

1.4

a= includes NACE code 93.21.

b= includes NACE code 93.21. All figures have to be treated cautiously.

c= includes NACE code 93.21. Figures of the distinct reference years are not strictly comparable.

d= sector is defined as embracing NACE (Rev.1.1) code 92.6

e= all figures are rough estimates

Source: EIRO national centres, national statistics. For detailed description of sources please refer to the national reports.

Table 5: Total employees in sport and active leisure, 1998–1999 and 2008–2009 (approximately)
  Year Total employees Female employees Male employees Total sectoral employees as % of total employees in economy
AT

2000

6,216

2,858

3,358

0.2

AT

2008

10,344

4,896

5,448

0.3

BE

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

BE

2009

11,705

4,679

7,026

0.3

BG

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

BG

2009

6,402

2,305

4,097

0.2

CY

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

CY

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

CZa

1999

15,800

8,300

7,400

0.4

CZa

2009

16,600

6,500

10,100

0.4

DEb

2001

102,563

51,704

50,859

0.4

DEb

2008

87,119

40,424

46,695

0.3

DK

2001

14,523

6,561

7,962

0.6

DK

2009

20,727

9,636

11,091

0.8

EE

2005

4,800

n.a.

n.a.

0.9

EE

2009

3,900

n.a.

n.a.

0.7

ESc

2001

74,384

22,587

51,798

0.6

ESc

2009

95,310

37,558

57,752

0.6

FI

1999

10,970

5,284

5,686

0.5

FI

2009

13,489

7,030

6,459

0.6

FR

1999

93,000

33,000

60,000

0.5

FR

2009

101,000

41,000

60,000

0.4

GR

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

GR

2010

12,579

5,334

7,245

0.4

HUd

2000

25,000

n.a.

n.a.

0.8

HUd

2007

23,000

n.a.

n.a.

0.7

IE

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IE

2009

23,225

n.a.

n.a.

1.2

IT

2001

28,297

13,097

15,200

0.2

IT

2008

51,066

23,636

27,430

0.3

LT

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

LTe

2009

1,609

n.a.

n.a.

0.2

LU

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

LU

2009

1,500

n.a.

n.a.

0.8

LV

1999

3,595

1,582

2,013

0.5

LV

2009

4,038

1,975

2,063

0.5

MT

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

MT

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

NL

1999

32,300

13,400

18,900

0.5

NL

2009

51,800

24,100

27,700

0.7

PL

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PL

2009

35,252

16,636

18,616

0.3

PT

1998

6,485

2,320

4,165

0.3

PT

2008

12,375

5,326

7,049

0.4

RO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

RO

2008

6,116

n.a.

n.a.

0.1

SE

1999

17,861

n.a.

n.a.

0.5

SE

2009

30,961

n.a.

n.a.

0.8

SI

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

SI

2009

2,120

765

1,355

0.3

SK

1999

2,449

910

1,539

0.1

SK

2009

2,550

1,126

1,424

0.1

UK

1999

261,800

123,800

138,000

1.1

UK

2010

347,600

153,900

193,700

1.4

a= includes NACE code 93.21. All figures have to be treated cautiously.

b= includes NACE code 93.21. Figures of the distinct reference years are not strictly comparable.

c= sector is defined as embracing NACE (Rev.1.1) code 92.6

d= all figures are rough estimates

e= includes NACE code 93.21

Source: EIRO national centres, national statistics. For detailed description of sources please refer to the national reports.

All countries with available data but two (Estonia and Hungary) record an increase in overall employment in the decade to the late 2000s. In terms of the number of sectoral employees, only Estonia, Germany and Hungary record decreases during the period of observation, while in 13 countries this indicator increased (for 11 countries no comparable data are available). Germany is an interesting case in this respect, since this country records a growth of overall employment within the sector, while the number of employees declined. This indicates that the proportion of non-standard forms of employment within the sector has dramatically risen in Germany, such that atypical work now seems to be the predominant form of employment. Apart from Germany, there are several other Member States (such as the Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Italy, Slovakia, Slovenia and the UK) where the number of employees clearly falls short of the total number of jobs. One can infer from these findings that, at least in these countries, the sector is characterised by a high incidence of non-standard employment. (For several other countries no comparable data are available.).

Table 4 and Table 5 also show that women represent a minority of sectoral workers in all countries with available data but Finland, where they prevail. In most countries, for which data are available, such as Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and the UK, the number of male employees slightly exceed those of female employees, in that the percentage of male employees lies between 50% and 60%. Larger gaps between the sexes in terms of the number of sectoral employees can be found in Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Spain, while for the remaining countries no comparable data are available. The tables also indicate that the sector is not very large and – in terms of employment shares – remained stable or continued to grow in most countries with available data up to the late 2000s. The sector’s share in aggregate employment is below 1% in all countries under examination but Ireland, Malta and the UK. In terms of absolute numbers of sectoral workers, the UK holds an outstanding position, in that more than 400,000 people are gainfully employed in the sector. This makes up an estimated one-third of the sector’s employment in the EU 27. Malta constitutes another exceptional case, in that employment within the sector covered, in 2008, about 4% of total employment in the national economy, up from 0.5% in 2000.

Recent developments

Although the general trend in the European sport and active leisure sector as a whole seems to be that of expansion, according to the national reports, the impact of the economic downturn varies from one country to another. Overall, following the country reports, the active leisure industry, as well as amateur sports, appear to have suffered less from the crisis compared with professional sport. This is because the latter is particularly dependent on sponsorship from other industries, which have declined in many countries as a result of the recession.

Figure 2 shows that, overall in the European Union, the sport and active leisure sector was only marginally hit by the crisis, in that employment ceased to grow during 2008–2009 rather than actually declining. While total employment (for the age group 15–64) peaked at almost 1.5 million in the third quarter of 2008, it slightly declined in all quarters of 2009 compared with those of the previous year. However, during 2010 and the first half of 2011, the pre-crisis levels of employment have largely been reached and even exceeded. Figure 2 also shows a cyclical development of employment within each year, indicating the seasonal fluctuation of employment within the sector.

Figure 2: Overall development of employment (workforce aged 15–64) during the economic crisis

Figure 2: Overall development of employment (workforce aged 15–64) during the economic crisis

Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey

Figure 3: Development of employment in the Member States (workforce aged 15–64) during the economic crisis

Figure 3: Development of employment in the Member States (workforce aged 15–64) during the economic crisis

Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey, and own calculations.

No data available for EE, LT, LU and MT.

For a few countries, particularly BG, the data may be unreliable.

Figure 3 indicates that although in countries such as Austria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Latvia, Slovenia and Spain, the sport and active leisure industry has been relatively unshaken by the recession (in both 2009 and 2010 employment within the sector remained stable or even increased) – in most EU Member States the sector has – to at least a certain degree – been affected by the crisis, in that sectoral employment declined in at least one of the two consecutive years 2009–2010. In a majority of this group of countries, in particular Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Poland and Portugal, a decline in sectoral employment was registered in 2009, while an increase in employment can be observed for 2010. However, the crisis appears to have had a delayed effect on the sector’s labour market in Denmark, Italy, Slovakia, Sweden and the United Kingdom, where significant redundancies came into effect after 2010. Netherlands and Romania are the only ones that record job losses for 2009 and 2010.

In contrast to other sectors, no major effects of the recession on industrial relations systems within the sector have been reported.



National level of interest representation

In many Member States, statutory regulations explicitly refer to the concept of representativeness when assigning certain rights of interest representation and public governance to trade unions and/ or employer organisations. The most important rights addressed by such regulations include:

  • formal recognition as a party to collective bargaining;
  • extension of the scope of a multi-employer collective agreement to employers not affiliated to the signatory employer organisation;
  • participation in public policy and tripartite bodies of social dialogue.

Under these circumstances, representativeness is normally measured by the strength of the organisations’ membership. For instance, statutory extension provisions usually allow for extension of collective agreements to unaffiliated employers only when the signatory trade union and employer association represent 50% or more of the employees within the agreement’s domain.

As outlined, the representativeness of the national social partner organisations is of interest to this study in terms of the capacity of their European umbrella organisations for participation in European social dialogue. Hence, the role of the national actors in collective bargaining and public policy-making constitutes another important component of representativeness. The effectiveness of European social dialogue tends to increase with the growing ability of the national affiliates of the European organisations to regulate the employment terms and influence national public policies affecting the sector.

A cross-national comparative analysis shows a generally positive correlation between the bargaining role of the social partners and their involvement in public policy (Traxler, 2004). Social partner organisations that are engaged in multi-employer bargaining are incorporated in state policies to a significantly greater extent than their counterparts in countries where multi-employer bargaining is lacking. This can be attributed to the fact that only multi-employer agreements matter in macroeconomic terms, setting an incentive for the governments to seek the cooperation of the social partner organisations. If single-employer bargaining prevails in a country, none of the collective agreements will have a noticeable effect on the economy due to their limited scope. As a result, the basis for generalised tripartite policy concertation will be absent.

In summary, representativeness is a multi-dimensional concept that embraces three basic elements:

  • the membership domain and strength of the social partner organisations;
  • their role in collective bargaining;
  • their role in public policymaking.

Membership domains and strength

The membership domain of an organisation, as formally established by its constitution or name, distinguishes its potential members from other groups which the organisation does not claim to represent. As already explained, this study considers only organisations whose domain relates to the sport and active leisure sector. However, there is insufficient room in this report to delineate the domain demarcations of all the organisations. Instead, the report notes how they relate to the sector by classifying them according to the four patterns of ‘sector-relatedness’, as specified earlier. A more detailed description of how an organisation may relate to the sector can be found in Figure 1 above and in Table 3.

Regarding membership strength, a differentiation exists between strength in terms of the absolute number of members and strength in relative terms. Research usually refers to relative membership strength as the density – in other words, the ratio of actual to potential members.

Furthermore, a difference also arises between trade unions and employer organisations in relation to measuring membership strength. Trade union membership simply means the number of unionised people. However, in this context, a clarification of the concept of ‘member’ should be made. Whereas in most countries recorded membership includes both employees and members who are not in active employment (such as unemployed people and retired workers), some countries provide information on employed membership only. Hence, two measures of trade union density have to be defined:

  • gross union density (including inactive members);
  • net union density (referring to employed union members only).

In addition to taking the total membership of a trade union as an indicator of its strength, it is also reasonable to break down this membership total according to gender.

Measuring the membership strength of employer organisations is more complex since they organise collective entities, namely companies with employees. In this case, therefore, two possible measures of membership strength may be used – one referring to the companies themselves, and the other to the employees working in the member companies.

For a sector study such as this, measures of membership strength of both the trade unions and employer organisations have also to consider how the membership domains relate to the sector. If a domain is not congruent with the sector demarcation, the organisation’s total density, that is, the density referring to its overall domain, may differ from sector-specific density, that is the organisation’s density referring to the sector. This report will first present the data on the domains and membership strength of the trade unions and will then consider those of the employer organisations.

To summarise, this report basically distinguishes between three types of organisational densities, as defined in the following table, which are – depending on data availability – also broken down into net and gross rates.

Table 6: Definition of organisational density figures
Type of density Definition Breakdown
Domain density

Total number of employees (companies) organised by the organisation divided by potential number of employees (companies) as demarcated by the organisation’s domain

Net and gross:

Employees (for trade unions)

Companies and employees (for employer organisations)

Sectoral density

Number of employees (companies) organised by the organisation in the sport and active leisure sector divided by total number of employees (companies) in the sector.

Net and gross:

Employees (for trade unions)

Companies and employees (for employer organisations)

Sectoral domain density

Number of employees (companies) organised by the organisation in the sport and active leisure sector divided by potential number of employees (companies) in the sport and active leisure sector as demarcated by the organisation’s domain

Net and gross:

Employees (for trade unions)

Companies and employees (for employer organisations)

Trade unions

Table 7 and Table 8 present the trade union data on their domains and membership strength. The tables list all trade unions which meet at least one of the two criteria for classification of a sector-related social partner organisation, as defined earlier. However, in this context, in is important to note that not all of the organisations listed are legally recognised as a trade union according to national law. Given the complex and very diverse organisational structures of the world of sport at national level, not all of the national affiliates to the relevant sector-related European-level representatives of labour can be identified as genuine trade union organisations. Rather, some of these affiliates are hybrid organisations representing the interests of both employees and employers and often operating as guardians of sporting rules rather than industrial relations actors. Such organisations are not considered in this report. Hence, this study includes all those sector-related labour organisations affiliated to at least one of the relevant sector-related European labour organisations, which are either genuine trade unions according to national law or associations representing the (labour) interests exclusively of workers within the sector. For reasons of brevity, however, here they will all be denoted as ‘trade unions’.

All of the 27 countries under consideration but four (the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia and Slovakia) record at least one sector-related trade union. In total, 91 sector-related trade unions could be identified. Of these 91 unions, one has demarcated its domain in a way which is (more or less) congruent with the sector definition. This does not come as a surprise, given that artificially defined statistical demarcations of business activities differ from the lines along which employees identify common interests and gather in associations. Domain demarcations resulting in overlap in relation to the sector occur in 12.5% of the cases and thus are also rather scarce in the sector. Overlap by and large arises from two different modes of demarcation. The first one refers to general (i.e. cross-sectoral) domains (such as ACLVB/CGSLB of Belgium, CGT, CFTC and UNSA of France, OGBL of Luxembourg and GWU of Malta). The second mode relates to domains covering some or all of the entire service sector, such as F3C-CFDT of France, Ver.di of Germany and FeS-UGT and FSC-CCOO of Spain.

Table 7: Domain coverage and membership of trade unions in sport and active leisure, 2008–2010
  Trade union

Membership

type

Domain coveragea Membership
No. Active members Members sector Members sector active Female (%) of total
AT

GdG-KMSfB*

voluntary

SO

156,000

119,000

n.a.

6,500

49

AT

VdF*

voluntary

S

n.a.

