Sandro Gozi is an Italian politician, former secretary of state for European Affairs in the Renzi government and in the Gentiloni government. In France, he has been Advisor for European Affairs in the Philippe II government. Since 1 February 2020 he is a Member of the Renew Europe Group in the European Parliament, elected in the French costituency within the Renaissance list, which has been promoted by French President Emmanuel Macron and En Marche. He is President of the EU-India Association based in Brussels, and since 5 May 2021 he is Secretary-General of the European Democratic Party. He is a Member of the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee (IMCO), the Constitutional Affairs Committee (AFCO) and the Delegation for relations with the Mashreq countries (DMAS). He is also a Substitute Member of the Committee on Regional Development (REGI), the Special Committee on Foreign Interference in all democratic processes in the European Union, including disinformation, and the strengthening of integrity, transparency, and accountability in the European Parliament (ING2), and the Delegation for Relations with India (D-IN). He worked 10 years in the European Commission, notably in the cabinet o f president Prodi, dealing also with sport issues, and as an adviser to Presidente Barroso.
We have long believed that the issue of football governance in Italy and Europe should be brought to political attention. That is why we asked the honorable member of the European Parliament, Sandro Gozi. He is a Juventus fan, but also an authoritative member of European Union politics, with a particular focus on consumer rights.
Good evening, Mr Gozi, and thank you for agreeing to have this chat with our editorial staff. We have noticed a general silence from the protection of civil rights front on the incredible legal proceedings involving Juventus. The civil rights of the defendant have been violated several times, the trial organized by the Italian sports justice has been media-driven and the principles of a fair trial have been trampled on. Yet no official statements have come from politicians. How do you explain this?
Yes, the trial was first and foremost in the media, where all kinds of accusations were spread without having full knowledge of the facts and trial documents. Unfortunately, this does not only happen during sports trials. Very often in Italy you are prosecuted and condemned by “media and people tribunals” and successively you may be acquitted in silence and with general indifference, with a small quote hidden in central pages of newspapers at most. The Juve case is undoubtedly a very media-driven example of a pathology, which is perhaps even more serious in the case of sporting justice, where everything seems much more uncertain, arbitrary, and non-transparent. On the one hand, I do not believe that politics should intervene in individual open trials. I think this is the main reason for this silence. On the other hand, politics has a duty to intervene if general problems in the system are detected. And in this case, intervening is not an option, it is a clear public responsibility. I therefore believe that a reform is absolutely necessary because the Juve case has shown to everyone that the current system is not able to ensure legal certainty, it suffers from a lack of transparency, fails to decide in the necessary time and creates too many misunderstandings and doubts for athletes, clubs and fans. If one then considers that football is a great social Aand mass phenomenon, but it is also an important economic activity, one can well understand the absolute inadequacy of the current system. Sports justice must also be independent, fair, and comprehensible: the current system is weak in each of these aspects. And we can no longer afford it.
You have a long pro-European history. How do you see the UEFA monopoly in football? Have you read the opinion of First Advocate General Maciej Szpunar? What do you think about it?
I am convinced that the current UEFA monopoly is incompatible with European law. UEFA is in a dominant position and abuses it, thus violating the principles of competition and the free market. And it is the abuses, rather than the dominant position, that we must focus on. UEFA must clarify the principles and conditions under which it gives clubs the freedom to promote new initiatives and competitions. Criteria and conditions that must be clear, transparent, and alligned to the goals to be achieved and the principles to be guaranteed. In my opinion, we have to keep in mind that football is both a social and an economic activity. From the perspective of the European model of sport, UEFA must better clarify how the current structure guarantees the achievement of the objectives of the European treaties: inclusion, merit, support for small clubs and non-professional football. We must ensure that these principles are respected without imposing a single, absolute model, as IT is the case now. Moreover, why does everything in the European single market have to be strictly national? Why if tomorrow the Belgian, Dutch and Luxembourg federations wanted to create a BeNeLux championship, or the Baltic states their own tournament, should we prevent them from doing that? Today this is not possible: and without options like these, clubs in small countries will not be able to become competitive again as they used to be in the past, because today the whole system is based on the number of subscribers to digital and TV platforms. And because of this, the bigger the country, the more possibilities it has. This, too, seems to me a violation of the spirit of the treaties and perhaps also of some European rules. Just as the existing UEFA rules on national youth players violate the EU principle of freedom of movement and create discrimination. In short, beyond the propaganda, I think there is a lot to be done to reform the European football system. Of course, we have to wait for the ruling of the EU Court of Justice, or rather the rulings because there are at least three cases on which the decisions of the European judges will be very important.
Is the superior financial strength of the Premier League over its European competitors, the investments of sovereign states from the Arabian Peninsula in European football clubs a cause for concern?
The financial overpower of the Premier League will only grow without interventions and reforms. In part this is certainly due to the success of that league: the English have developed a very attractive system. But it is also a system based on television rights and very significant non-European investments, from Russia to the Arabian Peninsula. On this, we undoubtedly have another problem, related to state aid, either direct or indirect. Various funds that are used for major investments in English, and even European, clubs are of state origin. In the EU, they are equivalent to state aid, and should only be authorised under certain conditions. This is an aspect that also needs to be considered. How can we ensure the sustainability of football in European countries if we do not ensure a truly level playing field, in this case in terms of competitivity? We must establish rules of financial sustainability based on the income generated - and not by external and generally non-European aid - which distorts the competition. This is a problem that has so far been ignored by UEFA, in a contradictory way, because it also affects the rules of financial fair-play, which is another painful and non-transparent chapter of the organisation, actually of an association under Swiss private law. Without reform, European football has a very difficult future ahead of it. I understand that the resistance to change is strong in Nyon, as elsewhere: but I believe it must be overcome, even in Nyon. The system of European football must be reformed, without wasting any more time.
Ceferin seems to run UEFA like a master father, punishing and rewarding with absolute arbitrariness and ignoring the separation of powers within the institution. Many members of the executive committee have opaque interests. Does the governance of European football worry you?
Yes, it worries me a lot. It is part of the transparency problem: it is not at all clear whether and how UEFA manages real or potential conflicts of interest within their organisation. And that is a big problem. I believe that the fans, the athletes, the clubs, and also Europe deserve more. As for Ceferin, in his interviews, in his public communications, he has given the impression of doing personal battles, of wanting to settle scores, and I think this has been a big mistake. Even in the most difficult passages, even if there are personal disappointments, the president of an important entity like UEFA can never give this impression. From a president, we have the right to expect a very different attitude. I really hope that Ceferin realises this and turns over a new leaf in his new mandate. So far, he has not done so.
A quick opinion on the Super League. Have you read the new A22 project? What do you think of it?
It is not for me to judge how football clubs want to organise European tournaments. What should concern us as Members of the European Parliament is that everything takes place in accordance with European principles and rules. The new Super League project ensures openness, merit, and solidarity, which are essential for the European sports model. But I repeat: it is not for me to indicate preferences for this or that model. What I found instead completely ridiculous is to present the new Super League like the big bad wolf in the Little Red Riding Hood fairy tale. Come on, let's try to be more serious.