1,000

n.a.

1,000

0

AT

GPA-djp

voluntary

SO

n.a.

180,000

n.a.

n.a.

44

BE

ACV-SPORTA*

voluntary

S

1,100

n.a.

1,100

n.a.

n.a.

BE

ACV-BIE*

voluntary

SO

280,000

180,000

n.a.

n.a.

15

BE

BBTK-SETCA*

voluntary

SO

385,000

230,000

n.a.

n.a.

62

BE

ABVV-AC/FGTB-CG*

voluntary

SO

370,000

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

BE

ACLVB-CGSLB*

voluntary

O

265,000

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

BE

CNE*

voluntary

SO

155,000

100,000

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

BG

ABF

voluntary

S

595

595

595

595

0

CY

PFAb

n.a.

S

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

CZ

no

             
DE

Ver.di

voluntary

O

2,238,200

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

51

DE

Sp.I BB

voluntary

S

200

n.a.

200

n.a.

n.a.

DK

Spillerforeningen

voluntary

S

n.a.

975

n.a.

975

9

DK

3F

voluntary

SO

n.a.

362,700

n.a.

500–700

33

DK

HK Privat

voluntary

SO

n.a.

100,000

n.a.

450

n.a.

DK

HS

n.a.

S

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

EE

no

             
ES

FeS-UGT*

voluntary

O

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

ES

FSC-CCOO*

voluntary

O

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

ES

AJBM*

voluntary

S

165

165

165

165

0

ES

ABP*

voluntary

S

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

ES

AJFS*

voluntary

S

361

281

361

281

14

ES

AFE*

voluntary

S

6,650

4,550

6,650

4,550

n.a.

ES

ACP*

voluntary

S

210

160

210

160

n.a.

FI

PAM*

voluntary

SO

227,000

154,000

4,000

3,800

80

FI

ERTO*

voluntary

SO

26,000

25,000

600

500

73

FI

SJb

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FI

JPb

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FR

F3C-CFDT*

voluntary

O

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FR

CGT*

voluntary

O

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FR

CFTC*

voluntary

O

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FR

SNEPAT-FO*

voluntary

O

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FR

CFE-CGC*

voluntary

SO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FR

UNSA*

voluntary

O

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FR

CNES*

voluntary

S

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FR

FNASS*

voluntary

S

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FR

SNB

voluntary

S

245

245

245

245

0

FR

UNFP

voluntary

S

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

GR

PSAP

voluntary

S

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

GR

PSAK

voluntary

S

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

HU

VKDSZSZ

voluntary

SO

9,000

5,000

710

710

30

HU

HLSZ

n.a.

S

n.a.

600

n.a.

600

n.a.

IE

SIPTU

voluntary

SO

217,000

n.a.

450

450

37

IE

IRUPA

voluntary

S

200

200

200

200

0

IE

PFAI

voluntary

S

118

118

118

118

0

IE

Mandate

voluntary

SO

45,206

n.a.

32

32

66

IE

IMPACT

voluntary

SO

61,500

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

70

IT

AIPAV

voluntary

S

250

250

250

250

5

IT

AIR

voluntary

S

5,462

n.a.

5462

n.a.

1

IT

GIBA

voluntary

S

500

400

500

400

n.a.

IT

AIC

voluntary

S

2,500

2,500

2,500

2,500

n.a.

IT

SLC-CGIL*

voluntary

SO

97,632

97,632

1,000

1,000

40

IT

FISASCAT-CISL*

voluntary

SO

233,887

233,887

n.a.

n.a.

60

IT

UILCOM*

voluntary

SO

40,544

40,544

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IT

FISTEL-CISL*

voluntary

SO

50,803

50,803

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

LT

SPS

voluntary

C

60

60

60

60

10

LU

OGBL

voluntary

O

64,000

57,000

500

490

n.a.

LV

no

             
MT

GWU

voluntary

O

41,575

34,543

75

75

18

NL

FNV Sport*

voluntary

S

1,200

1,200

1,200

1,200

30

NL

CNV Mode en Sport*

voluntary

S

100

100

100

100

30

NL

De Unie*

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

100

100

30

NL

VVCS*

voluntary

S

n.a.

1,000

n.a.

1,000

0

NL

ProProf*

voluntary

S

100

100

100

100

30

NL

VVBW

compulsory

S

128

128

128

128

0

NL

CBV

voluntary

S

450

450

450

450

0

NL

NL Sporter*b

voluntary

S

400

400

400

400

n.a.

PL

PZP

voluntary

S

750

650

750

650

5

PT

SJPF

voluntary

S

3,728

1,715

3,728

1,715

0

PT

ANTF

voluntary

S

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PT

FESAHT*

voluntary

SO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PT

CESP*

voluntary

SO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

RO

AFAN

voluntary

S

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

SE

SFS*

voluntary

S

500

500

500

500

20

SE

Unionen*

voluntary

SO

465,000

400,000

9,500

8,000

44

SE

SICO

voluntary

S

550

550

550

550

0

SE

Fastighets

voluntary

SO

33,480

31,731

4,000

4,000

50

SE

AHT*

voluntary

SO

633,975

475,274

n.a.

245

52

SE

Kommunals*

voluntary

SO

505,000

465,000

n.a.

2,000

80

SI

SSS*

voluntary

S

178

178

178

178

30

SI

SPINS*

voluntary

S

629

629

629

629

0

SK

no

             
UK

Unison*

voluntary

SO

1,374,500

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

69

UK

Unite*

voluntary

SO

1,572,995

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

24

UK

GMB*

voluntary

SO

601,730

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

47

UK

Prospect

voluntary

SO

121,136

97,600

90

75

28

UK

PPF

voluntary

S

15,600

n.a.

15,600

n.a.

5

UK

PFA

voluntary

S

4,000

4,000

4,000

4,000

1

UK

PFAS

voluntary

S

760

760

760

760

0

UK

PCA

voluntary

S

450

450

450

450

5

UK

RPA

voluntary

S

516

n.a.

516

n.a.

0

UK

WRPA

voluntary

S

152

n.a.

152

n.a.

0

UK

NASS

voluntary

S

1,954

n.a.

1,954

n.a.

46

* = Domain overlap with other sector-related trade union(s).

a= domain coverage: C = Congruence; O = Overlap; SO = Sectional Overlap; S = Sectionalism

b= organisation is not a trade union according to national correspondent. Nevertheless, since it seems to be an organisation representing the interests of workers within the sector, it is included in this study due to its affiliation to a relevant sector-related European-level organisation.

n.a. = not available

Table 8: Density of trade unions in sport and active leisure, 2008–2010
  Trade union

Union densities (%)

Key: DT = Domain total; DA = Domain active; S = Sector; SA = Sector active; SD = Sectoral domain; SDA = Sectoral domain active

Collective bargaining Consultation National and European affiliations**
DT DA S SA SD SDA
AT

GdG-KMSfB*

n.a.

68

n.a.

63

n.a.

65

yes

yes

ÖGB; EuroFIA, FIM, UNI-Europa-Sport, UNI-Euro-MEI, EFJ, ETF, EUROFEDOP, EPSU

AT

VdF*

n.a.

83

n.a.

10

n.a.

83

yes

yes

(ÖGB); FIFPro, (UNI-Europa-Sport)

AT

GPA-djp

n.a.

16

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

no

yes

ÖGB; EPSU, EMCEF, EFFAT, EFJ, UNI-Europa-Sport

BE

ACV-SPORTA*

25–50

n.a.

8–12

0–9

25–50

25–50

yes

yes

ACV-CSC; FIFPro, EU Athletes, UNI-Europa-Sport

BE

ACV-BIE*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

ACV-CSC; EMCEF

BE

BBTK-SETCA*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

ABVV-FGTB; UNI-Europa

BE

ABVV-AC/FGTB-CG*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

ABVV-FGTB; UNI-Europa

BE

ACLVB-CGSLB*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

UNI-Europa

BE

CNE*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

ACV-CSC; UNI-Europa

BG

ABF

n.a.

n.a.

9

9

n.a.

n.a.

no

yes

FIFPro

CY

PFAa

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FIFPro

CZ

None

                 
DE

Ver.di

n.a.

n.a.

0–9

0–9

0–9

0–9

yes

no

DGB; UNI-Europa

DE

Sp.I BB

n.a.

51–75

n.a.

0-9

n.a.

51–75

no

no

EU Athletes, UNI-Europa-Sport

DK

Spillerforeningen

n.a.

75–82

n.a.

5

n.a.

75–82

yes

yes

LO; FIFPro

DK

3F

n.a.

80

n.a.

2

n.a.

50

yes

yes

LO; UNI-Europa, ETF, EMF, EFFAT, EPSU, EMCEF

DK

HK Privat

n.a.

55

n.a.

2

n.a.

30

yes

yes

LO; UNI-Europa

DK

HS

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

no

n.a.

EU Athletes, (UNI-Europa-Sport)

EE

no

                 
ES

FeS-UGT*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

UGT; UNI-Europa

ES

FSC-CCOO*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

CCOO; UNI-Europa

ES

AJBM*

n.a.

n.a.

0

0

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

EU Athletes, (UNI-Europa-Sport), EHPU

ES

ABP*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

EU Athletes, (UNI-Europa-Sport)

ES

AJFS*

n.a.

n.a.

0

0

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

EU Athletes, UNI-Europa-Sport

ES

AFE*

n.a.

n.a.

7

5

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

FIFPro

ES

ACP*

n.a.

n.a.

0

0

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

EU Athletes, (UNI-Europa-Sport)

FI

PAM*

70

60

30

29

30

30

yes

yes

SAK; UNI-Europa, EFFAT

FI

ERTO*

n.a.

25

4

4

n.a.

n.a.

no

no

STTK; UNI-Europa-Sport

FI

SJa

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

EU Athletes, (UNI-Europa-Sport)

FI

JPa

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FIFPro

FR

F3C-CFDT*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

CFDT; UNI-Europa

FR

CGT*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

UNI-Europa

FR

CFTC*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

 
FR

SNEPAT-FO*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

CGT-FO; UNI-Europa

FR

CFE-CGC*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

 
FR

UNSA*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

UNI-Europa

FR

CNES*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

 
FR

FNASS*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

 
FR

SNB

n.a.

n.a.

0

0

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

EU Athletes, (UNI-Europa-Sport)

FR

UNFP

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

FIFPro

GR

PSAP

n.a.

91–100

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

91–100

yes

n.a.

FIFPro

GR

PSAK

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

EU Athletes, (UNI-Europa-Sport)

HU

VKDSZSZ

n.a.

51–75

3

3

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

ASZSZ; EPSU

HU

HLSZ

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

3

n.a.

n.a.

no

n.a.

FIFPro

IE

SIPTU

n.a.

n.a.

2

2

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

ICTU; UNI-Europa

IE

IRUPA

100

100

1

1

100

100

yes

yes

EU Athletes, (UNI-Europa-Sport)

IE

PFAI

n.a.

n.a.

1

1

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

(ICTU); FIFPro

IE

Mandate

n.a.

n.a.

0

0

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

ICTU; UNI-Europa

IE

IMPACT

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

ICTU; EPSU

IT

AIPAV

n.a.

n.a.

0

0

n.a.

n.a.

no

no

EU Athletes, (UNI-Europa-Sport)

IT

AIR

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

EU Athletes, (UNI-Europa-Sport)

IT

GIBA

n.a.

n.a.

1

1

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

EU Athletes, (UNI-Europa-Sport), UBE

IT

AIC

n.a.

n.a.

5

5

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

FIFPro

IT

SLC-CGIL*

20

20

2

2

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

CGIL; UNI-Europa

IT

FISASCAT-CISL*

14

14

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

CISL; UNI-Europa, EFFAT

IT

UILCOM*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

UIL; UNI-Europa

IT

FISTEL-CISL*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

CISL; UNI-Europa

LT

SPS

4

4

4

4

4

4

no

no

(LTUC); EU-Athletes, UNI-Europa-Sport

LU

OGBL

n.a.

n.a.

33

33

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

CGT; UNI-Europa, EPSU

LV

no

                 
MT

GWU

n.a.

n.a.

1

1

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

EPSU, UNI-Europa, EURO WEA, Eurocadres, ETF, EFBWW, EMF, EFFAT

NL

FNV Sport*

28–30

28–30

2

2

28–30

28–30

yes

no

FNV; UNI-Europa

NL

CNV Mode en Sport*

2

2

0

0

2

2

yes

no

CNV

NL

De Unie*

2

2

0

0

2

2

yes

no

 
NL

VVCS*

n.a.

80

n.a.

2

n.a.

80

yes

no

FNV; FIFPro, UNI-Europa

NL

ProProf*

64

64

0

0

64

64

yes

no

MHP

NL

VVBW

100

100

0

0

100

100

yes

no

 
NL

CBV

53

53

1

1

53

53

yes

no

 
NL

NL Sporter*a

10

10

1

1

10

10

no

yes

EU Athletes, (UNI-Europa-Sport)

PL

PZP

37

33

2

2

37

33

no

no

FIFPro

PT

SJPF

n.a.

n.a.

30

14

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

FIFPro

PT

ANTF

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

UGT; AEFCA

PT

FESAHT*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

CGTP

PT

CESP*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

CGTP

RO

AFAN

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

no

yesb

BNS; FIFPro

SE

SFS*

50

50

2

2

50

50

yes

yes

FIFPro

SE

Unionen*

79

68

31

26

80

62

yes

yes

TCO; UNI-Europa

SE

SICO

30

30

2

2

30

30

yes

no

(TCO); EU Athletes, (UNI-Europa-Sport)

SE

Fastighets

48

45

13

13

56

n.a.

yes

yes

LO; UNI-Europa

SE

AHT*

n.a.

26–50

n.a.

0-9

n.a.

0–9

yes

yes

PTK, SACO; UNI-Europa

SE

Kommunals*

n.a.

51–75

n.a.

0–9

n.a.

10–25

yes

no

LO; EPSU

SI

SSS*

16

16

8

8

16

16

no

yes

ZSSS; EU Athletes, (UNI-Europa-Sport)

SI

SPINS*

58

58

29

29

58

58

no

yes

ZSSS; FIFPro

SK

no

                 
UK

Unison*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

0–9

n.a.

26–50

yes

n.a.

TUC; UNI-Europa, EPSU, ETF

UK

Unite*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

0–9

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

TUC; UNI-Europa, EFFAT, EPSU, EFBWW, EMF, EMCEF, ETF

UK

GMB*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

0–9

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

TUC; UNI-Europa, EFFAT, EPSU, EFBWW, EMF, EMCEF, ETF

UK

Prospect

n.a.

70

n.a.

0–9

n.a.

85

yes

no

TUC; UNI-Europa, ETF, EPSU

UK

PPF

n.a.

91–100

n.a.

0–9

n.a.

91–100

yesb

yes

EU Athletes, (UNI-Europa-Sport)

UK

PFA

n.a.

91–100

n.a.

0–9

n.a.

91–100

yes

yes

TUC, GFTU; FIFPro, (EU Athletes), (UNI-Europa-Sport)

UK

PFAS

82

82

n.a.

0–9

82

82

no

yes

FIFPro, (EU Athletes), (UNI-Europa-Sport)

UK

PCA

100

100

n.a.

0–9

100

100

yes

yes

GFTU; EU Athletes, (UNI-Europa-Sport)

UK

RPA

n.a.

91–100

n.a.

0–9

n.a.

91–100

yes

n.a.

EU Athletes, (UNI-Europa-Sport)

UK

WRPA

n.a.

91–100

n.a.

0–9

n.a.

91–100

yes

n.a.

(EU Athletes), (UNI-Europa-Sport)

UK

NASS

n.a.

26–50

n.a.

0–9

n.a.

26–50

yes

yes

TUC, GFTU

* = Domain overlap with other sector-related trade union(s)

** = National affiliations put in italics; for the national level, only cross-sectoral (i.e. peak-level) associations are listed; for the European level sectoral associations only; affiliation put in parenthesis means indirect affiliation via higher-order unit.

a= organisation is no trade union according to national correspondent. Nevertheless, since it seems to be an organisation representing the interests of workers within the sector, it is included in this study due to its affiliation to a relevant sector-related European-level organisation.

b= indirect involvement via higher- or lower-order unit

n.a. = not available

Note: The figures have been rounded in all cases. Densities reported as 0% hence refer to a figure lower than 0.5%.

Sectional overlaps occur in exactly 33.0% of the cases. This mode usually arises from domain demarcations which focus on certain categories of employees which are then organised across several or all sectors or on segments of the economy which are transversally crossing the sector in question. Employee categories are specified by various parameters. These can be distinct occupations, such as:

  • managers and professionals (CFE-CGC of France and Prospect of the UK);
  • administrative and auxiliary staff (FESAHT and CESP of Portugal);
  • active leisure and well-being workers (ACV-BIE of Belgium and SLC-CGIL, FISASCAT-CISL and FISTEL-CISL of Italy).

They can also be specified by employment status:

  • white-collar workers (GPA-djp of Austria, Belgium’s BBTK-SETCA and CNE, Denmark’s HK Privat, Finland’s PAM and ERTO and Sweden’s Unionen);
  • blue-collar workers (ABVV-AC/FGTB-CG of Belgium and 3F of Denmark).

Other trade unions’ domains cover part of the sport and active leisure sector in terms of business activities (rather than in terms of employee categories) in addition to (parts of) at least another sector. Such domains may, for instance, cover:

  • local governments (including the local public sport and active leisure activities, such as Austria’s GdG-KMSfB, Ireland’s IMPACT and Sweden’s Kommunals);
  • public utilities (including the provision of baths, such as Hungary’s VKDSZSZ);
  • larger parts of the private and/or public service sector (also including part of the sector under consideration, see SIPTU of Ireland and Unison of the UK).

Last, but not least, sectionalism is by far the most frequent domain demarcation among the sector-related trade unions relative to the sector (53.4%). Sectionalism ensues from the existence of sector-specific trade unions, which either represent and organise only certain categories of employees in the sector (often in a way analogous to the categories outlined above), while they do not organise employees outside the sector, or whose domain is – in terms of business activities – confined to one or more smaller segments within the sector. Trade unions of this type can, in particular, be found in larger countries (France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and the UK) with a markedly differentiated sporting environment, in that for each of the established professional sports within a country, at least one distinct organisation of professional employee representation has been set up. This applies, in particular, to the most popular professional sports, such as football, handball, basketball, volleyball, cycling and – depending on national traditions – rugby, and cricket. As for football, the most popular sport in Europe, distinct trade unions, or at least interest organisations for professional football players, exist in 18 of the 27 Member States. At the same time, there are also trade unions in several countries which represent professional sportspersons of any sports on aggregate. In total, 47 sector-specific trade unions with a domain sectionalist relative to the sector could be identified.

Figure 4: Distribution of membership domain patterns (N=88)

Figure 4: Distribution of membership domain patterns (N=88)

Source: EIRO country reports

As the domains of the trade unions often overlap with the demarcation of the sector, so do their domains with one another in the case of those countries with a pluralist trade union ‘landscape’ in the sport and active leisure sector. Table 7 and Table 8 also show these inter-union domain overlaps. Inter-union overlaps of domains are widespread. In all countries but five (Denmark, Germany, Greece, Hungary and Ireland) with more than one sector-related trade union the domain of any of them overlaps with the domain of at least another one. Depending on the scale of mutual overlap, this results in competition for members. Noticeable inter-union competition within the sector is recorded in only three countries, namely Belgium, France and Italy.

Looking at the trade union membership data, it becomes apparent that male employees clearly comprise the majority group in most of the unions (79.2%) for which membership figures by gender are available. This finding corresponds to the fact that the sector’s employment is clearly dominated by male employees (see Table 4 and Table 5). In those few sector-related trade unions, where female membership prevails, this predominance – due to the fact that the domain of all these unions (sectionalistically) overlaps with regard to the sector – is likely to originate in areas of their domains other than the sport and active leisure sector.

Membership of the sector-related trade unions is voluntary in all 27 Member States with the exception of the Netherland’s VVBW, a union organising professional cyclists. The absolute numbers of trade union members differ widely, ranging from more than 2.2 million (in the case of Germany’s Ver.di) to around 60 (in the case of Lithuania’s SPS). This considerable variation reflects differences in the size of the economy and the comprehensiveness of the membership domain rather than the ability to attract members. Therefore, density is the measure of membership strength which is more appropriate to a comparative analysis. In this context it should be noted that density figures in this section refer to net ratios, which means that they are calculated on the basis of active employees, rather than including union members who are not in work. This is mainly because net union densities are more informative than gross densities, since they better reflect unionisation trends among the active workforce (only the active workforce is capable of taking industrial action) than the latter.

However, there are some methodological factors to be aware of when calculating and comparing associational densities. Social partner organisations frequently tend to be hesitant in providing these density figures as they reveal an interest organisation’s relative strength to its counterpart on the employer/employee side and the State. Therefore the density data set for this study is far from complete and has to be treated cautiously. Moreover, one cannot rule out the possibility that a trade union or employer organisation might give inflated figures in order to boost their real organisational strength. Domain density is over 50% in the case of around 60% of the trade unions which document figures on density. For a few unions densities cannot be indicated by separate figures but have to be estimated by a range (where the density is estimated to lie between a value ‘x’ and a value ‘y’). If this range overlaps with two or more intervals used for describing the distribution of trade union densities, the lowest value of this range (for example, ‘x’ rather than ‘y’) is used, in order to assign clearly this estimate to one of the intervals. This method applies to the entire section examining union densities and also to the corresponding section dealing with employer organisations (see below).

Some 35% of the unions gather 70% or more of the active employees covered by their domain. About 12%–13% of the trade unions for which data are available organise fewer than 15% of the active employees within their domain; and about 27%–28% of the trade unions record a density of between 15% and 50% of their potential active members. These results indicate that overall domain density of the sector-related trade unions tends to be relatively high. However, it should also be noted that for clearly fewer than half of the 91 sector-related trade unions, domain density data are recorded. Therefore these figures should be treated very cautiously, as indicated earlier.

Comparing the trade unions’ overall domain densities with their sector density figures provides an indication of whether the sport and active leisure sector tends to be a stronghold of those sector-related trade unions which also organise employees in sectors other than the sport and active leisure industry. When looking at sector density (again referring only to active members), it is important to differentiate between the trade unions’ sectoral density on the one hand and their sectoral domain density on the other. Whereas the former measures the ratio of the total number of members of a trade union in the sector to the number of employees in the sector (as demarcated by the NACE classification), the latter indicates the total number of members of a trade union in the sector in relation to the number of employees which work in that part of the sector as covered by the union domain (see Table 3). This means that the sectoral domain density must be higher than the sectoral density if a trade union organises only a particular part of the sector – that is where the trade union’s membership domain is either sectionalist or sectionalistically overlapping relative to the sector.

When taking the trade unions’ sectoral domain density into account, the trade unions’ density in the sport and active leisure sector tends to be slightly lower compared with the density ratio referring to their domain on aggregate. Sectoral domain density is over 50% in the case of about 51% of the trade unions for which data are available. About 35% of the unions attract 70% or more of the active employees covered by their sectoral domain. Around 19% of the trade unions record a sectoral domain density lower than 15%, and about 30% record a sectoral domain density of in between 15% and 50%. In this context it should be noted that a more appropriate measure of the relationship between the trade unions’ overall domain density and their sectoral domain density would also relate to the union membership domain patterns (see Figure 4). For unions with a membership domain congruent or sectionalist with regard to the sector, domain density and sectoral domain density are equal. This means that only for unions with a domain which overlaps, or sectionalistically overlaps with regard to the sport and active leisure sector, it is reasonable to compare domain density and sectoral domain density when assessing whether the sector under examination is a stronghold of the relevant unions or not. Such a measure, adjusted for domain patterns, corroborates and accentuates the above finding, according to which the trade unions’ density in the sport and active leisure sector tends to be lower compared with their overall domain density. Taking another very tentative measure – that is the median – into account reveals the same result: The median of the trade unions’ overall domain densities (54%) slightly exceeds that of their sectoral domain densities (51%), when taking all trade unions with available data into account, irrespective of their membership domain patterns relative to the sector.

As for those few trade unions for which figures for both (sectoral domain density and domain density on aggregate) are recorded, the same tendency can be revealed: There are several trade unions with an aggregate density higher than (or equal to) sectoral domain density, whereas no union can be found showing the reverse relationship between the two densities. This result confirms the above finding according to which the trade unions’ sectoral densities tend to fall short of their overall domain densities. However, again, it is important to note that for most unions no density data are available. Moreover, with regard to density figures, it appears from Table 8 that trade unions in Austria, Denmark, Germany, Slovenia, Sweden and the UK are over represented, while data for unions of some other countries are (almost) completely lacking. In line with this country-related bias, it appears to be likely that unions with relatively high density rates are over represented in this study, since these countries – with the exception of the UK – usually tend to record relatively high associational density rates; furthermore, in the case of the UK, all of the small, sector-specific trade unions listed record extraordinarily high density rates, apparently ensuing from their narrow membership domains which are well-tailored to a small and specific group, typical for the professional sport sector.

Overall, despite the fact that bipartite labour relations within the sport and active leisure sector are still poorly developed in many Member States, density rates in the sector tend – as far as the data collected show – to be relatively high. This is tentatively indicated by a median of the trade unions’ sectoral domain densities as high as 51%. However, it is reasonable to assume that this measure may be even strongly biased, so that an appropriate assessment of the sector unions’ overall strength in terms of density is hardly possible. Despite the sector’s highly fragmented associational landscape on the labour side, one reason for relatively high union density rates may be found in the fact that the numerous small occupational unions (in particular, professional sport unions) within the sector have managed to align their policy of interest representation to the very particular and usually homogeneous interests of their (potential) members, which tends to help in the recruitment of members. Apart from that, it is important to note that high densities of individual (small) trade unions in a fragmented and pluralistic system of interest representation do not necessarily allow inferences about the unionisation rates among the sector’s workforce. Conversely, unionisation rates among the entire sector’s employees are even presumed to be relatively low, given the high incidence of the various forms of non-standard employment and the small average size of the companies in the sector – factors which are usually obstructive to high unionisation rates.

Employer organisations

Table 9 and Table 10 present the membership data for the employer organisations in the sport and active leisure sector. As in the trade union side, not all sector-related employer organisations are documented in the 27 countries under consideration. In Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta and Slovakia no sector-related employer organisation matching at least one of the two criteria for inclusion (see above) has been identified, while in the remaining 20 Member States at least one sector-related employer organisation could be found. In 12 of the latter group of countries, there is at least one employer/ business organisation which is not a party to collective bargaining (see Table 10). They are classified here as social partner organisations only due to their affiliation to at least one of the sector-related European-level employer organisations considered in this study. In at least 14 of the 20 countries which record one or more sector-related employer/ business organisations, at least one of them is engaged in sector-related collective bargaining. This vagueness of this statement results from the fact that complete information on their collective bargaining involvement is not available. However, generally, business interest organisations may also deal with interests other than those related to industrial relations. Organisations specialised in matters other than industrial relations are commonly defined as ‘trade associations’ (see TN0311101S). Such sector-related trade associations also exist in the sport and active leisure sector. In terms of their national scope of activities, all the associations which are not involved in collective bargaining according to Table 10 either primarily, or exclusively, act as trade associations in their country. Put very simply, trade associations’ main reference is the market of goods and services (where business has interests in relation to customers and suppliers) rather than the labour market. In this sense, the numerous non-profit organisations in the sport and active leisure sector can also be subsumed under the category of ‘trade association’. It is only the conceptual decision to include all associational affiliates to EPFL, ECA, EC-OE, EASE and EHFA, regardless of whether they have a role in national bargaining, which gives them the status of a social partner organisations within the framework of this study.

Table 9: Domain coverage and membership of employer/ business organisations in sport and active leisure, 2008–2010
  Employer organisation Domain coveragea Membership
Type Companies in sector Employees in sector
AT

ÖFBL

S

compulsory

20

20

978

978

BE

BBF&W

S

voluntary

150–200

150–200

n.a.

n.a.

BE

Sociare

SO

voluntary

n.a.

400–500

17,000–20,000

2,000–2,500

BE

Cessoc

SO

voluntary

1200–1300

300–400

15,000–18,000

2,000–2,500

BE

Pro League

S

mixed

16

16

550

550

BE

National Football League

S

mixed

18

18

300–400

300–400

BE

Volleyleague

S

mixed

10

10

100–120

100–120

BE

BFNO

S

voluntary

35–40

35–40

n.a.

n.a.

BG

BPFL

S

voluntary

48

48

960

960

BG

BAHF

S

voluntary

30

30

500

500

CY

none

           
CZ

none

           
DE

DSSV

S

voluntary

2,000

2,000

100,000

100,000

DE

VDF

S

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

DK

Divisionsforeningen

S

voluntary

60

60

n.a.

n.a.

DK

DLG*

SO

voluntary

250

22

n.a.

n.a.

DK

GLS-A*

SO

voluntary

14,000

70

24,000

1,000

DK

Dansk Erhverv

SO

voluntary

20,000

95

310,000

3,200

EE

no

           
ES

ANETA

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

ES

FNEID

S

voluntary

n.a.

11,000

n.a.

85,000

ES

LFP

S

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

ES

ACB

S

voluntary

18

18

1,000

1,000

ES

ASOBAL

S

voluntary

16

16

n.a.

n.a.

ES

LNFS

S

voluntary

35

35

350

350

ES

ECP

S

voluntary

5

5

130

130

FI

PALTA*

O

voluntary

1,700

78

140,000

1,030

FI

MARA*

O

voluntary

2,400

355

60,000

10,500

FI

SKY

S

voluntary

100

100

450

450

FI

Veikkausliiga

n.a.

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FR

COSMOS*

C

voluntary

4,494

4,494

25,000

25,000

FR

CNEA*

S

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FR

GERF*

S

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FR

SNELM*

S

voluntary

3,000

3,000

12,000

12,000

FR

UCPF

S

voluntary

42

42

n.a.

n.a.

FR

UCPR

S

voluntary

30

30

n.a.

n.a.

FR

UCPB

S

voluntary

34

34

n.a.

n.a.

FR

UCPH

S

voluntary

34

34

n.a.

n.a.

FR

UCPVB

S

voluntary

28

28

n.a.

n.a.

FR

U2 C2F

S

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

GR

ESAKE

S

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

GR

SuperLeague

S

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

GR

League 2&3

S

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

GR

SETEYD

S

voluntary

32

32

140

140

HU

MFSZ

SO

voluntary

21

21

2,236

2,236

IE

ILAM*

S

voluntary

220

220

n.a.

n.a.

IE

IBEC*

O

voluntary

7,500

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IT

FIIS

S

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IT

FIAF

S

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IT

FIPE

SO

voluntary

110,000

5,720

400,000

n.a.

IT

LNP A

S

voluntary

20

20

n.a.

n.a.

IT

Lega Pro

S

voluntary

90

90

n.a.

n.a.

IT

ANAGT*

S

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IT

UNAGT-AGIT*

S

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IT

ASSOGALOPPO

S

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IT

FEDERIPPODROMI*

S

voluntary

12

12

n.a.

n.a.

IT

Lega Basket

S

voluntary

16

16

n.a.

n.a.

IT

UNI*

S

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

LT

no

           
LU

no

           
LV

LFVVNA

SO

voluntary

14

12

408

353

MT

no

           
NL

WOS*

S

voluntary

100

100

4,000

4,000

NL

FBO*

S

voluntary

36

36

1250

1250

NL

VPW

S

voluntary

3

3

128

128

NL

VeBon*

S

voluntary

100

100

150–300

150–300

NL

Eredivisie*

S

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

NL

Fit!vak

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PL

PZFW

S

voluntary

126

126

n.a.

n.a.

PL

Ekstraklasa SA

S

compulsory

16

16

n.a.

n.a.

PT

LPFP

S

voluntary

32

32

2,000

2,000

PT

APECATE

SO

voluntary

105

55

n.a.

n.a.

PT

FGP

S

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PT

AGAP

S

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

RO

LPF

S

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

SE

Arbetsgivaralliansen*

SO

voluntary

3,000

1,200

25,000

7,000

SE

FRISK*

S

voluntary

55

55

3500

3,500

SE

IDEA*

SO

voluntary

1,000

30

10,000

n.a.

SE

Almega*

SO

voluntary

2,087

29

64,000

1,010

SE

SEF

S

voluntary

32

32

704

704

SE

SLA*

SO

voluntary

4,000

400

25,000

2,500

SI

Union 1.SNL

S

voluntary

10

10

50

50

SK

no

           
UK

SkillsActive*

O

voluntary

6,262

6,211

n.a.

n.a.

UK

FIA*

SO

voluntary

n.a.

2,900

n.a.

120,000

UK

Premier League*

S

voluntary

20

20

n.a.

n.a.

UK

Football Leage*

S

voluntary

72

72

6,000

6,000

UK

SPL

S

voluntary

12

12

n.a.

n.a.

UK

NTF

S

voluntary

520

520

7,300

7,300

UK

ECB

S

voluntary

18

18

n.a.

n.a.

* = Domain overlap with other sector-related employer/ business organisation(s)

a= domain coverage: C = Congruence; O = Overlap; SO = Sectional Overlap; S = Sectionalism

n.a. = not available

Table 10: Density, collective bargaining, consultation and affiliations of employer/business organisations in sport and active leisure, 2008–2010
  Employer organisation

Density (%)

Key: D = Domain; S = Sector; SD = Sectoral domain.

Collective bargaining Consultation National and European affiliationsa
Companies Employees

D

S

SD

D

S

SD

 
AT

ÖFBL

100

1

100

100

10

100

yes

yesb

EPFL, UEFA

BE

BBF&W

n.a.

5–7

n.a.

n.a.

10–25

n.a.

yes

yes

UNIZO; EHFA, EASE

BE

Sociare

90–100

10–25

91–100

90–100

10–25

91-100

yes

yes

CEDAG

BE

Cessoc

90–100

10–25

91–100

90–100

10–25

91-100

yes

yes

CEDAG

BE

Pro League

100

0–9

100

100

0–9

100

yes

yes

EPFL

BE

National Football League

100

0–9

100

100

0–9

100

yes

yes

 
BE

Volleyleague

100

0–9

100

100

0–9

100

yes

yes

 
BE

BFNO

76–90

0–9

76–90

76–90

0–9

76–90

yesb

yes

UNIZO; EC-OE

BG

BPFL

n.a.

4

n.a.

n.a.

15

n.a.

no

yes

EPFL

BG

BAHF

n.a.

0–9

n.a.

n.a.

0–9

n.a.

no

no

EHFA, (EASE)

CY

no

                 
CZ

no

                 
DE

DSSV

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

no

yes

BDA; EHFA, (EASE)

DE

VDF

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

EHFA, (EASE)

DK

Divisionsforeningen

100

2

100

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

EPFL

DK

DLG*

n.a.

1

22

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

DA

DK

GLS-A*

20

2

n.a.

n.a.

5

n.a.

yes

yes

 
DK

Dansk Erhverv

17

3

25

45

15

36

yes

yes

DA; EuroCommerce, Eurochambres, (EHFA), (EASE)

EE

no

                 
ES

ANETA

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

EC-OE

ES

FNEID

n.a.

71

n.a.

n.a.

84

n.a.

yes

yes

CEOE; EASE, EOSE, EFHA

ES

LFP

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

EPFL

ES

ACB

n.a.

0

n.a.

n.a.

1

n.a.

yes

yes

ULEB

ES

ASOBAL

n.a.

0

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

 
ES

LNFS

n.a.

0

n.a.

n.a.

0

n.a.

yes

no

UEFA

ES

ECP

n.a.

0

n.a.

n.a.

0

n.a.

yes

no

 
FI

PALTA*

n.a.

3

3

n.a.

8

8

yes

yes

EK; COESS

FI

MARA*

20

15

15

20

78

78

yes

yes

EK

FI

SKY

n.a.

4

n.a.

n.a.

3

n.a.

no

no

EHFA, (EASE)

FI

Veikkausliiga

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

EPFL

FR

COSMOS*

n.a.

15

n.a.

n.a.

25

n.a.

yes

yes

EASE

FR

CNEA*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

EASE

FR

GERF*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

no

yes

EHFA, (EASE), (EC-OE)

FR

SNELM*

n.a.

10

n.a.

n.a.

12

n.a.

no

no

CGPME; EC-OE

FR

UCPF

100

0

100

100

n.a.

100

yes

yes

(CGPME); EPFL, (EASE)

FR

UCPR

100

0

100

100

n.a.

100

yes

yes

(EASE)

FR

UCPB

100

0

100

100

n.a.

100

yes

yes

(EASE)

FR

UCPH

100

0

100

100

n.a.

100

yes

yes

(EASE)

FR

UCPVB

100

0

100

100

n.a.

100

yes

yes

(EASE)

FR

U2 C2F

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

(EASE)

GR

ESAKE

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

 
GR

SuperLeague

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

EPFL

GR

League 2&3

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

 
GR

SETEYD

51–75

0–9

51–75

51–75

0–9

51–75

no

yes

EC-OE

HU

MFSZ

n.a.

0

n.a.

n.a.

10

n.a.

yes

yes

ESPA

IE

ILAM*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

no

yes

EC-OE, EASE, EHFA

IE

IBEC*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

EuroCommerce

IT

FIIS

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

Confcommercio

IT

FIAF

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

no

yes

EHFA, EAFF, ENSSEE, CESS, (EASE)

IT

FIPE

48

22

n.a.

60

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

HOTREC

IT

LNP A

100

0

100

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

EPFL, UEFA

IT

Lega Pro

n.a.

0

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

EPFL, UEFA

IT

ANAGT*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

 
IT

UNAGT-AGIT*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

 
IT

ASSOGALOPPO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

 
IT

FEDERIPPODROMI*

n.a.

0

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

 
IT

Lega Basket

100

0

100

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

 
IT

UNI*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

 
LT

no

                 
LU

no

                 
LV

LFVVNA

19

2

17

37

9

34

no

yes

LDDK; EHFA, (EASE)

MT

no

                 
NL

WOS*

91–100

2

91–100

91–100

8

91–100

yes

no

VNO-NCW; EASE

NL

FBO*

100

1

100

89

2

89

yes

no

VNO-NCW; EPFL

NL

VPW

100

0

100

100

0

100

yes

no

 
NL

VeBon*

51–75

2

51–75

51–75

0

51–75

no

yes

EC-OE

NL

Eredivisie*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

no

n.a.

EPFL

NL

Fit!vak

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

EHFA, (EASE)

PL

PZFW

6

0

6

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

no

yes

EHFA, EFCA, (EASE)

PL

Ekstraklasa SA

100

0

100

100

n.a.

100

no

yes

EPFL

PT

LPFP

100

2

100

100

16

100

yes

yes

EPFL

PT

APECATE

n.a.

3

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

no

n.a.

EC-OE, EFAPCO

PT

FGP

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

no

n.a.

EHFA, (EASE)

PT

AGAP

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

no

n.a.

EHFA, (EASE)

RO

LPF

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

no

yes

EPFL

SE

Arbetsgivaralliansen*

41

20

29

71

23

64

yes

yes

EASE

SE

FRISK*

11

1

11

32

11

32

yes

yes

EHFA, (EASE)

SE

IDEA*

1

1

n.a.

10

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

 
SE

Almega*

5

1

6

14

3

9

yes

yes

Svenskt Näringsliv

SE

SEF

100

1

100

90–100

2

90–100

yes

yes

Arbetsgivalliansen; EPFL

SE

SLA*

10–25

0–9

76–90

10–25

0–9

76–90

yes

no

Svenskt Näringsliv; GEOPA

SI

Union 1.SNL

100

0

100

50

2

50

no

yes

EPFL

SK

no

                 
UK

SkillsActive*

10–25

10–25

10–25

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

no

yes

EASE, EHFA, EOSE

UK

FIA*

60

10–25

60

60

26–50

60

no

yes

EHFA, (EASE)

UK

Premier League*

100

0–9

100

100

0–9

100

yes

yes

EPFL

UK

Football Leage*

100

0–9

100

100

0–9

100

yes

yes

EPFL

UK

SPL

100

0–9

100

100

0–9

100

no

yes

EPFL

UK

NTF

93

0–9

93

96

0–9

96

yes

yes

ETF

UK

ECB

100

0–9

100

100

0–9

100

yes

yes

 

* = Domain overlap with other sector-related employer/ business organisation(s)

a= National affiliations put in italics; for the national level, only cross-sectoral (i.e. peak-level) associations are listed; for the European level sectoral associations only; affiliation put in parenthesis means indirect affiliation via higher- or lower-order unit.

b= indirect involvement via higher-order unit

n.a. = not available

Note: The figures have been rounded in all cases. Densities reported as 0% hence refer to a figure lower than 0.5%.

Of the 83 employer/business organisations listed in Tables 9 and 10, at least 22 organisations belong to this group, while for five organisations no information about their engagement in sector-related collective bargaining is available. In five of the 20 countries where sector-related employer/ business organisations exist, only one single organisation (in the meaning of a social partner organisation as defined before) has been established. Thus, as on the trade union side, pluralist associational systems also prevail on the employer side. This is in line with the fact that the number of sector-related employer/ business organisations comes close to the number of sector-related trade unions.

With regard to the employer/business organisations’ membership domains, they tend to be at least as narrow as those of the trade unions. Some 5% and 17.5%, respectively, of the associations for which related information is available rest on overlapping and sectionalistically overlapping domains relative to the sector. Only one of these organisations, namely Ireland’s IBEC, has a domain which is cross-sectoral. Alternatively, most cases of domain overlaps (in the case of organisations with domains either overlapping or sectionalistically overlapping relative to the sector) are caused by coverage of the broader services sector (as is the case of PALTA and MARA of Finland, Almega of Sweden and – with some limitation – Dansk Erhverv of Denmark) or the broader health, fitness, recreation and tourism sector (or part of it). Overlaps of the latter kind can be found, in particular, in Belgium (Sociare and Cessoc), Italy (FIPE), Portugal (APECATE) and the UK (SkillsActive and FIA). There are also a few employer/ business organisations whose domain is focused on a very particular segment of the economy transversally crossing the sport and active leisure sector. Such organisations with a domain sectionalistically overlapping with regard to the sector then cover the spa sector (such as Hungary’s MFSZ), the gardening sector (such as Denmark’s DLG and GLS-A) and the entire non-for-profit sector (as is the case of Sweden’s IDEA).

Sectionalism is mainly caused by domain demarcations which focus on particular disciplines of professional sport, such as:

  • football (see Austria’s ÖFBL, Belgium’s Pro League and National Football League, Bulgaria’s BPFL, Denmark’s Divisionsforeningen, France’s UCPF, Germany’s DFL, Greece’s SuperLeague and League 2&3, Italy’s LNP A and Lega Pro, the Netherland’s FBO and Eredivisie, Poland’s Ekstraklasa SA, Portugal’s LPFP, Romania’s LPF, Slovenia’s Union 1.SNL, Spain’s LFP and LNFS, Sweden’s SEF and the UK’s Premier League, Football League and SPL);
  • basketball (see ESAKE of Greece, Lega Basket of Italy and ACB of Spain);
  • cycling (see VPW of the Netherlands and Spain’s ECP) and other professional team sports.

Less prominently, sectionalism ensues from domains covering sport and fitness facilities (for example DSSV of Germany, ILAM of Ireland and FNEID of Spain) and outdoor activities (for example BFNO of Belgium, SETEYD of Greece and VeBon of the Netherlands). Due to this high fragmentation of the national systems of employer organisations within the sector in some countries (particularly Belgium, France, Italy, Spain and the UK), in that several distinct organisations each specialising in narrowly defined sport activities exist, the vast majority of the associations (76.3%) have a membership domain which is sectionalist relative to the sector.

Only one organisation (COSMOS of France) shows a membership domain which is more or less congruent with the sector definition (1.2%). This means that the domain of this organisation largely focuses on the sport and active leisure sector as defined for the purpose of this study. COSMOS is a ‘general’ employer organisation within the field of sport and active leisure and thus its domain is not specifically focused on either disciplines or kind of service provision.

Figure 5: Distribution of membership domain patterns of sector-related employer organisations (N=80)

Figure 5: Distribution of membership domain patterns of sector-related employer organisations (N=80)

Source: EIRO country reports

One employer organisation each of Austria (ÖFBL) and Poland (Extraklasa SA), as well as three of Belgium (Pro League, National Football League and Volleyleague) are at least partially based on obligatory membership. This is to subject the professional sport clubs in certain sport disciplines, in particular professional football, to the respective national licence system, as a prerequisite for them to obtain eligibility for participating in their respective professional sport leagues.

In those countries with a pluralist structure in relation to employer organisations, these associations have usually managed to arrive at non-competing relationships. The exception here would seem to be Finland’s PALTA and MARA and France’s GERF and SNELM, the latter allegedly not recognising the representativeness of each other. According to EC-OE, this conflict was solved in 2010, when a final judgment established that GERF was effectively a member of SNELM. GERF was eventually liquidated in 2012. Generally speaking, though, the activities of most associations are complementary to each other as a result of inter-associational differentiation by either membership demarcation, as is the case of Belgium, Denmark (partly), Germany, Greece, Italy (partly), Poland, Portugal, Spain and the UK (partly); or functions and tasks, as is the case of Denmark (partly), Finland, France, Ireland, Italy (partly), the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK (partly).

As the figures on density show (Table 10), membership strength, in terms of companies, widely varies with regard to both the membership domain in general and the sector-related densities. The same holds true of the densities in terms of employees. Generally, both the domain and the sectoral domain densities of companies tend to be lower than the corresponding densities in terms of employees. This indicates a higher propensity of the larger companies to associate, as compared with their smaller counterparts. In general, overall densities of the employer/business organisations in the sector tend to be higher than trade union densities (see above). Some 76% and 83%, respectively, of the associations for which related data are available, register a sectoral domain density higher than 50% in terms of companies and employees.

However, although at first glance density rates among the sector-related employer/ business organisations appear to be high, it would be wrong to infer from these findings that in the overall sport and active leisure sector the employers are generally well organised. This is, firstly, because for the vast majority of organisations in the vast majority of countries no or only incomplete density data are available. Secondly, it appears that relatively small associations representing the well-organised professional sport segments within the overall sector are overrepresented in the data set, while for the (larger) employer/ business organisations in the other segments of the sector almost no comparable data are available. When looking at the generally very low sector densities in terms of both companies and employees of those organisations which display high sectoral domain densities, it becomes clear that most of these organisations are very small and play only a minor part within the entire sport and active leisure sector in each Member State. Their high sectoral domain density figures indicate a strong presence only within their often very small membership domain, as is frequently the case of football club associations and other professional sport associations, while they represent – in quantitative terms – only a miniscule minority of the sector’s companies and employees. Thirdly, individual associations’ high domain or sectoral domain density data in terms of companies and employees do not allow for conclusions about how well the employers of the entire sector are generally organised, unless these associations (together) cover major part of the sector of a certain country (in other words, their aggregate sectoral density in terms of companies and employees is high). It becomes apparent from the sector density data of the employer/ business organisations, as far as they are available, that – with the exception of Finland’s MARA and Spain’s FNEID – no organisation covers the major part of the sector (in terms of either companies or employees) in any country. Thus, it cannot be inferred from the available data set that – on the employer side – the sector displays a high level of organisation across the Member States. Rather, as indicated by the European Commission’s White Paper on Sport, the contrary appears to be more likely.

Collective bargaining and its actors

Table 8 lists all the trade unions engaged in sector-related collective bargaining. Despite numerous cases of inter-union domain overlap and of unclear domain demarcation, in only three countries (Belgium, France and Italy) inter-union rivalry and competition for bargaining capacities have been identified. In the case of the sector-related employer organisations, competition over collective bargaining capacities has been reported only from France and, to a lesser degree, from Finland. In the case of France, GERF and SNELM are struggling for recognition as exclusive industrial relations actors within the leisure sub-sector.

The data presented in Table 11 provide an overview of the system of sector-related collective bargaining in the 27 countries under consideration. The importance of collective bargaining as a means of employment regulation is measured by calculating the total number of employees covered by collective bargaining as a proportion of the total number of employees within a certain segment of the economy (Traxler et al., 2001). Accordingly, the sector’s rate of collective bargaining coverage is defined as the ratio of the number of employees covered by any kind of collective agreement to the total number of employees in the sector.

Table 11: System of sectoral collective bargaining (2009–2010)
 

CBC (%)

(estimates)

Share of MEB in total CBC (%) (estimates) Extension practicesa
AT

n.a.

100

0

BE

90–95

MEB prevailing

2

BG

0

n/a

n/a

CY

0

n/a

n/a

CZ

0

n/a

n/a

DE

5–10

MEB prevailing

0

DK

n.a.

MEB prevailing

0

EE

n.a.

0

n/a

ES

98

~95

2

FI

60

MEB prevailing

2

FR

almost 100

almost 100b

2

GR

n.a.

n.a.

0

HU

3

n.a.

0

IE

n.a.

n.a.

0

IT

almost 100

MEB prevailing

(2)

LT

0

n/a

n/a

LU

~10

0

n/a

LV

0

n/a

n/a

MT

n.a.

0

n/a

NL

at least 13

100

0

PL

n.a.

0

n/a

PT

at least 16

97

2

RO

100c

100b

2

SE

40–50

~90

1

SI

0

n/a

n/a

SK

1-2

0

n/a

UK

19

almost 100

0

CBC = collective bargaining coverage: employees covered as a percentage of the total number of employees in the sector

MEB = multi-employer bargaining relative to single-employer bargaining

Extension practices (including functional equivalents to extension provisions, i.e. obligatory membership and labour court rulings):

a= 0 = no practice, 1 = limited/exceptional, 2 = pervasive. Cases of functional equivalents are put in parentheses.

b= complemented by single-employer bargaining

c= national collective agreement

n.a. = not available

n/a = not applicable

To delineate the bargaining system, two further indicators are used: The first indicator refers to the relevance of multi-employer bargaining, compared with single-employer bargaining. Multi-employer bargaining is defined as being conducted by an employer organisation on behalf of the employer side. In the case of single-employer bargaining, the company, or its divisions, is the party to the agreement. This includes the cases where two or more companies jointly negotiate an agreement. The relative importance of multi-employer bargaining, measured as a percentage of the total number of employees covered by a collective agreement, therefore provides an indication of the impact of the employer organisations on the overall collective bargaining process.

The second indicator considers whether statutory extension schemes have been applied to the sector. For reasons of brevity, this analysis is confined to extension schemes which widen the scope of a collective agreement to employers not affiliated to the signatory employer organisation; extension regulations targeting the employees are therefore not included in the research. Regulations concerning the employees are not significant to this analysis for two reasons. On the one hand, extending a collective agreement to the employees who are not unionised in the company covered by the collective agreement is a standard practice of the ILO, aside from any national legislation. Secondly, employers have good reason to extend a collective agreement concluded by them, even when they are not formally obliged to do so; otherwise, they would set an incentive for their workforce to unionise.

In comparison with employee-related extension procedures, schemes that target the employers are far more significant for the strength of collective bargaining in general, and multi-employer bargaining in particular. This is because the employers are capable of refraining from both joining an employer organisation and entering single-employer bargaining in the context of a purely voluntaristic system. Therefore, employer-related extension practices increase the coverage of multi-employer bargaining. Moreover, when it is pervasive, an extension agreement may encourage more employers to join the controlling employer organisation; such a move then enables them to participate in the bargaining process and to benefit from the organisation’s related services in a situation where the respective collective agreement will bind them in any case (Traxler et al, 2001).

Collective bargaining coverage

Owing to the complex organisational structure of the sport and active leisure sector and the lack of strong, well established social partners within the sector in many countries, industrial relations tend to be relatively poorly developed in the sector across the Member States. Where they have been established, they frequently cover only particular niches of the sector. Hence, for several countries it has proved difficult or impossible even to estimate roughly the collective bargaining coverage rate of the entire sector. Accordingly, for seven countries (Austria, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Ireland, Malta and Poland) the sector’s collective bargaining coverage remains unknown, as none of the social partners contacted could provide an estimate for the entire sport and active leisure sector. Moreover, for two countries (the Netherlands and Portugal), only minimum rates can be indicated very tentatively, which may, however, lie far below the actual rates. Only five (Belgium, France, Italy, Romania and Spain) of the 20 countries, for which related data are available, record a very high or even full coverage rate of more than 90%. Adversely, there are seven countries with low or very low collective bargaining coverage rates of less than 20% as well as six countries (Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovenia) without any bargaining activities related to the sector. A third group of countries consisting only of Finland and Sweden records sector-related collective bargaining at a medium level, with bargaining coverage rates of between 40% and 60%. One can infer from these findings that in about one out of five Member States the sector’s industrial relations structures are well-established, while they appear to be underdeveloped (and in some cases even virtually non existent) in at least half of the countries. Looking at the six countries where sector-related collective bargaining is completely absent, it is noticeable that they all form part of the group of the 2004/7 accession countries.

In most of the countries with available information, several factors which sometimes interact with each other account for the (relatively) high coverage rates:

  • the predominance of multi-employer bargaining (Belgium, Finland, France, Italy, Romania, Spain and Sweden);
  • high density rates of the trade unions and/ or employer organisations (Belgium);
  • the existence of pervasive extension practices, such as in Belgium, Finland, France, Romania and Spain.

Single-employer bargaining arrangements in the sector are almost the only type of bargaining in Estonia, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland and Slovakia. As far as information about this is available, collective bargaining coverage tends to be very low in these countries.

In those countries with prevalent multi-employer settlements in the sector, the use of extension practices is often significant. Pervasive extension practices in the sport and active leisure sector are reported for several countries (see Table 11). A functional equivalent to statutory extension schemes can be found in Italy. According to the country’s constitution, minimum conditions of employment must apply to all employees. The country’s labour court rulings relate this principle to the multi-employer agreements, to the extent that they are regarded as generally binding.

Participation in public policymaking

Interest associations may partake in public policy in two basic ways:

  • they may be consulted by the authorities on matters affecting their members;
  • they may be represented on ‘corporatist’, in other words tripartite, committees and boards of policy concertation.

This study considers only cases of consultation and participation which explicitly relate to sector-specific matters. Consultation processes are not necessarily institutionalised and, therefore, the organisations consulted by the authorities may vary according to the issues to be addressed and also over time, depending on changes in government. Moreover, the authorities may initiate a consultation process on occasional rather than a regular basis. Given this variability, in Table 8 and Table 10 only those sector-related trade unions and employer organisations are flagged that are usually consulted.

Trade unions

Some trade unions are regularly consulted by the authorities in at least 18 of the 23 countries where one or more sector-related trade unions are recorded. Three countries cite a lack of regular consultation with unions (Germany, Lithuania and Poland), while the consultation practice is not clear for several trade unions in countries such as Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Portugal and the UK. Since a multi-union system has been established in 16 out of the 23 countries with sector-related trade unions, one cannot rule out the possibility that the authorities may favour certain trade unions over others, or that the unions compete for participation rights. In half of the countries with a multi-union system where a noticeable practice of consultation is observed, any of the existing trade unions may take part in the consultation process. By contrast, in the other half, comprising Finland, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the UK, only part of the sector-related trade unions are usually consulted. Nevertheless, evidence of major inter-union conflicts over participation in public policy matters in the sport and active leisure sector cannot be found in any of the countries under consideration.

Employer organisations

Most sector-related employer/ business organisations for which related data are available are involved in consultation procedures. No cases of conflict over participation rights of employer organisations are reported in countries with multi-organisation systems. In the multi-organisation systems of Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Poland, Sweden and the UK, where related data of all employer organisations are available, all of the sector’s organisations are consulted. Adversely, in the pluralist systems of Bulgaria, Finland, France, Greece, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden at least one of the employer organisations is regularly consulted, while others are not. However, for many countries with a pluralist system of employer representation, no information about consultation practices is available for at least some of the organisations, so that it remains unclear for these countries whether consultation rights are being attributed to the national organisations in a selective manner or not. In at least 16 of the 19 countries with relevant sector-related social partner organisations on both sides of industry, consultation rights are symmetrically attributed to the two sides of industry, in that at least one organisation on each side is consulted. Adversely, there is at least one country (Germany) where representatives of only one side are consulted. A further quantitative analysis of consultation procedures is difficult due to the incomplete data set.

Tripartite participation

Turning from consultation to tripartite participation, the findings reveal that genuinely sector-specific tripartite bodies have been established in only France and Ireland. Table 12 lists a total of only three bodies. In France, two sector-specific tripartite commissions have been established :

  • the CAFEMAS (Centre d’Analyse des Formations, des Emplois et des Métiers de l’Animation et du Sport) ;
  • the CFC (Commission Professionnelle Consultative).

Whereas the former deals with the relationship between training, occupations and employment in the sport and recreation industries, the latter exclusively focuses on qualifications. In Ireland, the Irish Sports Council (ISC) established a number of tripartite local sports partnerships to lead a consultative forum which represent the views of all local groups in the sport sector. The main functions of these partnerships are information, education and implementation of plans for long-term local sports development. While the origin of the former tripartite bodies of France is based on statutory provisions, the local sports partnerships in Ireland have been introduced by the ISC as part of the organisation’s policy without any legislative initiative. Other bodies listed in some country reports are not taken into account in this study, since they are either bipartite rather than tripartite in terms of composition, or cover broader industries rather than the sport and active leisure sector and thus do not specifically target the sector under consideration.

Table 12: Tripartite sector-specific boards of public policy (2009–2010)
  Name of the body and scope of activity Origin Trade unions participating Business associations participating
FR

CAFEMAS (Centre d’Analyse des Formations, des Emplois et des Métiers de l’Animation et du Sport) deals with relationship between training, occupation and employment in the sport and recreation industries

Statutory

n.a.

COSMOS, CNEA

FR

Commission Professionnelle Consultative (CPC) des métiers de l’animation et du sport, focuses on qualifications

Statutory

n.a.

n.a.

IE

Local Sports Partnerships, established by the Irish Sports Council (ISC), deal with qualifications and training and is devised to provide information and implement plans for local sports development

---

n.a.

n.a.



European level of interest representation

At a European level, eligibility for consultation and participation in the social dialogue is linked to three criteria, as defined by the European Commission. Accordingly, a social partner organisation must have the following attributes:

  • be cross-industry or relate to specific sectors or categories, and be organised at European level;
  • consist of organisations which are themselves an integral and recognised part of Member States’ social partner structures and which have the capacity to negotiate agreements, as well as being representative of all Member States, as far as possible;
  • have adequate structures to ensure their effective participation in the consultation process.

Regarding social dialogue, the constituent feature is the ability of such organisations to negotiate on behalf of their members and to conclude binding agreements. Accordingly, this section on European associations of the sport and active leisure sector will analyse these organisations’ membership domain, the composition of their membership and their ability to negotiate.

As outlined in greater detail below, three sector-related European associations on the employee side (UNI-Europa Sport, EU Athletes and FIFPro) and five on the employer side (EASE, EHFA, EC-OE, EPFL and ECA) are particularly significant in the sport and active leisure sector. Hence, the following analysis will concentrate on these eight organisations, while providing supplementary information on others which are linked to the sector’s national industrial relations actors.

Membership domain

The membership domain of UNI-Europa Sport, as a division of the comprehensive skills and services trade union organisation UNI-Europa, covers the sport and active leisure sector as defined for the pupose of this study and therefore is largely congruent with it. By contrast, the European Elite Athletes Association, whose members form the core of UNI-Europa Sport PRO, which is the section of UNI-Europa Sport dedicated to professional athletes, represents, as indicated by its name, only part of the sport and active leisure sector. Its domain is therefore sectionalist relative to the sector. The same holds true of FIFPro, which, according to its name and articles of association, represents the professional footballers and thus only a particular segment within the sector under examination.

On the employer side, according to its bye-laws, the membership domain of EASE comprises professional sport, not-for-profit sport and active leisure and can thus be considered as being largely congruent with the sector. EHFA, as an associate member of EASE until 2011, organises only the health and fitness segment of the sector and therefore has a membership domain sectionalist relative to the sector. The same holds true of EC-OE, which represents enterprises in the outdoor leisure sector (whereby one cannot rule out the possibility that some member companies perform activities which lie beyond the scope of this study), the EPFL, as the representative of the professional football leagues in Europe, and the ECA, representing exclusively individual clubs as employers in Europe, but complementing representativeness in those Member States not yet covered by EPFL. While EASE organises only employer organisations, EHFA has a mixed membership structure in that it represents both employer/ business associations and individual companies. Even though not all members of EC-OE could be identified, it appears that this European-level employer organisation gathers only associational members under its umbrella. In the case of EPFL, affiliates are national football leagues, which, however, widely vary in terms of their legal status and competences. In most countries, the EPFL members are associations or association-like bodies acting as an employer representative on behalf of the clubs. However, for instance, in Germany the national football league (DFL) is, in formal terms, a limited company, and its main task is supervise the clubs and enforce the sporting and financial rules (such as licensing), although it may also represent the interests of the clubs at the same time. Yet, as a firm, it is not considered in this study. Finally, as already indicated earlier, all the affiliates to ECA are clubs and as such individual companies.

Membership composition

In terms of membership composition, it should be noted that the countries covered by UNI-Europa Sport, EU Athletes, FIFPro, EHFA and ECA exceed the 27 countries examined in this study. However, the report will consider only the members from the 27 Member States. EASE, EC-OE and EPFL have, in any case, only members of the EU 27. For UNI-Europa Sport, EU Athletes and FIFPro, Table 13 documents a list of membership of sector-related trade unions drawn from the country reports. Accordingly, for the three European-level labour organisations at least one direct affiliation is recorded in 15, 14 and 19 countries, respectively. Multiple memberships occur in particular with regard to UNI Europa Sport, whereby in some cases it remains unclear whether the affiliation refers to the sport division or any other division of UNI-Europa. Regarding EU Athletes, there are only three countries (Italy, Spain and the UK) recording more than one affiliation to this organiation. According to its Articles of Association, FIFPro restricts membership to only one professional footballers’ association per country, which prevents multiple membership in principle (in the case of the UK, two associations are admitted, one each for the English and the Scottish football league). On aggregate, UNI-Europa Sport counts 36 direct sector-related affiliations from the countries under examination.

Table13: UNI-Europa Sport, EU Athletes and FIFPro Membership (2009–2010)+
  UNI-Europa (Sport) EU Athletesa FIFPro
AT

GdG-KMSfB*, (VdF*), GPA-djp

---

VdF*

BE

ACV-Sporta*, BBTK-SETCA*, ABVV-FGTB*, ACLVB-CGSLB*, CNE*

ACV-Sporta*

ACV-Sporta*

BG

---

---

ABF

CY

---

---

PFA**

CZ

---

---

---

DE

Ver.di*, Sp.I BB

Sp.I BB

---

DK

3F*, HK Privat*, (HS)

HS

Spillerforeningen*

EE

---

---

---

ES

FeS-UGT*, FSC-CCOO*, (AJBM*), (ABP*), (AJFS*), (ACP*)

AJBM*, ABP*, AJFS*, ACP*

AFE*

FI

PAM*, ERTO, (SJ**),

SJ**

JP**

FR

F3C-CFDT*, CGT*, SNEPAT-FO*, UNSA*, (SNB*)

SNB*

UNFP*

GR

(PSAK*)

PSAK*

PSAP*

HU

---

---

HLSZ

IE

SIPTU*, (IRUPA*), Mandate*

IRUPA*

PFAI*

IT

SLC-CGIL*, FISASCAT-CISL*, UILCOM*, FISTEL-CISL*, (AIPAV), (AIR*), (GIBA*)

AIPAV, AIR*, GIBA*

AIC*

LT

SPS

SPS

---

LU

OGBL*

---

---

LV

---

---

---

MT

GWU*

---

---

NL

FNV Sport*, VVCS*, (NL Sporter)

NL Sporter

VVCS*

PL

---

---

PZP

PT

---

---

SJPF*

RO

---

---

AFAN

SE

Unionen*, Fastighets*, AHT*, (SICO*)

SICO*

SFS*

SI

(SSS)

SSS

SPINS

SK

---

---

---

UK

Unison*, Unite*, GMB*, Prospect*, (PPF***), (PFA*), (PFAS), (PCA*), (RPA*), (WRPA*)

PPF***, (PFA*), (PFAS), PCA*, RPA*, (WRPA*)

PFA*, PFAS

+ = Membership list confined to the sector-related employee interest associations of the countries under consideration; organisation put in brackets means indirect affiliation via higher-order unit. In a joint FIFPro/EU Athletes statement, as of 16 November 2012, a list of additional athlete trade unions affiliated to either FIFPro or EU Athletes was provided. This list includes: CAFH of the Czech Republic, GOAL and VDV of Germany, AJFSF of Spain, PROVALE and UNCP of France, HPVPA of Greece, GPA of Ireland, LKPS of Lithuania, LTUST of Latvia, MFPA of Malta and APFS of Slovakia. However, these organisations have not been taken into account in this study, because they were not yet affiliated to FIFPro or EU Athletes at the time of observation or do not represent employees (as is the case of Ireland’s GPA). Moreover, UNI-Europa provided, in December 2012, a list of members active in the active leisure sub-sector not considered in this study, because these organisations were not included in the respective country reports as relevant actors. This list includes: INOVA of France, LKDAF of Latvia, LPSDPS of Lithuania and FNV Bondgenoten of the Netherlands. Since this list was given belatedly, a final check of whether these organisations actually match all the criteria for inclusion in this study has not been feasible.

a= EU Athletes is the European Elite Athletes Association, whose members form the core of UNI Europa Sport-PRO, the section of UNI Europa Sport dedicated to professional athletes. Thus, all EU Athletes members are automatically indirect UNI Europa Sport affiliates.

* = Involved in sector-related collective bargaining

** = No information available on collective bargaining involvement

*** = Indirect collective bargaining involvement via lower-order unit. PPF is not a trade union as such, but a federation of 10 professional players’ associations in range of sports. Five of these associations (i.e. PCA, PFA, PFAS, RPA and WRPA) are listed here because they are directly affiliated to one of the three European level trade union organisations and/or involved in sectoral collective bargaining. According to FIFPro and EU Athletes, additional national federations of professional athlete trade unions (similar to the PPF of the UK) also exist in Denmark and Spain.

It should be noted that the list of sector-related affiliates to UNI-Europa Sport, as compiled for the purpose of this study, somewhat differs from the list of sector-related members as provided by UNI-Europa itself. This is partially because, in some cases, UNI-Europa lists higher-level units (such as trade union confederations) or lower-level units (sub-units) rather than their sector-related affiliates as identified by the respective national correspondents. Moreover, in some cases the national correspondents have denied the sector-relatedness of a union, so that it is not taken into account in this report, although it is included in the list of members provided by UNI-Europa Sport. Such inconsistencies may also apply to the other sector-related European-level trade union organisations.

About 40% of the trade unions listed in Table 7 and Table 8 are directly affiliated to UNI-Europa Sport. EU Athletes and FIFPro gather 21 and 20 direct members, respectively, of the EU 27, thus generally covering the largest Member States through affiliations of trade unions from these countries. The most prominent exception in this respect is represented by Germany, which lacks any affiliation to FIFPro. Most of the direct (and indirect) members of UNI-Europa Sport, EU Athletes and FIFPro are directly involved in collective bargaining related to the sport and active leisure sector. However, due to the lack of available sectoral membership and density data for most of the sector-related trade unions, one cannot conclude whether UNI-Europa Sport and EU Athletes cover the sector’s most important labour representatives or not. For FIFPro, due to its very limited membership domain, one can assume that the most important national actors on behalf of labour are covered in most countries.

Table 14 lists the associational members of EASE, EHFA, EC-OE and EPFL. Of the 27 countries under consideration, these organisations have seven, 13, eight and 17 of these, respectively, under their umbrella through direct associational members from these countries. Multiple direct memberships of these four organisations occur only rarely; in the case of EC-OE multiple membership within one and the same country is not permissible. On aggregate, EASE, EHFA, EC-OE and EPFL count eight, 16, eight and 21 direct associational members from the EU 27. Overall, with the exception of EPFL representing the well-organised professional football segment within the sector, both the numbers of direct affiliates and the coverage in terms of countries tend to be relatively low among the sector-related European-level representatives of the employers. This applies, in particular, to EASE which claims to cover the entire sport and active leisure sector, while the membership domains of the three other organisations focus on particular sub-sectors. The relatively low number of affiliations to EHFA and EC-OE thus at least partially results from their narrow membership domain. Moreover, in the case of EHFA, this organisation gathers, in addition to the relatively few associational members, several dozen individual company members from the vast majority of the Member States. This somewhat qualifies the finding of this association’s relatively poor organisational strength.

Table 14: EASE, EHFA, EC-OE and EPFL Membership (2009–2010)+
  EASE EHFAa EC-OE EPFL
AT

---

---

---

ÖFBL*

BE

BBF&W*

BBF&W*

BFNO**

ProLeague*

BG

(BAHF)

BAHF

---

BPFL

CY

---

---

---

---

CZ

---

---

---

---

DE

(DSSV), (VDF***)

DSSV, VDF***

---

DFL

DK

(Dansk Erhverv*)

(Dansk Erhverv*)

BFTL

Divisions-foreningen*

EE

---

---

---

---

ES

FNEID*

---

ANETA***

LFP*

FI

(SKY)

SKY

---

Veikkausliiga***

FR

COSMOS*, CNEA*, (GERF), (UCPF*), (UCPR*), (UCPB*), (UCPH*), (UCPVB*), (U2C2F*)

GERF

SNELM, (GERF)

UCPF*

GR

---

---

SETEYD

SuperLeague*

HU

---

---

---

---

IE

ILAM

ILAM

ILAM

---

IT

(FIAF)

FIAF

 

LNP A*, Lega Pro***

LT

---

---

---

---

LU

---

---

---

---

LV

(LFVVNA)

LFVVNA

---

---

MT

---

---

---

---

NL

WOS*, (Fit!Vak***)

Fit!Vak***

VeBon

FBO*, Eredivisie

PL

(PZFW)

PZFW

---

Ekstraklasa SA

PT

(FGP), (AGAP)

FGP, AGAP

APECATE

LPFP*

RO

---

---

---

LPF

SE

Arbetsgivar-alliansen*, (FRISK*)

FRISK*

---

SEF*

SI

---

---

---

Union 1. SNL

SK

---

---

---

---

UK

SkillsActive, (FIA)

SkillsActive, FIA

---

Premier League*, Football League*, SPL

+ = Membership list confined to the sector-related employer/business associations of the countries under consideration; organisation put in brackets means indirect affiliation via higher-or lower-order unit. The numerous ECA members are not listed here, since they are all individual clubs rather than employer organisations and thus not considered.

a= EHFA was a member organisation of EASE until 2011. Thus, as of 2010, all EHFA members were automatically indirect EASE affiliates. Only associational EHFA members rather than company members are considered here.

* = Involved in sector-related collective bargaining

** = Indirect collective bargaining involvement via higher-order unit

*** = No information available on collective bargaining involvement

In several countries, such as Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden, some important employer organisations that conduct bargaining are not affiliated to any of the sector-related European organisations. There are also several countries where at least one affiliate of one of the relevant European-level organisations is not engaged in bargaining. Employer/ Business organisations which are not involved in collective bargaining may regard themselves as trade associations rather than as industrial relations actors. While the majority of the direct EASE and EPFL members are directly involved in sector-related collective bargaining, most of the direct EHFA and EC-OE affiliates are not. Generally, in comparison with their counterparts on the labour side, the European employer organisations’ proportion of member organisations which are involved in sector-related collective bargaining tends to be lower. As can be seen from Table 10, there is quite a number of sector-related employer organisations across the EU not affiliated to any of the four European employer organisations which are involved in sector-related collective bargaining and thus have to be regarded as relevant actors within the sector.

ECA has to be treated separately in this report, since it exclusively represents individual football clubs as employers rather than employer associations. In terms of countries, ECA records full coverage, as it has member clubs in all Member States, usually comprising the largest and financially most powerful ones in each country. On aggregate, it has hundreds of members throughout Europe. However, since it organises individual clubs rather than associations, ECA’s role as European-level social partner appears to be – compared with the other four European employer organisations examined here – somewhat limited. This is because individual employers usually lack the ability of sectoral employment regulation as employer associations do have, which, in turn, is likely to be reflected in the European-level umbrella organisation’s capacity to negotiate. However, the Commission considered in its letter dated 25 July 2008 that ECA complements representativeness in those Member States not (yet) covered by EPFL and that ECA could therefore be included in the employers’ delegation in the European Sectoral Social Dialogue Committee.

Capacity to negotiate

The third criterion of representativeness at the European level refers to the organisations’ capacity to negotiate on behalf of their own members. On the side of organised labour, UNI-Europa Sport says it has a permanent mandate to negotiate on behalf of its members in matters of European social dialogue through a general mandate laid down in the statutes of UNI Europa. This general mandate also appears to cover EU Athletes, which forms part of UNI-Europa Sport PRO. According to its Articles of Association, FIFPro is committed to ‘engagement in a Social Dialogue at European level in cooperation with all parties involved’ with the aim of concluding ‘a collective labour agreement at international or at European level’. FIFPRo members, in turn, have to ‘accept the objectives and Articles of Association of FIFPro’; hence, by virtue of these Articles of Association, FIFPro is authorised by its affiliates to negotiate on behalf of them in matters of the European social dialogue.

On the employer side, the affiliates of EASE have given this European-level organisation a general negotiating mandate laid down in its by-laws. Article 3 of these by-laws stipulate that this organisation’s objectives are ‘to participate in the European Sectoral Social Dialogue Committee for sport and active leisure’ and ‘to negotiate at European level on behalf of employers in sport and active leisure within its mandate’, which is a general negotiating mandate given by the members to the Board. By contrast, EHFA, which was associated to EASE until 2011, according to a statement of its Executive Director as of 19 April 2011, does not have a mandate (yet) to negotiate on behalf of its members at European level. According to a statement of the EHFA Director of Programmes as of 21 November 2012, this organisation supports the concept of social dialogue at European level and aims to cooperate with EC-OE as the employers’ representatives on behalf of the active leisure sub-sector for the purpose of the European sectoral social dialogue. In a note as of 4 January 2012, the Executive Director of EHFA announced the willingness of some EHFA affiliates from several Member States to set up a not-for-profit organisation in Brussels called ‘EHFA-Employers’. The Director of Programmes indicated on 21 November, 2012 that the articles of association of this new body, as a separate legal entity distinct from EHFA but nevertheless supported by the EHFA secretariat, had recently been agreed. This new organisation, which has been established to complement EHFA is devised to act as the representative of the employers in the European fitness sector in matters of the sectoral social dialogue.

Regarding EC-OE, Article 5 of its Articles of Association indicates that this organisation aims at establishing, enhancing and participating in social dialogue at European level. With their accession to the umbrella organisation, the members approve of these Articles. On 23 November, 2012, a ‘joint statement on cooperation’ of EC-OE and EHFA was signed, when the two organisations involved decided to join forces in the Active Leisure Alliance (ALA). Thereby, EC-OE and EHFA ‘declare their immediate availability’ to cooperate in the representation of the employers of the active leisure sub-sector in social dialogue issues related to the sport and active leisure sector. As for EPFL, this organisation is, according to Article 1.3.8 of its constitution, at least implicitly authorised by its members to negotiate on behalf of them, as one purpose of this organisation is ‘to consider Social Dialogue issues at a European level and act as a social partner’. Last, but not least, ECA is also mandated by its members to act as a social partner on behalf of them at the European level. The ECA statutes (Article 2.c) stipulate that this organisation’s objectives are ‘to represent the interests of the clubs as employers in Europe including in the social dialogue process and to act as a social partner where appropriate’. In conclusion, all of the eight sector-related European-level interest organisations on the two sides of industry but EHFA are, at the time being, capable of negotiating and acting on behalf of their members.

As a final proof of the weight of these eight organisations, it is useful to look at other European organisations which may be important representatives of the sector. This can be done by reviewing the other European organisations to which the sector-related trade unions and employer associations are affiliated.

For the trade unions, these affiliations are listed in Table 8. Accordingly, European organisations other than UNI-Europa (Sport), EU Athletes and FIFPro represent a relatively large proportion of both sector-related trade unions and countries. For reasons of brevity, only those European organisations are mentioned here which cover at least three countries. This involves the European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU), with 12 affiliations covering eight countries; the European Federation of Trade Unions in the Food, Agriculture and Tourism Sectors and Allied Branches (EFFAT), with seven affiliations and six countries; the European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF), with seven affiliations and four countries; the European Mine, Chemical and Energy Workers’ Federation (EMCEF), with five affiliations and four countries; and the European Metalworkers’ Federation (EMF), with four affiliations covering three countries. Moreover, it should be noted that the affiliations listed in Table 7 are likely not to be exhaustive. Nevertheless, and despite the relatively large number of affiliations to European organisations other than UNI-Europa Sport, EU Athletes and FIFPro, this overview underlines the principal status of the latter associations as the sector’s labour representatives. This is mainly because many of the aforementioned affiliations to other European organisations reflect the overlapping domains of the affiliates (see Table 7) rather than a real reference of the affiliations as such to the sport and active leisure sector.

An analogous review of the membership of the national employer/ business associations can be derived from Table 10. Most of them entertain few affiliations to European associations other than EASE, EHFA, EC-OE, EPFL and ECA. There is only one additional European association which covers three countries. This involves UEFA, which participates as an associate party in the already existing Sectoral Social Dialogue Committee in the professional football sector. However, since this organisation does not consider itself as a representative of employers or industrial relations actor, it is not to be seen as a competitor of any of the sector-related European organsations listed above.

In conclusion, UNI-Europa Sport, EU Athletes and FIFPro on the employee side and EASE, EHFA, EC-OE, EPFL and ECA on the employer side are obviously the most important sector-related European organisations.



Commentary

Sport and active leisure has been a dynamic and fast-growing industry for many years. This trend results from a range of factors, such as the diversification of sport activities, the developing leisure industry as well as the further internationalisation, professionalisation and commercialisation of sport. Despite this development, the sector is characterised by a high degree of associational fragmentation on both sides of industry at both national and European level. This is because the distinct sport activities are traditionally based on very diverse organisational structures. Moreover, at national level, in many countries broad areas within the sector are likely not to be covered by representative interest organisations on both sides of industry.

The density rates of the national social partner organisations within the sector, where they exist, tend at first glance to be high; however, it appears from the data set that this finding may be strongly biased. Furthermore, high densities are usually related to the organisations’ (sectoral) domains rather than to the sector, as such, and thus often result from very narrow membership domains, which may then be well tailored to the particular segments of the sport and active leisure sector. This, in turn, enables such small interest organisations to represent a more particular interest, compared with more general associations, which promotes high rates of member recruitment.

Nevertheless, since the sport movement is rooted in non-profit organisations and in volunteering, which has often hindered the emergence of national social partners in the sport sector, formalised industrial relations structures within the sector tend to be poorly developed in most Member States. This is mirrored by very low levels of collective bargaining coverage in most countries where related data are available. An examination of the figures on cross-sectoral collective bargaining coverage in the EU-27, as presented in the EIRO industrial relations profiles for each Member State, indicates that the sport and active leisure sector’s bargaining coverage is lower than the national overall collective bargaining coverage rates in 15 out of 19 countries for which comparable data are available.

Interestingly, in contrast to most other sectors of the economy, the sport and active leisure sector has only been relatively marginally hit by the global economic downturn of 2008–2010. Correspondingly, no major impacts on the national industrial relations systems within the sector have been observed. At European level, in order to cope with the current challenges for the sector, UNI-Europa Sport on the employees’ side and EASE on the employers’ side have been seeking to set up a joint social dialogue committee for the sport and active leisure sector. All other European social partner organisations examined in this report have confirmed their willingness to participate in the evolving social dialogue in this sector.

Compared with all other European social partner organisations, according to the study findings, all of the sector-related European-level interest organisations examined in this study – each within its own domain – largely remain unchallenged in their position as EU-wide representatives of the sector’s employees and employers.

Georg Adam, University of Vienna, in cooperation with the Università degli Studi di Milano



Bibliography

Traxler, F. (2004), ‘The metamorphoses of corporatism: From classical to lean patterns’, in European Journal of Political Research, Wiley Online Library, Vol. 43, No. 4, . pp. 571–598.

Traxler, F., Blaschke, S. and Kittel, B., (2001), National labour relations in internationalised markets, Oxford University Press.



Annex: Organisation names and their abbreviations

  Abbreviation Full Name
AT

GdG-KMSfB

Union for Municipal Employees and the small Arts, Media, Sports and Liberal Professions

 

GPA-djp

Union of Salaried Employees, Graphical Workers and Journalists

 

ÖGB

Austrian Trade Union Federation

 

ÖFBL

Austrian Federal Football League

 

VdF

Association of Footballers

BE

ABVV-AC/FGTB-CG

Belgian General Federation of Labour

 

ACLVB/CGSLB

Federation of Liberal Trade Unions of Belgium

 

ACV-Bie

Confederation of Christian Trade Unions – Building Industry and Energy

 

ACV/CSC

Confederation of Christian Trade Unions

 

ACV-Sporta

Confederation of Christian Trade Unions - Sport

 

BBF&W

Belgian Trade Association for the Fitness and Wellness Industry

 

BBTK/SETca

Belgian Union of White-Collar Staff, Technicians and Managers

 

BFNO

Professional Federation of Outdoor Leisure Activities Employers

 

CG/AC

General Federation

 

CNE/GNC

National Employee Federation

 

Cessoc

Confederation of Sports and Social-cultural Employers

 

National Football League

National Football League

 

Pro League

Pro League

 

Sociare

Sociare

 

Volley League

Belgian Volley League

 

UNIZO

Flemish Organisation of the Self-Employed

BG

ABF

Association of Bulgarian Footballers

 

BAHF

Bulgarian Association for Health and Fitness

 

BPFL

Bulgarian Professional Football League

CY

PFA

Pancyprian Footballers’ Association

CZ

CAFH

Professional Football Players Association

DE

BDA

German Confederation of Employers’ Associations

 

DFL

Deutsche Fussball Liga

 

DGB

German Trade Union Federation

 

DSSV

Arbeitgebervergand deutscher Fitness- und Gesundheitsanlagen

 

GOAL

Professional Handball Players Association

 

Sp.I BB

Spieler Initiative Basketball

 

VDF

Verband Deutscher Fitness- und Gesundheitsunternehmen

 

VDV

Professional Football Players Association

 

ver.di

Vereinte Dienstleistungsgewerkschaft

DK

3F

United Federation of Danish Workers

 

DA

Confederation of Danish Employers

 

Dansk Erhverv

Danish Chamber of Commerce

 

Divisionsforeningen

Divisionsforeningen

 

DLG

Danish Landscape Gardeners

 

GLS-A

Gartneri- Land- og Skovbrugets Arbejdsgivere

 

HK Privat

Union of Commercial and Clerical Employees in Denmark

 

HS

Handbold Spillerforeningen

 

LO

Danish Confederation of Trade Unions

 

Spillerforeningen

Danish Professional Football Players Union

EE

---

 
ES

ABP

Basket Professional Players’ Association

 

ACB

Basket Clubs Association

 

ACP

Professional Cyclists’ Association

 

AFE

Spanish Football Players’ Association

 

AJBM

Handball Players’ Association

 

AJFS

Five-a-Side Football Players’ Association

 

AJFSF

Professional Female Indoor Football Players Association

 

ANETA

ANETA

 

ASOBAL

Handball Clubs Association

 

CCOO

Trade Union Confederation of Workers’ Commissions

 

CEOE

Spanish Confederation of Employers’ Organisations

 

FeS-UGT

Federation of Services of the General Workers’ Confederation

 

FNEID

National Federation of Sport Facilities

 

ECP

Professional Cyclist Teams Association

 

FSC-CCOO

Federation of Citizen Services of the Trade Union Confederation of Workers’ Commissions

 

LFP

Spanish Football League

 

LNFS

Five-a-Side National Football League

 

UGT

General Workers’ Confederation

FI

ERTO

Federation of Special Service and Clerical Employees

 

EK

Confederation of Finnish Industries

 

JP

Jalkpallon Pelaajayhdistys ry

 

MARA

Finnish Hospitality Association

 

PALTA

Service Sector Employers

 

PAM

Service Union United

 

SAK

Confederation of Finnish Trade Unions

 

SJ

Suomen Jääkiekkoilijat ry

 

SKY

Finnish Health and Fitness Centres’ Association

 

STTK

Finnish Confederation of Salaried Employees

 

Veikkausliiga

Veikkausliiga

FR

CFDT

French Democratic Confederation of Labour

 

CFE-CGC

Confédération Francaise de l’Encadrement – Confédération Générale des Cadres

 

CFTC

French Christian Workers’ Confederation

 

CGPME

Employer Association of the Ffrench SMEs

 

CGT

General Confederation of Labour

 

CGT-FO

General Confederation of Labour – Force ouvrière

 

CNEA

Conseil National des Employeurs Associatifs

 

CNES

Confédération Nationale des Educateurs Sportifs

 

COSMOS

Conseil Social du Mouvement Sportif

 

F3C

Fédération Communication, Conseil, Culture

 

FNASS

Fédération Nationale des Associations et Syndicats Sportifs

 

GERF

Groupement des Entreprises de Remise en Forme

 

INOVA

Fédération Nationale de l’Hotellerie, Restauration, Sport, Loisirs et Casino

 

PROVALE

Professional Rugby Players Association

 

SNB

Syndicat National des Basketteurs

 

SNELM

Syndicat National des Entreprises Exploitants des Activités Physiques et Récréatives des Loisirs Marchands

 

SNEPAT-FO

Syndicat National de l’Education Permanente et de la Formation de l’Animation de l’Hébergement du Sport de Tourisme – Force ouvrière

 

U2C2F

Union des Clubs des Championnats Français de Football

 

UCPB

Union des Clubs Professionels de Basket

 

UCPF

Union des Clubs Professionels de Football

 

UCPH

Union des Clubs Professionels de Handball

 

UCPR

Union des Clubs Professionels de Rugby

 

UCPVB

Union des Clubs Professionels de de Volley-Ball

 

UNCP

Professional Cyclists Association

 

UNFP

Union Nationale des Footballeurs Professionnels

 

UNSA

Union Nationale deds Syndicats Autonomes

GR

ESAKE

Basketball Societe Anonymes

 

HPVPA

Professional Volleyball Players Association

 

League 2&3

Football League for the 2nd and 3rd Professional Division

 

PSAK

Pan-Hellenic Association of Professional Basketball Players

 

PSAP

Pan-Hellenic Association of Professional Football Players

 

SETEYD (HATEOA)

Hellenic Association of Tourism Enterprises of Outdoor Activities

 

SuperLeague

SuperLeague

HU

ASZSZ

Federation of Autonomous Trade Unions

 

HLSZ

Trade Union of Professional Footballers of Hungary

 

MFSZ

Hungarian Baths Association

 

VKDSZSZ

Water Service Trade Union Alliance

IE

GPA

Gaelic Players Association

 

IBEC

Irish Business and Employers Confederation

 

ICTU

Irish Congress of Trade Unions

 

ILAM

Institute of Leisure and Amenity Management

 

IMPACT

Irish Municipal, Public and Civil Trade Union

 

IRUPA

Irish Rugby Union Players’ Association

 

Mandate

Mandate

 

PFAI

Professional Footballers’ Association of Ireland

 

SIPTU

Services, Industrial, Professional and Technical Union

IT

AIC

Italian Football Players’ Association

 

AIPAV

Italian Volleyball Players’ Association

 

AIR

Italian Rugby Players’ Association

 

ANAGT

National Association of Trotting Jockey Trainers

 

ASSOGALOPPO

Horse-racing Enterpreneurs

 

CGIL

General Confederation of Italian Workers

 

CISL

Italian Confederation of Workers’ Unions

 

FEDERIPPODROMI

Italian Federation of Horse-racing Courses

 

FIAF

Italian Federation of Aerobics and Fitness

 

FIIS

Federation of Sports Facilities Entrepreneurs

 

FIPE

Italian Federation of Public Concerns

 

FISASCAT

Italian Federation of Commercial Services and Tourism

 

FISTEL-CISL

CISL – Press, Telecommunication and Show Business

 

GIBA

Italian Basketball Players’ Association

 

Lega Basket

League of Serie A Basketball Associations

 

Lega Pro

Italian League of Professional Football

 

LNP A

National League of Serie A Professionals

 

SLC

Communication Workers’ Union

 

UIL

Union of Italian Workers

 

UILCOM

Unione Italiana Lavoratori della Comunicazione

 

UNAGT-AGIT

National Union of Trotting Jockey Trainers

 

UNI

Unione Ippodromi d’Italia

LT

LKPS

Professional Basketball Players Association

 

LPSDPS

Lithuanian Service Workers Trade Union

 

LTUC

Lithuanian Trade Union Confederation

 

SPS

Sportsmen Trade Union

LU

CGT

General Workers Confederation

 

OGB-L

Independent Luxembourg Union Federation

LV

LDDK

Latvian Employers’ Confederation

 

LFVVNA

Latvia Fitness and Health Promotion Industry Association

 

LKDAF

Latvian Trade Union Federation for People Enganged in Cultural Activities

 

LTUST

Latvian Trade Union for Sport and Tourism

MT

GWU

General Workers’ Union

 

MFPA

Professional Football Players Association

NL

CBV

Association of Professional Football Coaches

 

CNV

Christian Trade Union Federation

 

CNV Mode en Sport

Christian Trade Union Federation – Fashion and Sports

 

De Unie/MHP

De Unie – Trade Union for Industry and Services

 

Eredivisie

Eredivisie

 

FBO

Association of Professional Football Clubs

 

Fit!vak

Fit!vak

 

FNV

Federation of Dutch Trade Unions

 

FNV Bondgenoten

Federation of Dutch Trade Unions – Bondgenoten

 

FNV Sport

Federation of Dutch Trade Unions – Sport

 

MHP

Federation for Managerial and Professional Staff

 

NL Sporter

NL Sporter

 

ProProf

ProProf

 

VeBon

Association of Outdoor Activities Enterprises

 

VNO-NCW

Confederation of Netherlands Industry and Employers

 

VPW

Association of Professional Cycling Teams

 

VVBW

Association of Professional Cyclists

 

VVCS

Association of Professional Football Players

 

WOS

Werkgeversorganisatie in de sport

PL

Ekstraklasa SA

Polish Professional Football League

 

PZFW

Polski Zwiazek Fitness and Wellness

 

PZP

Polish Union of Footballers

PT

AGAP

Association of Fitness Centres of Portugal

 

ANTF

National Association of Football Coaches

 

APECATE

Portuguese Association of Congress and Touristic Animation Companies

 

CESP

Union of Commerce, Office and Service Workers of Portugal

 

CGTP

General Portuguese Workers’ Confederation

 

FESAHT

Federation of Food, Beverage, Hotels and Tourism Unions of Portugal

 

FGP

Gymnastics Federation of Portugal

 

LPFP

Portuguese League of Professional Football

 

SJPF

Union of Professional Football Players

 

UGT

General Workers’ Confederation

RO

AFAN

Association of Amateur and Non-amateur Football Players of Romania

 

BNS

National Trade Union Block

 

LPF

Professional Football League

SE

AHT

Academics Union in Trade and Service

 

Almega

Almega Employer Organisation

 

Arbetsgivaralliansen

Employers Alliance

 

Fastighets

Swedish Building Maintenance Workers’ Union

 

FRISK

Association for the Health and Fitness Industry

 

IDEA

Employer Organisation for Non-Profit-Organisations

 

Kommunals

Municipal Workers’ Union

 

LO

Swedish Trade Union Confederation

 

PTK

Council for Negotiation and Co-operation

 

SACO

Swedish Confederation of Professional Associations

 

SEF

Swedish Association for Professional Football

 

SICO

Swedish Icehockey Players’ Association

 

SFS

Football Players’ Association of Sweden

 

SLA

Federation of Swedish Forestry and Agricultural Employers

 

Svenskt Näringsliv

Confederation of Swedish Enterprises

 

TCO

Swedish Confederation of Professional Employees

 

Unionen

Trade Union for Professionals in the Private Sector

SI

SPINS

Union of Professional Football Players of Slovenia

 

SSS

Union of Athletes of Slovenia

 

Union 1. SNL

Union 1. SNL – Professional Football League

 

ZSSS

Association of Free Trade Unions of Slovenia

SK

APFS

Professional Football Players Association

UK

ECB

England and Wales Cricket Board

 

FIA

Fitness Industry Association

 

Football League

Football League (England)

 

GFTU

General Federation of Trade Unions

 

GMB

General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trade Union

 

NASS

National Association of Stable Staff

 

NTF

National Trainers Federation

 

PCA

Professional Cricketers’ Association

 

PFA

Professional Footballers’ Association

 

PFAS

Professional Footballers’ Association Scotland

 

PPF

Professional Players Federation

 

Premier League

Premier League (England)

 

Prospect

Prospect

 

RPA

Rugby Players’ Association

 

Skills Active

Skills Active – Sector Skills Council

 

SPL

Scottish Premier League

 

TUC

Trades Union Congress

 

Unison

Unison

 

UNITE

Unite the Union

 

WRPA

Welsh Rugby Players’ Association

     
EUROPE

AEFCA

Alliance of European Football Coaches’ Associations

 

CEDAG

European Council of Associations of General Interest

 

CESS

European Confederation of Sport and Health

 

CoESS

Confederation of European Security Services

 

EAFF

European Aerobic and Fitness Association

 

EASE

European Association of Sport Employers

 

ECA

European Club Association

 

EC-OE

European Confederation of Outdoor Employers

 

EFAPCO

European Federation of the Associations of Professional Congress Organisers

 

EFBWW

European Federation of Building and Woodworkers

 

EFCA

European Fitness Centre Association

 

EFFAT

European Federation of Food, Agriculture and Tourism Trade Unions

 

EFHA

European Federation Historic Aviation

 

EFJ

European Federation of Journalists

 

EHFA

European Health and Fitness Association

 

EHPU

European Handball Players’ Union

 

EMCEF

European Mine, Chemical and Energy Workers’ Federation

 

EMF

European Metalworkers’ Federation

 

ENSSEE

European Network of Sport Science, Education and Employment

 

EOSE

European Observatoire of Sport and Employment

 

EPFL

Association of European Professional Football Leagues

 

EPSU

European Federation of Public Service Unions

 

ESPA

European Spa Association

 

ETF

European Transport Workers’ Federation

 

ETF

European Trainers Federation

 

EU Athletes

European Elite Athletes Association

 

Eurocadres

Council of European Professional and Managerial Staff

 

Eurochambres

Association of European Chambers of Commerce and Industry

 

EuroCommerce

EuroComerce - The Retail, Wholesale and International Trade Representation to the EU

 

Eurofedop

European Federation of Employees in the Public Service

 

EuroFIA

International Federation of Actors – Section Europe

 

EURO WEA

European Workers’ Education Association

 

FIFPro (Division Europe)

International Federation of Professional Footballers’ Associations (Division Europe)

 

FIM-Europe

International Federation of Musicians – Section Europe

 

GEOPA

Employers’ Group of Professional Agricultural Organisations

 

HOTREC

European Trade Association of Hotels, Restaurants and Cafés

 

UBE

European Basketball Players’ Association

 

UEFA

Union of European Football Associations

 

ULEB

Union of European Basket Leagues

 

UNI Euro-MEI

Union Network International – Europe – Media, Entertainment, Arts

 

UNI Europa

Union Network International – Europe

 

UNI Europa Sport

Union Network International – Europe – Section Sport

EF/13/21

Useful? Interesting? Tell us what you think. Hide comments

Dodaj komentar